Which is why I haven't upgraded the TV in my living room... I may do it some day, but for now, 1080p is good enough for me.:)
The price for 4k content is just nuts, not worth it. Frankly to get me to buy a 4k TV, my existing digital content will need to be upgraded for a very low price, if not free.
Some of us have rather large movie collections, I probably have over a thousand digital movies between Vudo and Amazon, most purchased for $7 or less on sale (or free with DVD/Blu-Ray purchase). The big exception are the Disney movies, but they get watched so many times by the kids, I'll pay $20 for Frozen.:)
Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.
What, like in the new Star Wars movie where the ass kicking skinny white chick wins the day and the token black guy tags along and provides for a counter balance, while the old people make token appearances and we see a cute little droid run around for the kids?
Oh, and big new scary weapon does bad stuff and crazy bad man runs it and kills people for fun?
4K really is a joke. Why would I replace my current TV with 4K when no human on earth can detect improved quality on the 4K TV over my TV at 7.5'-8' or more???
People were making the EXACT same argument 10 years ago comparing 720p to 1080p, over and over and over.
They were wrong then, you're wrong now.
You'll likely all be correct at 8k, and for many people 4k will be the limit, but the difference is noticeable.
My office has a 55" 4k TV in it, got a good deal on it Black Friday and it has given me the chance to compare. My primary TV is a 70" Sony 1080p and my secondary TV is a 60" Sharp 1080p.
4k is clearly better, when fed a 4k stream from Amazon via their Fire TV box.
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
Back in the VHS days, I can remember spending $90+ for some titles. And that was in 1980's dollars too, for a crappy VHS version.
Yes, but the market for that was very small and most movies didn't cost that much.
Part of it was them figuring out how to price it and make it work and not destroy movie theater business. Part of it was figuring out how to deal with rental stores.
After a time, they settled on making the movies $90 for the first 4 weeks, to sell to rental stores, then dropping the price to $30 to sell to end customers.
Of course keep in mind the first VCRs were a thousand bucks too, vs $100 for a really good Blu-Ray player today.
LaserDiscs were always a niche market and I skipped those, but fair enough.
I suspect UHD Blu-Ray may end up being the same thing. It is way, way too soon after Blu-Ray came out, people are tired of buying the same thing over again every 10 years.
For new titles, sure, fine, if the price is reasonable. But $30 to buy a digital copy of a UHD movie? Holy crap!
So, if you are picking Not Clinton, you are better throwing your vote at a third party, if they get enough votes, they get more money for the next election, which could bring about real change.
Ideally yes, it would work that way.
But it doesn't. Thanks to our first past the post election system, voting for a third party is actually voting AGAINST your first choice.
Except, there is plenty of fault with her policies, the issue is that most people don't want to hear that.
Unlike idiots who root for their team blindly, I can ALSO find fault with Republican policies.
If we could sit down and have an intelligent conversation about them, I imagine we could find a quite reasonable middle ground, and it wouldn't be EITHER side's plan outright.
There of course is much more than economic policies. Clinton is a gun grabber, she is anti-religion, and she frankly doesn't have any original thoughts, she is bought and paid for 10 times over. She has been in government now for 4 decades, she has no real idea of what real people deal with, she says and does whatever she is told to.
---
Now if you don't like Trump (and rest assured, I have my issues with him), fair enough. There are plenty of reasonable people to consider. VP Joe Biden is one, he probably could win as well and he isn't hated the way Clinton is. Even Socialist Sanders, who I don't agree with on many things, is at least respectable. I can listen to Sanders speak, I don't like everything he says, but he doesn't make me want to throw up.
Clinton? She's worthless, not respectable, not honest, she lies, she cheats, and she isn't worth listening to. I can't watch her speak, I want to throw up every time I hear her, she is a disgusting human being.
Even Obama, who I do not like, doesn't cause that much disgust. I've had decades to get to know Clinton, she is a horrible person.
Unfortunately for you a substantial portion of the population does not agree with you.
True...
Of course, once, a substantial portion of the population supported slavery. Are you suggesting that having popular support makes something ok?
I wouldn't stand too strongly on something just because of popular support, many things have been legal at the time, were widely supported, yet are condemned today.
Personally for me it's a matter of when a fetus is able to survive on it's own rather than as a parasite on a woman.
Thankfully for the rest of civilization, what you personally feel doesn't really matter.
It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a fact. Aborting a child is murder. If the child does not survive, well, that is life and things happen. But if you take action to end a life, that is murder.
Then that probably explains why you don't see a problem...
Of course, to me, it is plain as day, the SCOTUS has clearly written judgement that resulted in law being effectively written.
Abortion is the easy example, but there are many others.
I see abortion as a matter of personal freedom and privacy which is well within the purview of the SCOTUS.
Well, I guess some people are bound to support murder of innocent children as ok, but usually they don't say so out loud.
That is all abortion is, murder. The irony is that many places WILL charge you with double murder if you kill a woman who carries an unborn child, yet the mother is free to kill that child. The irony is sad.
Hopefully in 50 years it will be looked on as the first step to universal coverage like practically all the other first world countries already have.
So you're saying the ends justify the means? No matter what rights you have to trample on in the process, so long as you get what you want, it is all ok?
Spoken like a true liberal who has no moral compass.
There is so much more to it than ticking a box saying "enable VR"
The control scheme needs to be changed. Bug testing. The game has to become aware of the headset position. Field of view needs to be adjusted. Art assets may not exist in the new locations you can look.
A simple example. In most Call of Duty games, there are times you can "look anywhere", and times when your field of view is fixed to a narrow angle. Fair enough, you move the mouse and you hit those limits pretty fast. What happens when you move your head and run out of room to move, yet your head keeps turning? What happens to your orientation? There might not be any art assets in those directions, the game wasn't designed for them.
Then there is the game play itself. Does a standard FPS lend itself to VR without any changes to the core game play? Maybe, but I believe that to really take advantage of VR, you have to design for it. It isn't just a camera that you don't have to move with a mouse.
You aren't. You can opt to pay a penalty and there are some alternatives you can pursue if you want other means.
Then it isn't free choice, now is it?
A choice that isn't one is a lie. That is like saying someone who is being robbed at gunpoint didn't HAVE to give up their money, it was their CHOICE to give it up. Yea, that doesn't fly there, it doesn't fly when they say "buy private health insurance... or else..."
Wouldn't have happened, the insurance companies would have done anything to prevent it.
That is the people's problem for electing stupid Congress people then, isn't it? It doesn't make violating the law, the Constitution, and basic morality right, now does it?
Linux support remains a core goal to the Vive team. That alone would be enough for me to STRONGLY favour the Vive over the Oculus.
Why? What do you think you're going to do on Linux with it?
My fear/expectation is that most windows game developers will stupidly only support oculus not vive, because they consider it the "de facto" VR headset, even if it it is more limited/not as good as the vive.
Your fears are misplaced... your real fear should be that after 5 games come out for it that are funded by Oculus, that'll be it. 2 years from now, when no new games come out for it, then what?
The cost to develop games for this, vs the size of the market, is going to be a massive problem, one that everyone seems to overlook. What is the business case for this?
Nothing honest about it. He'll lie to your face if it'll improve his polls. He's a showman, and certainly entertaining. His his relationship with the truth is tenuous as best, if not entirely accidental.
Yea, but the same is true of Clinton.
Frankly, Trump wasn't wrong when he said that he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue and not lose support.
If my choice is Trump or Clinton, then there is no choice, it is Trump. Even if he shot someone.
I can easily rationalize that by remembering that Clinton is responsible for FAR more deaths and she isn't remotely honest about it. Trump would shoot someone and just say "yep, I did it, so what!"
Yea, that would make him kinda sleazy, but frankly the hate and contempt for Clinton is so strong, Trump could shoot a dozen people and I'd still vote for him over her.
---
The Democrats are morons to be running Clinton, they could crush Trump in a landslide if they ran Sanders or someone "respectable". Even Joe Biden would be fine.
People buy Apple for fashion reasons. The quality isn't any better than the high end phones from other manufacturers.
I couldn't care less about "fashion".
I bought an iPhone for iOS. Android is the primary reason I left the Galaxy line of phones. It works fine for awhile, then it doesn't over time. It needs to be wiped from time to time, and frankly after several generations of Android phones (I've owned 4 of them), I went with Apple because "it just works".
I've now had my iPhone for over a year, it is as fast today as it was when I got it, it works every time without any issues.
Since when is a seat on the Supreme Court reserved for someone of a particular political bent?
Since the SCOTUS started writing laws.
Abortion is legal in the US, not because of an act of Congress, but because of the SCOTUS.
Your comment that SCOTUS is already too far left is just your personal opinion.
Yes, of course it is. I want a SCOTUS that respects the Constitution and the freedoms that we hold dear.
John Roberts is a traitor to the US, his siding with the liberals on ACA thus forcing citizens to buy a private product from a private company will be (or should be) looked at in 50 years as one of the gravest mistakes of our era.
The irony is that I am actually ok with single payer health care. I'm not against the idea of universal health care. I just don't believe the ACA is constitutional and John Roberts was wrong.
Citizens should never be required to buy anything from a private company, just by existing. (I can not buy a car, and thus not need car insurance, but I can't not live and avoid private health insurance)
By contrast, Universal Healthcare would be "providing for the general welfare of the people", and thus within Congress's power.
Except the Senate refuses to do either. Instead, they are rejecting their constitutional duty.
Would you feel better if they held a 5 min hearing and said "no thanks"? Would that somehow make you feel like they did their duty?
Justice John Roberts (nominated by W. Bush) had an interesting piece on the whole process that should give the Republican controlled senate some thought.
He is welcome to his opinion of course, but the idea of leaving politics out of it is simply not possible.
Because so many laws are now "written" by the SCOTUS, it is now political. Frankly, who gets on the SCOTUS next may well be more important than who becomes the next President, other than the fact that the next President might be able to nominate multiple judges.
The path that the liberals want to take us down would be a disaster, frankly, if the Republicans keep control of the Senate and Clinton becomes President, then they can simply refuse to accept anyone for 4 years as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
True...
Which is why I haven't upgraded the TV in my living room... I may do it some day, but for now, 1080p is good enough for me. :)
The price for 4k content is just nuts, not worth it. Frankly to get me to buy a 4k TV, my existing digital content will need to be upgraded for a very low price, if not free.
Some of us have rather large movie collections, I probably have over a thousand digital movies between Vudo and Amazon, most purchased for $7 or less on sale (or free with DVD/Blu-Ray purchase). The big exception are the Disney movies, but they get watched so many times by the kids, I'll pay $20 for Frozen. :)
Otherwise, I'm happy enough where I'm at.
On $30 desktop computer speakers, you can't tell the difference.
On $300 Sennheiser headphones, you can.
Well, I can anyway. :)
If there is legit reason to pass on the nominee, then lets hear it.
He is too liberal and not a supporter of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Specifically he is anti-gun.
Or maybe you're afraid the person is duly qualified, and you're just being spiteful?
No, the above makes him not qualified. Don't need a hearing to figure that out.
Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.
What, like in the new Star Wars movie where the ass kicking skinny white chick wins the day and the token black guy tags along and provides for a counter balance, while the old people make token appearances and we see a cute little droid run around for the kids?
Oh, and big new scary weapon does bad stuff and crazy bad man runs it and kills people for fun?
Does that about sum it up?
4K really is a joke. Why would I replace my current TV with 4K when no human on earth can detect improved quality on the 4K TV over my TV at 7.5'-8' or more???
People were making the EXACT same argument 10 years ago comparing 720p to 1080p, over and over and over.
They were wrong then, you're wrong now.
You'll likely all be correct at 8k, and for many people 4k will be the limit, but the difference is noticeable.
My office has a 55" 4k TV in it, got a good deal on it Black Friday and it has given me the chance to compare. My primary TV is a 70" Sony 1080p and my secondary TV is a 60" Sharp 1080p.
4k is clearly better, when fed a 4k stream from Amazon via their Fire TV box.
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
Back in the VHS days, I can remember spending $90+ for some titles. And that was in 1980's dollars too, for a crappy VHS version.
Yes, but the market for that was very small and most movies didn't cost that much.
Part of it was them figuring out how to price it and make it work and not destroy movie theater business. Part of it was figuring out how to deal with rental stores.
After a time, they settled on making the movies $90 for the first 4 weeks, to sell to rental stores, then dropping the price to $30 to sell to end customers.
Of course keep in mind the first VCRs were a thousand bucks too, vs $100 for a really good Blu-Ray player today.
LaserDiscs were always a niche market and I skipped those, but fair enough.
I suspect UHD Blu-Ray may end up being the same thing. It is way, way too soon after Blu-Ray came out, people are tired of buying the same thing over again every 10 years.
For new titles, sure, fine, if the price is reasonable. But $30 to buy a digital copy of a UHD movie? Holy crap!
You must be joking...
I bought most of my HD digital copies for less than $8, some for $5.
If someone at Sony thinks that I'll pay $12 to UPGRADE my HD copies of movies to UHD, they should pass whatever it is they are smoking.
Maybe if the whole movie was $12 and the upgrade cost was $3, I'd do it, but that's about it.
Having lived through VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, and now this, I'm just not going to buy anything again.
4k is nice, but meh, whatever, 1080p is good enough.
See the difference?
Nope, it is just a dog and pony show... there is no difference...
I guess if you think Congress should spend their time on dog and pony shows, your point makes sense.
Otherwise, it is silly.
So, if you are picking Not Clinton, you are better throwing your vote at a third party, if they get enough votes, they get more money for the next election, which could bring about real change.
Ideally yes, it would work that way.
But it doesn't. Thanks to our first past the post election system, voting for a third party is actually voting AGAINST your first choice.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Allow me to share a very good video showing the problems of such a system, thanks CGP Gray. :)
As long as we have our current election system, there will never be anything but two choices, and the two existing parties like it that way.
Except, there is plenty of fault with her policies, the issue is that most people don't want to hear that.
Unlike idiots who root for their team blindly, I can ALSO find fault with Republican policies.
If we could sit down and have an intelligent conversation about them, I imagine we could find a quite reasonable middle ground, and it wouldn't be EITHER side's plan outright.
There of course is much more than economic policies. Clinton is a gun grabber, she is anti-religion, and she frankly doesn't have any original thoughts, she is bought and paid for 10 times over. She has been in government now for 4 decades, she has no real idea of what real people deal with, she says and does whatever she is told to.
---
Now if you don't like Trump (and rest assured, I have my issues with him), fair enough. There are plenty of reasonable people to consider. VP Joe Biden is one, he probably could win as well and he isn't hated the way Clinton is. Even Socialist Sanders, who I don't agree with on many things, is at least respectable. I can listen to Sanders speak, I don't like everything he says, but he doesn't make me want to throw up.
Clinton? She's worthless, not respectable, not honest, she lies, she cheats, and she isn't worth listening to. I can't watch her speak, I want to throw up every time I hear her, she is a disgusting human being.
Even Obama, who I do not like, doesn't cause that much disgust. I've had decades to get to know Clinton, she is a horrible person.
Unfortunately for you a substantial portion of the population does not agree with you.
True...
Of course, once, a substantial portion of the population supported slavery. Are you suggesting that having popular support makes something ok?
I wouldn't stand too strongly on something just because of popular support, many things have been legal at the time, were widely supported, yet are condemned today.
Personally for me it's a matter of when a fetus is able to survive on it's own rather than as a parasite on a woman.
Thankfully for the rest of civilization, what you personally feel doesn't really matter.
It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a fact. Aborting a child is murder. If the child does not survive, well, that is life and things happen. But if you take action to end a life, that is murder.
Try as I might I can't make sense of that.
Then that probably explains why you don't see a problem...
Of course, to me, it is plain as day, the SCOTUS has clearly written judgement that resulted in law being effectively written.
Abortion is the easy example, but there are many others.
I see abortion as a matter of personal freedom and privacy which is well within the purview of the SCOTUS.
Well, I guess some people are bound to support murder of innocent children as ok, but usually they don't say so out loud.
That is all abortion is, murder. The irony is that many places WILL charge you with double murder if you kill a woman who carries an unborn child, yet the mother is free to kill that child. The irony is sad.
Hopefully in 50 years it will be looked on as the first step to universal coverage like practically all the other first world countries already have.
So you're saying the ends justify the means? No matter what rights you have to trample on in the process, so long as you get what you want, it is all ok?
Spoken like a true liberal who has no moral compass.
There is so much more to it than ticking a box saying "enable VR"
The control scheme needs to be changed. Bug testing. The game has to become aware of the headset position. Field of view needs to be adjusted. Art assets may not exist in the new locations you can look.
A simple example. In most Call of Duty games, there are times you can "look anywhere", and times when your field of view is fixed to a narrow angle. Fair enough, you move the mouse and you hit those limits pretty fast. What happens when you move your head and run out of room to move, yet your head keeps turning? What happens to your orientation? There might not be any art assets in those directions, the game wasn't designed for them.
Then there is the game play itself. Does a standard FPS lend itself to VR without any changes to the core game play? Maybe, but I believe that to really take advantage of VR, you have to design for it. It isn't just a camera that you don't have to move with a mouse.
You aren't. You can opt to pay a penalty and there are some alternatives you can pursue if you want other means.
Then it isn't free choice, now is it?
A choice that isn't one is a lie. That is like saying someone who is being robbed at gunpoint didn't HAVE to give up their money, it was their CHOICE to give it up. Yea, that doesn't fly there, it doesn't fly when they say "buy private health insurance... or else..."
Wouldn't have happened, the insurance companies would have done anything to prevent it.
That is the people's problem for electing stupid Congress people then, isn't it? It doesn't make violating the law, the Constitution, and basic morality right, now does it?
SCOTUS, too far to the left, what the hell planet do you live on?
One in which the US Constitution still applies...
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom to Keep and Bare Arms
Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizures
Those things...
So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?
This was an iPhone 5c... it lacks Secure Enclave...
The iPhone 5s and newer do not have this problem...
That is why a Sanders vs. Trump would be so hard...
I'm right-wing, Sanders is left wing. But I think Sanders is more trustworthy than Trump is.
If it is Clinton vs. Trump, that's easy, I'll pick the "Not Clinton" option. It could be bozo the clown, I don't care.
The Democrats are nuts to be behind Clinton, they could so easily beat Trump with almost anyone else.
Linux support remains a core goal to the Vive team.
That alone would be enough for me to STRONGLY favour the Vive over the Oculus.
Why? What do you think you're going to do on Linux with it?
My fear/expectation is that most windows game developers will stupidly only support oculus not vive, because they consider it the "de facto" VR headset, even if it it is more limited/not as good as the vive.
Your fears are misplaced... your real fear should be that after 5 games come out for it that are funded by Oculus, that'll be it. 2 years from now, when no new games come out for it, then what?
The cost to develop games for this, vs the size of the market, is going to be a massive problem, one that everyone seems to overlook. What is the business case for this?
Nothing honest about it. He'll lie to your face if it'll improve his polls. He's a showman, and certainly entertaining. His his relationship with the truth is tenuous as best, if not entirely accidental.
Yea, but the same is true of Clinton.
Frankly, Trump wasn't wrong when he said that he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue and not lose support.
If my choice is Trump or Clinton, then there is no choice, it is Trump. Even if he shot someone.
I can easily rationalize that by remembering that Clinton is responsible for FAR more deaths and she isn't remotely honest about it. Trump would shoot someone and just say "yep, I did it, so what!"
Yea, that would make him kinda sleazy, but frankly the hate and contempt for Clinton is so strong, Trump could shoot a dozen people and I'd still vote for him over her.
---
The Democrats are morons to be running Clinton, they could crush Trump in a landslide if they ran Sanders or someone "respectable". Even Joe Biden would be fine.
Anyone but Clinton.
People buy Apple for fashion reasons. The quality isn't any better than the high end phones from other manufacturers.
I couldn't care less about "fashion".
I bought an iPhone for iOS. Android is the primary reason I left the Galaxy line of phones. It works fine for awhile, then it doesn't over time. It needs to be wiped from time to time, and frankly after several generations of Android phones (I've owned 4 of them), I went with Apple because "it just works".
I've now had my iPhone for over a year, it is as fast today as it was when I got it, it works every time without any issues.
"Fashion"? Ha! Couldn't care less.
"It just works" Yep, that's it.
Since when is a seat on the Supreme Court reserved for someone of a particular political bent?
Since the SCOTUS started writing laws.
Abortion is legal in the US, not because of an act of Congress, but because of the SCOTUS.
Your comment that SCOTUS is already too far left is just your personal opinion.
Yes, of course it is. I want a SCOTUS that respects the Constitution and the freedoms that we hold dear.
John Roberts is a traitor to the US, his siding with the liberals on ACA thus forcing citizens to buy a private product from a private company will be (or should be) looked at in 50 years as one of the gravest mistakes of our era.
The irony is that I am actually ok with single payer health care. I'm not against the idea of universal health care. I just don't believe the ACA is constitutional and John Roberts was wrong.
Citizens should never be required to buy anything from a private company, just by existing. (I can not buy a car, and thus not need car insurance, but I can't not live and avoid private health insurance)
By contrast, Universal Healthcare would be "providing for the general welfare of the people", and thus within Congress's power.
The 3D Blu-Rays cost more than the regular ones. Etc.
The other problem here is that many homes have gone to all streaming.
We have completely stopped buying Blu-Rays and will never buy 4k Blu-Rays. It is now all streaming, all the time.
And the 3D versions aren't offered via streaming.
Except the Senate refuses to do either. Instead, they are rejecting their constitutional duty.
Would you feel better if they held a 5 min hearing and said "no thanks"? Would that somehow make you feel like they did their duty?
Justice John Roberts (nominated by W. Bush) had an interesting piece on the whole process that should give the Republican controlled senate some thought.
He is welcome to his opinion of course, but the idea of leaving politics out of it is simply not possible.
Because so many laws are now "written" by the SCOTUS, it is now political. Frankly, who gets on the SCOTUS next may well be more important than who becomes the next President, other than the fact that the next President might be able to nominate multiple judges.
The path that the liberals want to take us down would be a disaster, frankly, if the Republicans keep control of the Senate and Clinton becomes President, then they can simply refuse to accept anyone for 4 years as far as I'm concerned.