I could follow the movie just going off the audio alone/music cues.
Go oldschool enough on movies and you get the same thing - they played the movie on the projector while a local musician, band, or orchastra played the music.
Well, the problem is that BR, while cheaper, still isn't 'cheap' enough for the extra quality. 720p is pushing it for most home setups, to really appreciate 1080p you have to have a fairly careful setup. For example, with a 42" TV you should really be around 6' from the TV. Tha'ts not all that far. I sit more like 12' away from my 42", which means I'm not even getting the full benefit of 720p. So no, quality isn't on the minds of 80% or so of the population.
Meanwhile, netflix has 0 marginal cost, while with BR discs I have to purchase them individually and put them into the drive. Or I'd have to pay another $9/month or so to get discs from netflix again. Then figure in that 'most' households are no longer single-player, much less single-TV. So for a BR disc to have full utility, not only do they need to get a $100 BR player for the main room, they need to get one for every other room they have a TV in where they might want to watch it.
TV sucks not just due to image quality, but due to the lousyness of modern programming. It'll take a while for the 95% percent dross to drop off and us build up a library of decent HD TV footage. You're right - Netflix & Hulu on relatively simple TVs is the big point right now. It's the same deal as with MP3 players and music. People value convenience over quality 80% of the time.
I think his point is that if you want to do better than 720, you're going to have to do some work for it.
Cost Increases:
1. Have to buy a 1080 capable TV vs 720. Not significant, but there.
2. Buy a decent BR player - $100 vs $20 for a DVD player. Even worse - you still have a working DVD player.
3. Buy 1080P content - vs watching 'upscaled' broadcast stuff or compressed to heck internet streams
4. Want the sound that goes with it? Can't rely on the TV's speakers anymore, need to get a sound system($$)
Labor increases(can substitute hiring somebody, but that's $$$)
1. Have to install it semi-correctly
2. Have to view it close enough
3. Typically you have to mess with discs, or perhaps a file system.
It's not quite that bad - 1080p's recommended viewing range is over 50", over 4' away, for over 1080p resolution. Even 1440 is over 36". 65" TV gives you 9' to enjoy full 1080p.
Still, I agree with you. There are reasons why extra resolution isn't really necessary unless you're presenting a piece where people are only intended to look at a small subsection at a time. You're already looking at viewing distances darn near 1:1 for the size of the screen, so you're bleeding into the periphial vision for the presentation - which is lower resolution yet. If the story to the video is engrossing, you don't need more 'bling'.
Personally, I think it'll never happen, because it'd take industry cooperation, but HDMI allows for a 100mbit ethernet connection. It shouldn't be took hard to use computer technologies like 'wake on lan' such that when you power on ONE component, they all power on, if you have a seperate sound system(or even multiple ones) that you can turn the volume up/down even if you end up putting the amplifier box in a different room, etc...
Basically, have ALL the multimedia devices you hook up talk to each other over such links, using some sort of protocol. It'd require some setup if, for example, you want to use your TV's speakers as the center and want the volume to stay equalized, but it should be doable.
We're not using pure S/MIME, it's more Outlook&Exchange. Completely internal to the server for a lot of it.
I agree that S/MIME isn't an 'ideal' solution, but what I was trying to get at was how to maximize the assurance of the information while minimizing false flags.
It needs to be a complete solution, what irks me is the stupid 'optimizations' they put in place.
I probably should have said 'they', not 'we'. Thus my harping on the problem - not that I'm anywhere near where I'd need to be to have a chance to be listened to.
I wouldn't be revoking the certs unless they did something stupid like lost it or gave out their pin.
I harp on this constantly. At work, we fairly routinely issue people new certificates and revoke the old ones, even when there's no belief that the certs were compromised. As a result, you can send somebody an email and later that day get new certs. This is a problem because all the digitally signed emails you sent earlier now register as revoked and Outlook proceeds to tell you this, that the email can't be trusted, etc...
This happens frequently enough that I encounter this 2-3 times a week. The email has always been valid, they just got new certs between their sending the messages and my opening the email(possibly for historical reasons).
Same deal as with the california cancer warning - stick it on EVERYTHING, and it gets ignored. If you put cancer warnings on apples, they may not pay attention to the cancer warning on that bottle of test chemical.
My work is fairly liberal about 'NSFW language', so I watched it here. One of my coworkers commented that the profanity really ruined his message, so I doubt bookmarking it would really help.
What WILL help is putting up anti-ubisoft/SecuROM messages on your facebook page, telling your family and friends about it, etc...
My brother games, but isn't as 'into' it as I am - I make comments, he no longer buys ubisoft games. Oops, that's not ONE lost sale, thats' TWO. We play a lot of the same game types. He's more MMORPG, I'm more strategy, but we both like the occasional FPS.
No what we need is for the EFF to set up some web pages where those of us not buying nor pirating from companies we find odious can sign so that the EFF can hand it to congress critters when these corps try to use PPT math to get us screwed. Because as it is now its a "heads i win, tails you lose" situation for these assholes.
This is a good idea, as would be contacting these people. Problem is, Ubisoft doesn't want to talk to customers, much less potential customers.
Which is why, despite it supposedly being a good game, I haven't bought assassin's creed or any other ubisoft game in recent memory. I think I got some back in 2005 or so.
I refuse to have anything to do with their latest DRM. Not even if I can get the game from steam for $2.50, due to what it wants to do with my computer.
The danger of fire would be a bigger risk in an aircraft, I think. I don't know how much difference 'cheap' brass would make, I'm of the opinion most of it's the same. Steel cases might make a larger frag risk.
I agree - most likely result is some minor shrapnel from the brass rupturing, the bullet itself will most likely only have enough energy to bruise, not penetrate. Note:.22lr rounds will be different hazard levels than.50BMG rounds. A cooking off round is more dangerous than a firecracker, but mostly due to the presence of metal shrapnel.
By your description, you'd be better off taking public transportation there, then renting a local electric vehicle. Either that, or you obtain a gen-trailer for the trips, purchase an EV with ~200 mile range(top off the charge over lunch), or just consider yourself a non-average driver and purchase a hybrid instead.
Said trailers are more normally the front section of a car, not the back - most vehicles made today are FWD, so you don't need the rear axle or trunk. For generator use, you need the engine - which is in the front. aerodynamics is satisfied with the front, you simply need to relocate the gas tank.
Personally, I think it's a great idea - when do you need the most cargo space, typically? Ans: When you're going on a long trip. Make the generator system also provide additional storage space, and you're gold.
A low explosive requires some sort of containment to make a good explosion, unlike high explosives.
That confinement is sufficient with a cartridge supported by the chamber of the firearm, but insufficient for just the cartridge. The burning powder quickly causes the brass case to expand, releasing the bullet.
It's not just you. I've noticed it as well. Fillable PDFs are of the good, but why do I need 'adobe echosign' when my work already issues digital certificates, a 'convert to PDF' when it's already a PDF, etc..?
I have a manual transmission, prefer a manual transmission, yet there are huge periods of time that I'd eagerly welcome a self-driving vehicle, especially if it lets me do something else.
Figure an average of 15k miles/year at 30mph(guess). This equals 500 hours driving a year, at $10/hour personal time value, that's $5k/year.
If an auto-drive option that allows me to read or do work while it's going cost less than $15k, but was a better driver than 90%* of the population, I'd probably go for it.
*Doesn't have to be perfect, but never being drunk, tired, impatient, sick, or distracted gives it a big leg up.
Your mentioning of the toxicity of 3rd line antibiotics got me thinking - what's the possibility of using a Bacteriophage*? Non-toxic, and evolves to keep up with it's target, utterly unlikely to evolve to affect humans, scales to the size of the infection, etc... I know they have to be targeted for that particular strain of bacteria, but it seems to me that it'd be a worthy effort.
Another thing about towing - people might assume the car is being repossessed. The 'not very common' thing might not be common, but it's a fairly well known method, as you don't have to break jack to do it. More appropriate when it comes to top end vehicles.
Personally, I'm tempted to install a hidden kill-switch.
Everything I've seen about what went wrong with Fukushima indicates that the only age related effects were the results of old design errors. Some fixable for relatively cheap, some not so much. A more modern reactor*, might have rode it through even with the 'small mistakes' like unsheltered generators. The explosions? GE had a published fix for that for something like the last 30 years, the operators never wanted to spend the money to upgrade. Similar type reactors in the USA have the fixes.
*Fukushima's reactors are actually older than both TMI and Chernobyl's.
Looks up GP mentioning 30 years... Uhh... yeah. I don't normall read ACs, so I didn't see it before.
Mandating a 30 year maximum lifespan for nuclear reactors, hardline, no extensions, is overkill. I view it a bit like NYC(and other cities) requirements that Taxis be bought new and only used for X years. If somebody comes up with a taxi that can take the abuse for longer, safely and efficiently, why not let it run longer? Then there's the fact that I want them to start shifting over to EVs - where they won't be able to run the car as many shifts*, but the body and parts aside from the battery should actually last longer.
Have reactors failed due to old age? Not really, mostly what has happened is that reactors have been assessed at 30 years or so of operation, the owners decide that the upgrades necessary to extend aren't economical and move to shut the plant down. We don't here about those as often because unless you lived close to the plant, or got power from it, you didn't hear about it shutting down, cleanly and safely. As for the reason for 40 year operational lifespan and permit - that's basically a business guarantee 'we won't force you to shut your plant down before you've made your money from it**', for what's one of the biggest capital investments private industry makes. 30 would make nuclear plants harder to build, 50 not much easier as they'd have to prove the equipment would survive that long and provide maintenance figures to keep it in spec.
As for better modern designs and grandfathering - I figure that if we had an active nuclear plant construction industry that building new plants would be cheaper, and would be cheap enough to compete with coal(less pollution!), and make building a modern plant look more competitive over extending an old one. For one competing factor - modern plants generally need less fuel for the electricity generated and have lower maintenance and operating costs.
*That brings up another point - why base it off of time, and not miles? **As long as you don't screw up too badly
Breeder reactors vary, but the general case is that a breeder reactor produces about 10X more power for any given unit of waste, and due to the more complete burn-up, the remaining waste is shorter lived.
Due to the incomplete burn of conventional plants, breeders can indeed burn waste - but it's more like 1-2 conventional plants to feed a single breeder.
No, it's not a magical solution to nuclear waste. But it's a good step.
40 years was the original design life for nuclear reactors. Of course, this article is pretty much 'life as normal'. In the USA you get a permit good for X years, normally 40. When a reactor reaches the end of that life, the owner of the plant has to decide whether to shut it down or move for permit renewal, where they have to, guess what, prove the plant is still safe to standards. That most likely means spending some millions on plant refurbishment/upgrades.
Look at Fukushima - it was scheduled to be shut down.
That being said - I DO support replacing old nuclear plants with new ones - they're more efficient and safer.
My work has an agreement with the companies we buy our computers from that we will not return defective hard drives. They're destroyed instead(privacy concerns). We still get warranty replacements.
Of course, these are bog standard commodity HDs, not worth much, and we're big enough for them to spot a problem if our claims exceed average.
But then, we have continuing relations with them. They don't want to piss us off, we don't want to piss them off.
Slashdot Mirror
I could follow the movie just going off the audio alone/music cues.
Go oldschool enough on movies and you get the same thing - they played the movie on the projector while a local musician, band, or orchastra played the music.
Meanwhile, netflix has 0 marginal cost, while with BR discs I have to purchase them individually and put them into the drive. Or I'd have to pay another $9/month or so to get discs from netflix again. Then figure in that 'most' households are no longer single-player, much less single-TV. So for a BR disc to have full utility, not only do they need to get a $100 BR player for the main room, they need to get one for every other room they have a TV in where they might want to watch it.
TV sucks not just due to image quality, but due to the lousyness of modern programming. It'll take a while for the 95% percent dross to drop off and us build up a library of decent HD TV footage. You're right - Netflix & Hulu on relatively simple TVs is the big point right now. It's the same deal as with MP3 players and music. People value convenience over quality 80% of the time.
I think his point is that if you want to do better than 720, you're going to have to do some work for it. Cost Increases: 1. Have to buy a 1080 capable TV vs 720. Not significant, but there. 2. Buy a decent BR player - $100 vs $20 for a DVD player. Even worse - you still have a working DVD player. 3. Buy 1080P content - vs watching 'upscaled' broadcast stuff or compressed to heck internet streams 4. Want the sound that goes with it? Can't rely on the TV's speakers anymore, need to get a sound system($$) Labor increases(can substitute hiring somebody, but that's $$$) 1. Have to install it semi-correctly 2. Have to view it close enough 3. Typically you have to mess with discs, or perhaps a file system.
It's not quite that bad - 1080p's recommended viewing range is over 50", over 4' away, for over 1080p resolution. Even 1440 is over 36". 65" TV gives you 9' to enjoy full 1080p.
Still, I agree with you. There are reasons why extra resolution isn't really necessary unless you're presenting a piece where people are only intended to look at a small subsection at a time. You're already looking at viewing distances darn near 1:1 for the size of the screen, so you're bleeding into the periphial vision for the presentation - which is lower resolution yet. If the story to the video is engrossing, you don't need more 'bling'.
Personally, I think it'll never happen, because it'd take industry cooperation, but HDMI allows for a 100mbit ethernet connection. It shouldn't be took hard to use computer technologies like 'wake on lan' such that when you power on ONE component, they all power on, if you have a seperate sound system(or even multiple ones) that you can turn the volume up/down even if you end up putting the amplifier box in a different room, etc...
Basically, have ALL the multimedia devices you hook up talk to each other over such links, using some sort of protocol. It'd require some setup if, for example, you want to use your TV's speakers as the center and want the volume to stay equalized, but it should be doable.
We're not using pure S/MIME, it's more Outlook&Exchange. Completely internal to the server for a lot of it.
I agree that S/MIME isn't an 'ideal' solution, but what I was trying to get at was how to maximize the assurance of the information while minimizing false flags.
It needs to be a complete solution, what irks me is the stupid 'optimizations' they put in place.
I probably should have said 'they', not 'we'. Thus my harping on the problem - not that I'm anywhere near where I'd need to be to have a chance to be listened to.
I wouldn't be revoking the certs unless they did something stupid like lost it or gave out their pin.
I harp on this constantly. At work, we fairly routinely issue people new certificates and revoke the old ones, even when there's no belief that the certs were compromised. As a result, you can send somebody an email and later that day get new certs. This is a problem because all the digitally signed emails you sent earlier now register as revoked and Outlook proceeds to tell you this, that the email can't be trusted, etc...
This happens frequently enough that I encounter this 2-3 times a week. The email has always been valid, they just got new certs between their sending the messages and my opening the email(possibly for historical reasons).
Same deal as with the california cancer warning - stick it on EVERYTHING, and it gets ignored. If you put cancer warnings on apples, they may not pay attention to the cancer warning on that bottle of test chemical.
My work is fairly liberal about 'NSFW language', so I watched it here. One of my coworkers commented that the profanity really ruined his message, so I doubt bookmarking it would really help.
What WILL help is putting up anti-ubisoft/SecuROM messages on your facebook page, telling your family and friends about it, etc...
My brother games, but isn't as 'into' it as I am - I make comments, he no longer buys ubisoft games. Oops, that's not ONE lost sale, thats' TWO. We play a lot of the same game types. He's more MMORPG, I'm more strategy, but we both like the occasional FPS.
No what we need is for the EFF to set up some web pages where those of us not buying nor pirating from companies we find odious can sign so that the EFF can hand it to congress critters when these corps try to use PPT math to get us screwed. Because as it is now its a "heads i win, tails you lose" situation for these assholes.
This is a good idea, as would be contacting these people. Problem is, Ubisoft doesn't want to talk to customers, much less potential customers.
Which is why, despite it supposedly being a good game, I haven't bought assassin's creed or any other ubisoft game in recent memory. I think I got some back in 2005 or so.
I refuse to have anything to do with their latest DRM. Not even if I can get the game from steam for $2.50, due to what it wants to do with my computer.
The danger of fire would be a bigger risk in an aircraft, I think. I don't know how much difference 'cheap' brass would make, I'm of the opinion most of it's the same. Steel cases might make a larger frag risk.
I agree - most likely result is some minor shrapnel from the brass rupturing, the bullet itself will most likely only have enough energy to bruise, not penetrate. Note: .22lr rounds will be different hazard levels than .50BMG rounds. A cooking off round is more dangerous than a firecracker, but mostly due to the presence of metal shrapnel.
By your description, you'd be better off taking public transportation there, then renting a local electric vehicle. Either that, or you obtain a gen-trailer for the trips, purchase an EV with ~200 mile range(top off the charge over lunch), or just consider yourself a non-average driver and purchase a hybrid instead.
Typically you're going to be looking at 10-20 gallons of gasoline, which is hardly 'full', and what your typical gasoline vehicle carries anyways.
Hauling a small trailer isn't that hard when you're really only taking it on the highway and unhooking it for random driving around town.
Said trailers are more normally the front section of a car, not the back - most vehicles made today are FWD, so you don't need the rear axle or trunk. For generator use, you need the engine - which is in the front. aerodynamics is satisfied with the front, you simply need to relocate the gas tank.
Personally, I think it's a great idea - when do you need the most cargo space, typically? Ans: When you're going on a long trip. Make the generator system also provide additional storage space, and you're gold.
A low explosive requires some sort of containment to make a good explosion, unlike high explosives.
That confinement is sufficient with a cartridge supported by the chamber of the firearm, but insufficient for just the cartridge. The burning powder quickly causes the brass case to expand, releasing the bullet.
It's not just you. I've noticed it as well. Fillable PDFs are of the good, but why do I need 'adobe echosign' when my work already issues digital certificates, a 'convert to PDF' when it's already a PDF, etc..?
I have a manual transmission, prefer a manual transmission, yet there are huge periods of time that I'd eagerly welcome a self-driving vehicle, especially if it lets me do something else.
Figure an average of 15k miles/year at 30mph(guess). This equals 500 hours driving a year, at $10/hour personal time value, that's $5k/year.
If an auto-drive option that allows me to read or do work while it's going cost less than $15k, but was a better driver than 90%* of the population, I'd probably go for it.
*Doesn't have to be perfect, but never being drunk, tired, impatient, sick, or distracted gives it a big leg up.
Your mentioning of the toxicity of 3rd line antibiotics got me thinking - what's the possibility of using a Bacteriophage*? Non-toxic, and evolves to keep up with it's target, utterly unlikely to evolve to affect humans, scales to the size of the infection, etc... I know they have to be targeted for that particular strain of bacteria, but it seems to me that it'd be a worthy effort.
*Virus that targets bacteria, basically
Another thing about towing - people might assume the car is being repossessed. The 'not very common' thing might not be common, but it's a fairly well known method, as you don't have to break jack to do it. More appropriate when it comes to top end vehicles.
Personally, I'm tempted to install a hidden kill-switch.
Everything I've seen about what went wrong with Fukushima indicates that the only age related effects were the results of old design errors. Some fixable for relatively cheap, some not so much. A more modern reactor*, might have rode it through even with the 'small mistakes' like unsheltered generators. The explosions? GE had a published fix for that for something like the last 30 years, the operators never wanted to spend the money to upgrade. Similar type reactors in the USA have the fixes.
*Fukushima's reactors are actually older than both TMI and Chernobyl's.
Looks up GP mentioning 30 years... Uhh... yeah. I don't normall read ACs, so I didn't see it before.
Mandating a 30 year maximum lifespan for nuclear reactors, hardline, no extensions, is overkill. I view it a bit like NYC(and other cities) requirements that Taxis be bought new and only used for X years. If somebody comes up with a taxi that can take the abuse for longer, safely and efficiently, why not let it run longer? Then there's the fact that I want them to start shifting over to EVs - where they won't be able to run the car as many shifts*, but the body and parts aside from the battery should actually last longer.
Have reactors failed due to old age? Not really, mostly what has happened is that reactors have been assessed at 30 years or so of operation, the owners decide that the upgrades necessary to extend aren't economical and move to shut the plant down. We don't here about those as often because unless you lived close to the plant, or got power from it, you didn't hear about it shutting down, cleanly and safely. As for the reason for 40 year operational lifespan and permit - that's basically a business guarantee 'we won't force you to shut your plant down before you've made your money from it**', for what's one of the biggest capital investments private industry makes. 30 would make nuclear plants harder to build, 50 not much easier as they'd have to prove the equipment would survive that long and provide maintenance figures to keep it in spec.
As for better modern designs and grandfathering - I figure that if we had an active nuclear plant construction industry that building new plants would be cheaper, and would be cheap enough to compete with coal(less pollution!), and make building a modern plant look more competitive over extending an old one. For one competing factor - modern plants generally need less fuel for the electricity generated and have lower maintenance and operating costs.
*That brings up another point - why base it off of time, and not miles?
**As long as you don't screw up too badly
Breeder reactors vary, but the general case is that a breeder reactor produces about 10X more power for any given unit of waste, and due to the more complete burn-up, the remaining waste is shorter lived.
Due to the incomplete burn of conventional plants, breeders can indeed burn waste - but it's more like 1-2 conventional plants to feed a single breeder.
No, it's not a magical solution to nuclear waste. But it's a good step.
40 years was the original design life for nuclear reactors. Of course, this article is pretty much 'life as normal'. In the USA you get a permit good for X years, normally 40. When a reactor reaches the end of that life, the owner of the plant has to decide whether to shut it down or move for permit renewal, where they have to, guess what, prove the plant is still safe to standards. That most likely means spending some millions on plant refurbishment/upgrades.
Look at Fukushima - it was scheduled to be shut down.
That being said - I DO support replacing old nuclear plants with new ones - they're more efficient and safer.
My work has an agreement with the companies we buy our computers from that we will not return defective hard drives. They're destroyed instead(privacy concerns). We still get warranty replacements.
Of course, these are bog standard commodity HDs, not worth much, and we're big enough for them to spot a problem if our claims exceed average.
But then, we have continuing relations with them. They don't want to piss us off, we don't want to piss them off.