Meh, if there was a reasonable (no, a $36000 Eizo doesn't count) 4K/QFHD monitor I'd consider it. I don't like triple screen setups with their bezels and odd aspect ratio with stretching and whatnot, I want it all on one screen. IMO the problem is not the price of the graphics card, it's having something useful to show it on. Even at 2560x1440 I'd have to pay more for a single monitor than for a 680 GTX, which is why I'm still on a good 1920x1200 IPS monitor. Of course it helps that I'm not a FPS junkie but I'd easily want Skyrim in 4K.
Except that many parties and governments actually describe themselves as socialist. There's
(1) An economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production (2) A political movement regarding redistribution of wealth.and universal services
True, the last one typically call themselves social democrats in the full form to separate themselves from the marxist/communist forms of socialism, but in practice you can refer to them as socialists. There are people that hate the latter form of socialism too, the US in general and the libertarians in particular, there's an abundance of them here. They think the only thing social programs are good for is to make people lazy, stupid and sucking on the government's teat, cut everything and the strong will become stronger and the weak will perish. Instead of feeding the starving to create another generation of starving, let them starve and that's the solution. All help is supposed to be based on charity (good luck), in reality it'll be for whatever desperate men, women and children will do to survive.
Of course on the other side you have the socialists that want to control and tax everything I do. For example here in Norway I pay a wealth tax, for no other reason than that I have money the government wants their cut, whether I've made any interest or not - but we do have capital gains tax too. And if I inherit money, the government will take a huge inheritance tax. They just take some of my family's money and put in back in the pool. Progressive tax rates means the more you earn, the less you get to keep of it. Everything is opposed to you accumulating more wealth than anyone else. And that doesn't cover the taxes if I do something the government doesn't approve of like drink beer. Too much of it is suffocating, you're treated like an eternal child, never to be trusted to make my own decisions.
For those of you who've seen Babylon 5, both sides are as fucked up as the Vorlons and the Shadows. One side all about order and discipline, the other about evolution and chaos. My ideal society is probably something like social liberalism, the freedom to do whatever you want with a safety net to keep you from hitting rock bottom. But in practical politics, well the labels get all funny...
Chrome is massively popular and eating into Mozilla's "marketshare," that's why.
Yes, the problem is when you start thinking that everything they did must be right and everything we did must be wrong. Chrome annoys me at times, still somewhat less than Firefox did but they both have pros and cons. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's a good thing if Mozilla copies it.
Well that is true but that volume is now selling the cheapest phones to the poorest persons who are just now getting their first cell phone. It's a long time since Apple passed them for most revenue, the average sale is tiny and the margin even smaller. Secondly the world is still in a growth boom with ~600M new subscribers each year but that only has a few years left to go until the whole world is saturated, at which point people only need replacements and that market will drop considerably. Even with Elop out of the way Nokia will need a full reboot by 2015 and regarding OS they for sure couldn't survive another flip-flop away from Microsoft, they're pretty deep in the sinkhole already.
You do know that the cost of materials for a processor or gpu are a tiny fraction of their cost right? Cost of materials to build a processor is $10. It's the R&D brain work that costs a lot of money.
The materials themselves perhaps, but each wafer also takes up processing plant time which is an extremely expensive commodity. With half as many chips per wafer you need double the number of production lines to get even. Also smaller chips improve yields because you have to throw away less of the wafer due to defects. This is one of the reasons the original Atom was a smashing commercial success for Intel, it cost them almost nothing to produce yet sold for a good price.
Entrapment requires comes from encouraging someone to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have committed. It is not entrapment if the means is presented. Ie, if this is a vice sting then having a police officer pretend to be a hooker who is sitting quietly in the bar is not entrapment, but if the officer is actively trying to drum up business or encouraging the dupe to drink more alcohol then it could very well fit the legal definition of entrapment. Part of the problem is that many of these cases I think clearly fit the definition of entrapment.
That would be meaningless, if only real hookers could actively try to drum up business then customers would only buy from those, easily avoiding any stings. Making a hard rule like "you must stop after getting a no" only means the real ones would ask twice. Just soliciting the "product" whether they're pretending to be a hooker or drug dealer or promiscuous teenage girl isn't entrapment. You have to show that they pressured or forced you to do something out of character, not just that they gave you a golden opportunity. Getting you very drunk may be a good example, because it's about breaking down your character.
If for example the police made a sting as a hitman, they don't have to prove that you would have gotten the person killed anyway. They only have to prove that given the opportunity, you'd use a hitman to kill someone. Same with these wannabe terrorists, you don't have to prove they'd actually commit any terrorist acts anyway. You just have to prove that given the opportunity by an undercover terrorist recruiter they would. Whether it's effective against catching those that already are terrorists or significantly thinning the pool is another matter.
As you go smaller, you do gain an area and cost advantage, but you also run into lot of issues related to physics. So 28->22nm is not easy, and its really commendable Intel has done it.
There's also the limited competition to TSMC, since nobody but Intel has access to Intel's plants (partnering with FPGA companies don't count) the rest of the market "has to" go with them even if they're behind Intel. Their competition is GloFo and UMC, none of which are impressing much. So what if Intel has 22nm? AMD still has to buy from TSMC. nVidia still has to buy from TSMC. Apple still has to buy from TSMC. They simply don't feel the pressure that their customers do, they sell and make a profit anyway. Meanwhile Intel is shipping a 160mm^2 IB to compete with a 315mm^2 Bulldozer for a huge cost advantage.
Traditionally, Intel has always been able to show lower power consumption and more than a tangible performance improvement when just doing a process shrink, but the Ivy Bridge does nothing extra in terms of performance and consumes not lower power than its older 32nm sibling
Is there any reason the parent is at +4, Interesting and not -1, Troll? Are the AMD fanbois really so desperate that they have to mod up blatant lies? Ivy Bridge uses 25-30W lower power at stock speed to deliver marginally better than SB CPU performance and considerably better (but still crappy) GPU performance. The only people that whine are those who want a 4.5+ GHz overclock. Anandtech called it quite possibly the strongest tick [Intel] has ever put forth, but I guess if you don't like reality you can invent your own.
With 'derivitives' now looked at as 'covered' by the original copyright, it's becoming possible to copyright ideas and plots. You may think your story is original, but some Big Media lawyer will argue that it's a derivitive of something your parents heard/watched while you were in the womb and thus you're infringing on their copyright so immediately hand over your checkbook.
Come on, it's not like someone has copyrighted the archetypes. Gene Roddenberry originally pitched Andromeda as a Star Trek series, but that didn't happen so the Federation became the Commonwealth, warp drive became slipstream and so on. Avatar is practically Dances with Wolves except the natives are now blue and alien with an orgy of special effects. Harry Potter was hardly the first nor last "boy discovers he know magic" story. If you're having trouble with copyright it's probably because you're not being original, you want to make your own story in their universe. That's great for fan fiction but it's clearly derivative. You have to make your own world from the ground up.
Evolution doesn't have a value system that prefers education, a comfortable life, or the ability to exist without government help. Personifying the inherently unthinking force of evolution, we might say that evolution cares about exactly one thing: the number of creatures in the Nth generation with similar DNA.
Exactly, this is the evolutionary winner of this generation. Only the passing of the genes matter, doesn't even matter if it's a rape victim unless she gets an abortion or the child is killed. The genes will live on to try reproducing again while those who didn't reproduce won't.
GigE is 1000 Mbit/s, a BluRay (compressed) is up to 54 Mbit/s. Make that 4K and maybe it'll be 200 Mbit/s, but it still won't hit the limit and there's always 10G, even over RJ-45. The only thing that makes you need more in the home is if you're using a display cable, but then neither 10G nor fiber is likely to be any good. Then probably a DisplayPort cable (up to 4096 x 2160 x 30bpp @ 60Hz) is as close to futureproof as you get.
Unless someone comes up with something clever again.
Well, apparently you can turn a single atom into a transistor but I don't really see anybody being able to do anything about the size of atoms. Perhaps you can do some other wizardry that'll give us terahertz processors or something but the transistor density won't get denser than this.
"silicon - a material which will probably reach its physical limits in the next 5-10 years" Haven't they been saying that since 1980?
Yes, there's been a lot of flawed assumptions but now we're nearing the most fundamental limits. The lattice spacing of silicon is about 0.55nm and the process size usually goes down with a factor about 0.6, so:
...and smaller than this just isn't possible. With Intel's tick-tocks there's two years between ticks so 14 years at that rate. But long before that you can start counting the lattices on your fingers, already at 5nm there's only nine left (9*0.55 = ~5) and that's only 6 years away. So late this decade or next decade at the latest Moore's law is dead.
Bad distro? change distro! Are there too many? No: practically, you have ubuntu, fedora and opensuse. And lots of vocal advocates for tiny distros they and their three friends use.
The problem is really that the distro becomes yet another hand-waving excuse for why it's your stupid choice of a shitty distro and if you only picked a good distro like $favorite distro this wouldn't be a problem. While I will admit that in a few cases using another distro has solved a problem for the vast majority of cases it doesn't and even when it does changing distro tends to have other bad side effects or at the very least time installing apps, setting configurations and relearning of that distro's particularities. And declining to install a new distro often leads to a butthurt person who takes it as some kind of personal insult of the "Well if you didn't want help why are you wasting our time?" kind. And ultimately if it doesn't help all it costs him is a *shrug* while you've wasted your time. Same with "do a clean install", it costs them nothing to say.
Anyway, I don't think it'd really help if all the distros went away, it'd just become more painfully obvious that they're all suffering from regressions, upgrade issues, peculiar hardware issues, bad software configurations, bad packaging and such. The Linux kernel and everything else that goes into a server? Great. Everything from X and upwards is still very much amateur night.
Historically, they've been fairly expensive, since minaturization isn't free
For sure that's some part of it, but the biggest reason is that laptops used to be a business segment with business prices. You paid a huge premium to get things like power savings on the CPU, not because of different production costs but because you were segregating the residential and professional market. There was a rather huge market turnaround when they found out they could make more money selling laptops to everyone rather than have it as a high-price niche, it was a completely different pricing structure across the board. Perhaps the most relevant recent analogy is smart phones, iPhone and Android are selling to completely other markets than the niche Blackberry did.
Well, it's also the fastest graphics card on the market... that's enough nerd porn to warrant an article. And it sets a new record as the first kilobucks card too.
It is the courtâ(TM)s conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.
This has got to be the silliest ruling I've heard in a while, it's at least as protected as putting your signature on a petition. You're endorsing a group or organization or person and what they stand for.
back catalogue is almost always restored in 2k or HD. they're not made of money, and honestly, can they cover the process of restoring the film with the DVD sales?
Well, they certainly went back and scanned a bunch of movies for BluRay release, if they did it in 2k or 4k I don't know but the point is that you have a pretty good scanned original to work from and you don't have to cover those costs again - just taking the 24 fps movie and making it into 48 fps.
by the time the pictures hit the screen in the cinema, you're looking at around about 1k.
Yes true, but a lot of resolution was lost in the analog reproduction and distribution process. The original film negatives can have up to 2k resolution and both those figures are vertical, besides it's not so easy to map 1000 lines of resolution into 1000 pixels. I imagine scanning at 4k and downsizing 50% would look quite a bit better for "free". In any case it's not necessary to have that, I was just saying you start with the best you got not an already heavily compressed TV signal.
Even though TDP has gone down from 95 to 77W the die size has shrunk from 216 to 160 mm^2, so energy density is up from 0.44 to 0.48 W/mm^2. It's probably getting harder and harder to make heat sinks to spread it effectively enough, particularly with overclocking. For the non-overclocker I'd say the new chips are clearly better though as they're fan noise, battery life and electricity-bill friendly with a small boost in performance and $5-10 cheaper than the equivalent SB. And a better IGP if you'll ever use it without a discrete graphics card. Too bad there's no IGP-less versions, a six-core Ivy Bridge chip with no GPU would have approximately the same die size and kill their high end line.
All of this is true but the movie companies will probably be using their best source, and a lot of these have been scanned and stored at 4K resolution or beyond directly from film. Secondly they won't just take a single filter like in the TV and apply it to everything. I've seen some of the digital restoration work they've done and it's a whole lot of tedium. Don't be surprised if they go through frame by frame, or at least scene by scene, trying out what filters work and in what areas of the frame. Worst case they can manually paint in "plausible" pixels where the algorithm completely fucks up. You can't solve it in the general case but with a lot of effort you can probably make one particular movie look pretty good. And if it's a blockbuster hit and you can make $X million on doing a 48 fps edition they can spend quite a few man hours on it too.
Well, I think this is down to the question of motion blur vs frame rate, It has been shown that humans can perceive frames that are only on screen for an extremely short amount of time, but not that the fluidity matters. That is for example if you record a plane passing by in 24 fps and you miss it - the distance between frames is so that you don't see it - on the other hand if you recorded the scene at >>24 fps, like say 1000 fps and then slowed it down to 24 fps, people would notice the plane but it's not sure they'd be able to tell the 1000 fps clip apart from the 24 fps clip. In fact in high velocity clips they're often down to 18 or 12 fps in order to get the right slow-down effect, without giving the impress that it stutters. Personally I'm in favor of as high frame rate as possible, it can always be scaled down but never scaled up.
Yup... it turns out for the most part 60 fps isn't that bad for compression either, unless things are moving crazy fast - in which case you want higher framerate anyway - then a drama at 60 fps is not that different to 24 fps. I'd certainly like 60/50 fps as the new standard, too bad they don't multiply until 600 fps which is far too much for any human eye.
The world's first substitute for science you mean. Why does it rain? The rain god. Why does the sun rise? The sun god. What decides battles? The war god. What decides love? The love goddess. Saying "it's God" instead of "we don't know" is not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, if there was a reasonable (no, a $36000 Eizo doesn't count) 4K/QFHD monitor I'd consider it. I don't like triple screen setups with their bezels and odd aspect ratio with stretching and whatnot, I want it all on one screen. IMO the problem is not the price of the graphics card, it's having something useful to show it on. Even at 2560x1440 I'd have to pay more for a single monitor than for a 680 GTX, which is why I'm still on a good 1920x1200 IPS monitor. Of course it helps that I'm not a FPS junkie but I'd easily want Skyrim in 4K.
Except that many parties and governments actually describe themselves as socialist. There's
(1) An economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production
(2) A political movement regarding redistribution of wealth.and universal services
True, the last one typically call themselves social democrats in the full form to separate themselves from the marxist/communist forms of socialism, but in practice you can refer to them as socialists. There are people that hate the latter form of socialism too, the US in general and the libertarians in particular, there's an abundance of them here. They think the only thing social programs are good for is to make people lazy, stupid and sucking on the government's teat, cut everything and the strong will become stronger and the weak will perish. Instead of feeding the starving to create another generation of starving, let them starve and that's the solution. All help is supposed to be based on charity (good luck), in reality it'll be for whatever desperate men, women and children will do to survive.
Of course on the other side you have the socialists that want to control and tax everything I do. For example here in Norway I pay a wealth tax, for no other reason than that I have money the government wants their cut, whether I've made any interest or not - but we do have capital gains tax too. And if I inherit money, the government will take a huge inheritance tax. They just take some of my family's money and put in back in the pool. Progressive tax rates means the more you earn, the less you get to keep of it. Everything is opposed to you accumulating more wealth than anyone else. And that doesn't cover the taxes if I do something the government doesn't approve of like drink beer. Too much of it is suffocating, you're treated like an eternal child, never to be trusted to make my own decisions.
For those of you who've seen Babylon 5, both sides are as fucked up as the Vorlons and the Shadows. One side all about order and discipline, the other about evolution and chaos. My ideal society is probably something like social liberalism, the freedom to do whatever you want with a safety net to keep you from hitting rock bottom. But in practical politics, well the labels get all funny...
Chrome is massively popular and eating into Mozilla's "marketshare," that's why.
Yes, the problem is when you start thinking that everything they did must be right and everything we did must be wrong. Chrome annoys me at times, still somewhat less than Firefox did but they both have pros and cons. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's a good thing if Mozilla copies it.
Well that is true but that volume is now selling the cheapest phones to the poorest persons who are just now getting their first cell phone. It's a long time since Apple passed them for most revenue, the average sale is tiny and the margin even smaller. Secondly the world is still in a growth boom with ~600M new subscribers each year but that only has a few years left to go until the whole world is saturated, at which point people only need replacements and that market will drop considerably. Even with Elop out of the way Nokia will need a full reboot by 2015 and regarding OS they for sure couldn't survive another flip-flop away from Microsoft, they're pretty deep in the sinkhole already.
You do know that the cost of materials for a processor or gpu are a tiny fraction of their cost right? Cost of materials to build a processor is $10. It's the R&D brain work that costs a lot of money.
The materials themselves perhaps, but each wafer also takes up processing plant time which is an extremely expensive commodity. With half as many chips per wafer you need double the number of production lines to get even. Also smaller chips improve yields because you have to throw away less of the wafer due to defects. This is one of the reasons the original Atom was a smashing commercial success for Intel, it cost them almost nothing to produce yet sold for a good price.
I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
Uh, wouldn't this be a first amendment issue in the US?
Entrapment requires comes from encouraging someone to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have committed. It is not entrapment if the means is presented. Ie, if this is a vice sting then having a police officer pretend to be a hooker who is sitting quietly in the bar is not entrapment, but if the officer is actively trying to drum up business or encouraging the dupe to drink more alcohol then it could very well fit the legal definition of entrapment. Part of the problem is that many of these cases I think clearly fit the definition of entrapment.
That would be meaningless, if only real hookers could actively try to drum up business then customers would only buy from those, easily avoiding any stings. Making a hard rule like "you must stop after getting a no" only means the real ones would ask twice. Just soliciting the "product" whether they're pretending to be a hooker or drug dealer or promiscuous teenage girl isn't entrapment. You have to show that they pressured or forced you to do something out of character, not just that they gave you a golden opportunity. Getting you very drunk may be a good example, because it's about breaking down your character.
If for example the police made a sting as a hitman, they don't have to prove that you would have gotten the person killed anyway. They only have to prove that given the opportunity, you'd use a hitman to kill someone. Same with these wannabe terrorists, you don't have to prove they'd actually commit any terrorist acts anyway. You just have to prove that given the opportunity by an undercover terrorist recruiter they would. Whether it's effective against catching those that already are terrorists or significantly thinning the pool is another matter.
As you go smaller, you do gain an area and cost advantage, but you also run into lot of issues related to physics. So 28->22nm is not easy, and its really commendable Intel has done it.
There's also the limited competition to TSMC, since nobody but Intel has access to Intel's plants (partnering with FPGA companies don't count) the rest of the market "has to" go with them even if they're behind Intel. Their competition is GloFo and UMC, none of which are impressing much. So what if Intel has 22nm? AMD still has to buy from TSMC. nVidia still has to buy from TSMC. Apple still has to buy from TSMC. They simply don't feel the pressure that their customers do, they sell and make a profit anyway. Meanwhile Intel is shipping a 160mm^2 IB to compete with a 315mm^2 Bulldozer for a huge cost advantage.
Traditionally, Intel has always been able to show lower power consumption and more than a tangible performance improvement when just doing a process shrink, but the Ivy Bridge does nothing extra in terms of performance and consumes not lower power than its older 32nm sibling
Is there any reason the parent is at +4, Interesting and not -1, Troll? Are the AMD fanbois really so desperate that they have to mod up blatant lies? Ivy Bridge uses 25-30W lower power at stock speed to deliver marginally better than SB CPU performance and considerably better (but still crappy) GPU performance. The only people that whine are those who want a 4.5+ GHz overclock. Anandtech called it quite possibly the strongest tick [Intel] has ever put forth, but I guess if you don't like reality you can invent your own.
With 'derivitives' now looked at as 'covered' by the original copyright, it's becoming possible to copyright ideas and plots. You may think your story is original, but some Big Media lawyer will argue that it's a derivitive of something your parents heard/watched while you were in the womb and thus you're infringing on their copyright so immediately hand over your checkbook.
Come on, it's not like someone has copyrighted the archetypes. Gene Roddenberry originally pitched Andromeda as a Star Trek series, but that didn't happen so the Federation became the Commonwealth, warp drive became slipstream and so on. Avatar is practically Dances with Wolves except the natives are now blue and alien with an orgy of special effects. Harry Potter was hardly the first nor last "boy discovers he know magic" story. If you're having trouble with copyright it's probably because you're not being original, you want to make your own story in their universe. That's great for fan fiction but it's clearly derivative. You have to make your own world from the ground up.
Evolution doesn't have a value system that prefers education, a comfortable life, or the ability to exist without government help. Personifying the inherently unthinking force of evolution, we might say that evolution cares about exactly one thing: the number of creatures in the Nth generation with similar DNA.
Exactly, this is the evolutionary winner of this generation. Only the passing of the genes matter, doesn't even matter if it's a rape victim unless she gets an abortion or the child is killed. The genes will live on to try reproducing again while those who didn't reproduce won't.
GigE is 1000 Mbit/s, a BluRay (compressed) is up to 54 Mbit/s. Make that 4K and maybe it'll be 200 Mbit/s, but it still won't hit the limit and there's always 10G, even over RJ-45. The only thing that makes you need more in the home is if you're using a display cable, but then neither 10G nor fiber is likely to be any good. Then probably a DisplayPort cable (up to 4096 x 2160 x 30bpp @ 60Hz) is as close to futureproof as you get.
Unless someone comes up with something clever again.
Well, apparently you can turn a single atom into a transistor but I don't really see anybody being able to do anything about the size of atoms. Perhaps you can do some other wizardry that'll give us terahertz processors or something but the transistor density won't get denser than this.
"silicon - a material which will probably reach its physical limits in the next 5-10 years" Haven't they been saying that since 1980?
Yes, there's been a lot of flawed assumptions but now we're nearing the most fundamental limits. The lattice spacing of silicon is about 0.55nm and the process size usually goes down with a factor about 0.6, so:
22 nm * 0.6 = 14 nm
14 nm * 0.6 = 8 nm
8 nm * 0.6 = 5 nm
5 nm * 0.6 = 3 nm
3 nm * 0.6 = 1.8 nm
1.8 nm * 0.6 = 1.08 nm
1.08 nm * 0.6 = 0.648 nm
Bad distro? change distro! Are there too many? No: practically, you have ubuntu, fedora and opensuse. And lots of vocal advocates for tiny distros they and their three friends use.
The problem is really that the distro becomes yet another hand-waving excuse for why it's your stupid choice of a shitty distro and if you only picked a good distro like $favorite distro this wouldn't be a problem. While I will admit that in a few cases using another distro has solved a problem for the vast majority of cases it doesn't and even when it does changing distro tends to have other bad side effects or at the very least time installing apps, setting configurations and relearning of that distro's particularities. And declining to install a new distro often leads to a butthurt person who takes it as some kind of personal insult of the "Well if you didn't want help why are you wasting our time?" kind. And ultimately if it doesn't help all it costs him is a *shrug* while you've wasted your time. Same with "do a clean install", it costs them nothing to say.
Anyway, I don't think it'd really help if all the distros went away, it'd just become more painfully obvious that they're all suffering from regressions, upgrade issues, peculiar hardware issues, bad software configurations, bad packaging and such. The Linux kernel and everything else that goes into a server? Great. Everything from X and upwards is still very much amateur night.
Historically, they've been fairly expensive, since minaturization isn't free
For sure that's some part of it, but the biggest reason is that laptops used to be a business segment with business prices. You paid a huge premium to get things like power savings on the CPU, not because of different production costs but because you were segregating the residential and professional market. There was a rather huge market turnaround when they found out they could make more money selling laptops to everyone rather than have it as a high-price niche, it was a completely different pricing structure across the board. Perhaps the most relevant recent analogy is smart phones, iPhone and Android are selling to completely other markets than the niche Blackberry did.
Modern classification is a bit of a mess, because Nature doesn't fit into the neat hierarchical classification system that we grew up with.
Yeah, multiple inheritance is a mess. They should have gone with single inheritance and interfaces instead...
Well, it's also the fastest graphics card on the market... that's enough nerd porn to warrant an article. And it sets a new record as the first kilobucks card too.
It is the courtâ(TM)s conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.
This has got to be the silliest ruling I've heard in a while, it's at least as protected as putting your signature on a petition. You're endorsing a group or organization or person and what they stand for.
back catalogue is almost always restored in 2k or HD. they're not made of money, and honestly, can they cover the process of restoring the film with the DVD sales?
Well, they certainly went back and scanned a bunch of movies for BluRay release, if they did it in 2k or 4k I don't know but the point is that you have a pretty good scanned original to work from and you don't have to cover those costs again - just taking the 24 fps movie and making it into 48 fps.
by the time the pictures hit the screen in the cinema, you're looking at around about 1k.
Yes true, but a lot of resolution was lost in the analog reproduction and distribution process. The original film negatives can have up to 2k resolution and both those figures are vertical, besides it's not so easy to map 1000 lines of resolution into 1000 pixels. I imagine scanning at 4k and downsizing 50% would look quite a bit better for "free". In any case it's not necessary to have that, I was just saying you start with the best you got not an already heavily compressed TV signal.
Even though TDP has gone down from 95 to 77W the die size has shrunk from 216 to 160 mm^2, so energy density is up from 0.44 to 0.48 W/mm^2. It's probably getting harder and harder to make heat sinks to spread it effectively enough, particularly with overclocking. For the non-overclocker I'd say the new chips are clearly better though as they're fan noise, battery life and electricity-bill friendly with a small boost in performance and $5-10 cheaper than the equivalent SB. And a better IGP if you'll ever use it without a discrete graphics card. Too bad there's no IGP-less versions, a six-core Ivy Bridge chip with no GPU would have approximately the same die size and kill their high end line.
All of this is true but the movie companies will probably be using their best source, and a lot of these have been scanned and stored at 4K resolution or beyond directly from film. Secondly they won't just take a single filter like in the TV and apply it to everything. I've seen some of the digital restoration work they've done and it's a whole lot of tedium. Don't be surprised if they go through frame by frame, or at least scene by scene, trying out what filters work and in what areas of the frame. Worst case they can manually paint in "plausible" pixels where the algorithm completely fucks up. You can't solve it in the general case but with a lot of effort you can probably make one particular movie look pretty good. And if it's a blockbuster hit and you can make $X million on doing a 48 fps edition they can spend quite a few man hours on it too.
Well, I think this is down to the question of motion blur vs frame rate, It has been shown that humans can perceive frames that are only on screen for an extremely short amount of time, but not that the fluidity matters. That is for example if you record a plane passing by in 24 fps and you miss it - the distance between frames is so that you don't see it - on the other hand if you recorded the scene at >>24 fps, like say 1000 fps and then slowed it down to 24 fps, people would notice the plane but it's not sure they'd be able to tell the 1000 fps clip apart from the 24 fps clip. In fact in high velocity clips they're often down to 18 or 12 fps in order to get the right slow-down effect, without giving the impress that it stutters. Personally I'm in favor of as high frame rate as possible, it can always be scaled down but never scaled up.
Yup... it turns out for the most part 60 fps isn't that bad for compression either, unless things are moving crazy fast - in which case you want higher framerate anyway - then a drama at 60 fps is not that different to 24 fps. I'd certainly like 60/50 fps as the new standard, too bad they don't multiply until 600 fps which is far too much for any human eye.
The world's first substitute for science you mean. Why does it rain? The rain god. Why does the sun rise? The sun god. What decides battles? The war god. What decides love? The love goddess. Saying "it's God" instead of "we don't know" is not science.