Not always true. There are cases where corrupted macroblocks will only cause artifacts in a single frame and won't necessarily cause further decoding corruption.
You confuse what that sentence is talking about. They aren't talking about stuck pixels on an LCD. It's talking about not spending time doing extensive error correction/masking when a few pixels in the video are corrupted and thus will be decoded with some level of artifacting.
Next few years? More like a few decades or more. Drivers, firmware microcode, etc. have always contained software workarounds to hardware bugs. This is nothing new.
Is anyone actually surprised about this? Of course Amazon did this to hurt it's competition. It's also why they sell books at far below other places. It's not because they care about you, it's because they want to drive out everyone else.
Just saying potentially doesn't have anything to do with whether it's libel not. What determines if it's libel is if it's malicious defamation which this clearly isn't.
The mid-range laptop on which I'm typing this comment is out-specced on all fronts by this phone (save for keyboard and day-long readability), and it's barely 6 years old. Nice.
What 6-year old laptop has a small than 5" screen? Also unless you bought some shitty Pentium III laptop even that Snapdragon 800 is slower than even the mobile Core Duos from 2006.
Yes, DLNA streamed files look just fine. If they don't you have either shit quality files or have software doing poor quality reencoding of your files. I watch BluRay remuxes just fine streamed to my PS3 with PS3MediaServer with no video reencoding. They look just as they should.
The version with an apostrophe is just a pretentious, hypercorrection spelling. Halloween is a perfectly valid spelling and you don't come across as being pretentious and hipster.
Except that the benchmark quoted is for offscreen rendering. So, no, it's not as that person claimed as the display resolution doesn't have any influence. Anandtech ran the onscreen mode for Basemark X and the 5S score was nearly double the one quoted in the submission at 27.37.
Prove what? She admitted in a comment to her post that she was speeding. She even claimed she was "justified" because she thought it was a 75mph zone. It's funny how easy it is to sway the Slashtard crowd by posting misleading information about how she was ticketed simply for wearing Google Glass when in fact she wouldn't have been pulled over at all had she not been doing 15+ over the speed limit.
Slashdot Mirror
No the point is that this is weak propaganda meant to deflect from the fact that the NSA is many times worse than anything Brazil is doing.
Of course it is. And cold fjord is a shill, propaganda mouthpiece.
And as I said you can do that already.
Not always true. There are cases where corrupted macroblocks will only cause artifacts in a single frame and won't necessarily cause further decoding corruption.
You confuse what that sentence is talking about. They aren't talking about stuck pixels on an LCD. It's talking about not spending time doing extensive error correction/masking when a few pixels in the video are corrupted and thus will be decoded with some level of artifacting.
Next few years? More like a few decades or more. Drivers, firmware microcode, etc. have always contained software workarounds to hardware bugs. This is nothing new.
but relaxing the requirement of perfect decoding could yield gains in speed or energy efficiency."
Which you could already get now simply by not doing error correction. No need for some other programming framework to get this.
It's not. This is simply click bait.
*Its* competition, I should have said.
Is anyone actually surprised about this? Of course Amazon did this to hurt it's competition. It's also why they sell books at far below other places. It's not because they care about you, it's because they want to drive out everyone else.
It's actually more nuanced than that. It has to be a defamatory statement made with malicious intent.
Just saying potentially doesn't have anything to do with whether it's libel not. What determines if it's libel is if it's malicious defamation which this clearly isn't.
The mid-range laptop on which I'm typing this comment is out-specced on all fronts by this phone (save for keyboard and day-long readability), and it's barely 6 years old.
Nice.
What 6-year old laptop has a small than 5" screen? Also unless you bought some shitty Pentium III laptop even that Snapdragon 800 is slower than even the mobile Core Duos from 2006.
Not really since most US people pay subsidized rates not full retail. Many international carriers offer discounts on the full retail price as well.
Yes, DLNA streamed files look just fine. If they don't you have either shit quality files or have software doing poor quality reencoding of your files. I watch BluRay remuxes just fine streamed to my PS3 with PS3MediaServer with no video reencoding. They look just as they should.
It's a perfectly correct spelling even without the apostrophe. Stop being a pretentious douche.
The version with an apostrophe is just a pretentious, hypercorrection spelling. Halloween is a perfectly valid spelling and you don't come across as being pretentious and hipster.
No, this one is a termoelectric bracelet. It's different.
Except that the benchmark quoted is for offscreen rendering. So, no, it's not as that person claimed as the display resolution doesn't have any influence. Anandtech ran the onscreen mode for Basemark X and the 5S score was nearly double the one quoted in the submission at 27.37.
By 5 days...
Yep, Timmeh is just a pretentious douchenozzle.
The benchmark they used seems to run at the native screen resolution, so for slightly lower frame rate you get a much higher quality image.
Nope, that 15.54 is the offscreen mode of Basemark X. Anandtech's benchmark using Onscreen mode had a value of 27.37.
The submitter is Timmeh himself. He does this every year trying to act pedantic by spelling it "Hallowe'en". He thinks he's being smart or something.
Prove what? She admitted in a comment to her post that she was speeding. She even claimed she was "justified" because she thought it was a 75mph zone. It's funny how easy it is to sway the Slashtard crowd by posting misleading information about how she was ticketed simply for wearing Google Glass when in fact she wouldn't have been pulled over at all had she not been doing 15+ over the speed limit.
No, it's get a ticket for doing 80 in a 65 mph zone and then get a secondary violation for being a glasshole.