Honestly, it's not a gimmick. 4K does look MUCH better than 1080p. It's really pretty spectacular. Of course, it's hugely dependent on screen size and viewing distance. If you're sitting 20 feet away from a 32" screen, 4K/1080/720/480 are going to look exactly the same.
What 4K gives you is some combination of better picture and/or larger screen size, with a comparable picture quality.
Sounds idiotic to me. Non-linear steering is great, but any sort of dynamic/adaptive steering that changes according to conditions is stupid beyond belief and will cause an endless stream of accidents because the driver can no longer predict how the car will react to similar steering motions.
-Matt
Wow, that's great insight. Glad you're around to lend your experience to those idiots at BMW and Mercedes, who clearly haven't thought of this when deploying the technology.
1. IANAL, and, while I'm quite familiar with a lot of copyright issues, I can't venture an expert opinion about whether the license conversions would actually stand up to a lawsuit.
2. That being said, if you're creating and editing content on someone else's website, you've got to face the risk that the content might end up being used in ways of which you don't approve.
"as long as the DVDs are provided as a cooperative agreement between Netflix and the studios, there is no simple explanation for why they don't offer virtual DVDs as an option."
Sure there are:
1. The virtual DVDs would compete with pay-per-use rentals (i.e. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Instant, etc.). 2. The studios have in many cases already sold those rights - for example, HBO owns the rights for subscription-based streaming of all Universal movies from about 12 months after theatrical release until 24 months after release. Their rights don't extend to physical DVD, nor do they block online pay-per-viewing rental, but they DO block subscription-based services.
There are others, but to claim that this is something that isn't happening because those silly studios and those morons at Neflix haven't figured out that it's a good idea is moronic.
I guess this joke is now obsolete, then...
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 2
Jesus and Buddha sit down for a typing contest. Both are given a lengthy paper document, and have to type it into their respective computers. The contest starts, and they're neck-and-neck the whole way. When they're both almost done, a lightning bolt comes down from the sky, and both computers crash. Who wins the contest? Jesus, of course. Jesus saves.
Apart from the absurd $300k number, the idea that this would cripple law enforcement budgets is in and of itself kind of silly. To get an idea of scale, the NYPD has a $4.6B budget, and 34,500 officers, or $133k/officer. Again, using just fulltime state/local officers (no part time, no federal), you're looking at 765k nationwide. Scaling the NYPD budget up (ballpark reasonable, NYPD faces higher costs for some things, but also scale benefits), you're looking at abour $100 billion/year. So, speeding ticket revenues are something like 6% of total nationwide police budgets.
Now, for some departments (places that have a lot of miles of road per officer), it's probably higher, but it's reasonable to assume that self-driving cars (doing the limit) will also result in fewer accidents, reducing the need for police accident response.
That $300k number is just absurd. $6.2 billion in fines, divided by $300k per police officer, would imply only 21,000 police officers. There are 34,500 officers in New York City ALONE. Wikipedia puts the total at around 930k sworn officers with arrest powers (765k state/local, plus 44k part-time, plus 120k federal).
Even using only fulltime, and ignoring the Federal officers, would get you to about $8k, not $300k.
The brightest star in the sky is Sirius. It's 8.6 light years away (or 545,000x the distance of the Sun), and 25x the luminosity of the Sun.
Through the wonders of the inverse square, if the amount of radiation we get from the Sun is 1, then the relative amount of radiation we get from Sirius is 25/(545,000^2). So, Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) generates about 0.00000001% of the heating of the sun.
Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.
Whaa? Nowhere in the US is it in any way criminal to fire someone for their political beliefs. In one state (New York), it's against the law, but a civil case (i.e. the person fired can collect damages if they sue). In the rest of the country, it's 100% legal to fire somebody for their political beliefs. Government employees are an exception (can't be fired for political beliefs).
The British banks are terrified that we will join the Euro and miss no chance at anti-EU propaganda because we import three quarters of our food from the EU - and to pay for it, have to put up with the banks creaming us 4% on spread for currency exchange. Then we have to export stuff to pay for the food, and they cream us another 4% on the spread for changing the money back.
By this foul strategy, the banks steal 6% of our GDP. No wonder they pay people to spread anti-EU dirt throughout the media!
Of couse, the banks are not short of other ways of stealing our money too. Bankers are rich because they are stealing our money not because they are incredibly clever. Are the Mafia incredibly clever?
Chuckle. If British banks were actually making a 4% spread each way on GBP/EUR currency transactions (I'm talking scale transactions, not "I want to convert these €40 into pounds please"), they'd all be so insanely profitable that they'd never engage in any other activity. Daily GBP/EUR forex volume is about US$100B (link below). If the banks were making a 4% spread on that, it would be $4 BILLION in profit PER DAY, or about $900B in profit per year.
Actual forex spreads GBP/EUR are typically around 1-2 basis points (one basis point equals 1/100 of a percent). Right now, for example, if you're trying to buy Euros using GBP, you'd be paying about GBP0.81518 per Euro. If you're trying to sell EUR for GBP, you'll be getting about GBP0.81505 for every Euro you sell.
You're saying that, if I start with 1 million GBP, convert them into EUR, and then back into GBP, I'll end up with about GBP920k (4% loss each way, so a total of GBP80k of losses). Actually, I'll end up with GBP999.8k, or about GBP160 in losses. Your losses are off by a factor of about 500x.
The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two".
What does one give up if they pick reliability and (low) cost? If you can have high reliability without quality, what exactly constitutes "quality," and what does it matter?
As gman003 noted, quality can include "efficiency or even lifting power." If you let me set the quality metric as "can lift zero kg zero meters off the ground," I can build you a rocket that will do that 100% of the time, and very cheaply.
I think you missed the point -- the ratio is projected to get around 30% worse in the near future. Same number of women, 30% more jackasses.
Actually, it's you who missed the point:
"By the end of 2014, Reifman projects, there will be 130 single men in Seattle for every 100 single women — up from a ratio of 119 single men to 100 single women in April 2010."
So, it's not "Same number of women, 30% more jackasses," it's "Same number of women, 9% more jackasses."
Usage caps (not storage caps) have absolutely ZERO to do with net neutrality. First off, they're explicitly allowed under the rules that the FCC tried to put in place, that were recently shot down by the courts. Secondly, even if the FCC were to reclassify broadband under Title II (i.e. as a telecom service), as a lot of tech companies want them to, they'd STILL be allowed. Voice phone service, which has long been regulated on the same terms that many want the FCC to use for broadband, certainly allows for usage caps, always has.
Seriously? The US has notably faster mobile data speeds than Europe, and much (but not all) of Asia. Higher tariffs, too, but definitely higher average speeds (see figure 7).
So, what you're saying is that you don't disagree that it's entirely appropriate for EA to make a tradeoff between the costs of maintaining these games and the goodwill that maintaining them generates, but you're somehow certain that the "sleazy MBA" hasn't actually done a robust job of balancing those two factors. You acknowledge that the goodwill side is hard to measure, and you've therefore decided to assume, without knowing what the costs of maintaining the games are, that the goodwill must be greater than those costs.
1. Balance is $32B. Payout is about $1.5B (about 5%). If you eliminated all student payments, payout would rise to about $2.3B/year. So, after 40 years, your balance would be $32B lower than it would be with $1.5B in annual payouts. Actually, the lower balance would be even greater, since you'd lose the compounding effect of gains on the higher balance. For Harvard to eliminate tuition, it would have to raise the payout to over 7%.
2. This isn't a charity trust. There's no minimum payout rule for University endowments.
So, just because they might have a billion in revenue, they can't exist for education purposes? If they split into two halves, with $500 million in revenue each, would each suddenly become a legitimate educational institution?
Actually, no, they couldn't. Net student income (i.e. total tuition, housing payments, etc.) was about $800 million last year. The endowment was $32 billion, of which $1.5 billion was spent last year. All else being equal, if you cut tuition to zero, you'd burn through the endowment in 40 years. Given that the institution has been around for nearly 400 years at this point, that would be incredibly short-sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, it's not a gimmick. 4K does look MUCH better than 1080p. It's really pretty spectacular. Of course, it's hugely dependent on screen size and viewing distance. If you're sitting 20 feet away from a 32" screen, 4K/1080/720/480 are going to look exactly the same.
What 4K gives you is some combination of better picture and/or larger screen size, with a comparable picture quality.
Sounds idiotic to me. Non-linear steering is great, but any sort of dynamic/adaptive steering that changes according to conditions is stupid beyond belief and will cause an endless stream of accidents because the driver can no longer predict how the car will react to similar steering motions.
-Matt
Wow, that's great insight. Glad you're around to lend your experience to those idiots at BMW and Mercedes, who clearly haven't thought of this when deploying the technology.
And I mean "my", "fucking", "dead" and "body" literally.
So, if Amazon wants your clients' business, all it needs to find is a mudering necrophile?
1. IANAL, and, while I'm quite familiar with a lot of copyright issues, I can't venture an expert opinion about whether the license conversions would actually stand up to a lawsuit.
2. That being said, if you're creating and editing content on someone else's website, you've got to face the risk that the content might end up being used in ways of which you don't approve.
"as long as the DVDs are provided as a cooperative agreement between Netflix and the studios, there is no simple explanation for why they don't offer virtual DVDs as an option."
Sure there are:
1. The virtual DVDs would compete with pay-per-use rentals (i.e. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Instant, etc.).
2. The studios have in many cases already sold those rights - for example, HBO owns the rights for subscription-based streaming of all Universal movies from about 12 months after theatrical release until 24 months after release. Their rights don't extend to physical DVD, nor do they block online pay-per-viewing rental, but they DO block subscription-based services.
There are others, but to claim that this is something that isn't happening because those silly studios and those morons at Neflix haven't figured out that it's a good idea is moronic.
Jesus and Buddha sit down for a typing contest. Both are given a lengthy paper document, and have to type it into their respective computers. The contest starts, and they're neck-and-neck the whole way. When they're both almost done, a lightning bolt comes down from the sky, and both computers crash. Who wins the contest? Jesus, of course. Jesus saves.
Apart from the absurd $300k number, the idea that this would cripple law enforcement budgets is in and of itself kind of silly. To get an idea of scale, the NYPD has a $4.6B budget, and 34,500 officers, or $133k/officer. Again, using just fulltime state/local officers (no part time, no federal), you're looking at 765k nationwide. Scaling the NYPD budget up (ballpark reasonable, NYPD faces higher costs for some things, but also scale benefits), you're looking at abour $100 billion/year. So, speeding ticket revenues are something like 6% of total nationwide police budgets.
Now, for some departments (places that have a lot of miles of road per officer), it's probably higher, but it's reasonable to assume that self-driving cars (doing the limit) will also result in fewer accidents, reducing the need for police accident response.
That $300k number is just absurd. $6.2 billion in fines, divided by $300k per police officer, would imply only 21,000 police officers. There are 34,500 officers in New York City ALONE. Wikipedia puts the total at around 930k sworn officers with arrest powers (765k state/local, plus 44k part-time, plus 120k federal).
Even using only fulltime, and ignoring the Federal officers, would get you to about $8k, not $300k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
0.00001% is a teensy weensy bit off.
The brightest star in the sky is Sirius. It's 8.6 light years away (or 545,000x the distance of the Sun), and 25x the luminosity of the Sun.
Through the wonders of the inverse square, if the amount of radiation we get from the Sun is 1, then the relative amount of radiation we get from Sirius is 25/(545,000^2). So, Sirius (the brightest star in the sky) generates about 0.00000001% of the heating of the sun.
Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.
Whaa? Nowhere in the US is it in any way criminal to fire someone for their political beliefs. In one state (New York), it's against the law, but a civil case (i.e. the person fired can collect damages if they sue). In the rest of the country, it's 100% legal to fire somebody for their political beliefs. Government employees are an exception (can't be fired for political beliefs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
They're already offering this in NYC.
http://blog.uber.com/RUSH
Only a lunatic would risk violating the Benthic Treaty. Giving Blue Hades a casus belli would be a really, REALLY bad idea.
The British banks are terrified that we will join the Euro and miss no chance at anti-EU propaganda because we import three quarters of our food from the EU - and to pay for it, have to put up with the banks creaming us 4% on spread for currency exchange. Then we have to export stuff to pay for the food, and they cream us another 4% on the spread for changing the money back.
By this foul strategy, the banks steal 6% of our GDP. No wonder they pay people to spread anti-EU dirt throughout the media!
Of couse, the banks are not short of other ways of stealing our money too. Bankers are rich because they are stealing our money not because they are incredibly clever. Are the Mafia incredibly clever?
Chuckle. If British banks were actually making a 4% spread each way on GBP/EUR currency transactions (I'm talking scale transactions, not "I want to convert these €40 into pounds please"), they'd all be so insanely profitable that they'd never engage in any other activity. Daily GBP/EUR forex volume is about US$100B (link below). If the banks were making a 4% spread on that, it would be $4 BILLION in profit PER DAY, or about $900B in profit per year.
Actual forex spreads GBP/EUR are typically around 1-2 basis points (one basis point equals 1/100 of a percent). Right now, for example, if you're trying to buy Euros using GBP, you'd be paying about GBP0.81518 per Euro. If you're trying to sell EUR for GBP, you'll be getting about GBP0.81505 for every Euro you sell.
You're saying that, if I start with 1 million GBP, convert them into EUR, and then back into GBP, I'll end up with about GBP920k (4% loss each way, so a total of GBP80k of losses). Actually, I'll end up with GBP999.8k, or about GBP160 in losses. Your losses are off by a factor of about 500x.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
What does one give up if they pick reliability and (low) cost? If you can have high reliability without quality, what exactly constitutes "quality," and what does it matter?
As gman003 noted, quality can include "efficiency or even lifting power." If you let me set the quality metric as "can lift zero kg zero meters off the ground," I can build you a rocket that will do that 100% of the time, and very cheaply.
is going to Siberia.
They're already in Baikonur, so Siberia wouldn't be a huge downgrade.
I think you missed the point -- the ratio is projected to get around 30% worse in the near future. Same number of women, 30% more jackasses.
Actually, it's you who missed the point:
"By the end of 2014, Reifman projects, there will be 130 single men in Seattle for every 100 single women — up from a ratio of 119 single men to 100 single women in April 2010."
So, it's not "Same number of women, 30% more jackasses," it's "Same number of women, 9% more jackasses."
Usage caps (not storage caps) have absolutely ZERO to do with net neutrality. First off, they're explicitly allowed under the rules that the FCC tried to put in place, that were recently shot down by the courts. Secondly, even if the FCC were to reclassify broadband under Title II (i.e. as a telecom service), as a lot of tech companies want them to, they'd STILL be allowed. Voice phone service, which has long been regulated on the same terms that many want the FCC to use for broadband, certainly allows for usage caps, always has.
Seriously? The US has notably faster mobile data speeds than Europe, and much (but not all) of Asia. Higher tariffs, too, but definitely higher average speeds (see figure 7).
Sure they do. Ever heard of price elasticity?
So, what you're saying is that you don't disagree that it's entirely appropriate for EA to make a tradeoff between the costs of maintaining these games and the goodwill that maintaining them generates, but you're somehow certain that the "sleazy MBA" hasn't actually done a robust job of balancing those two factors. You acknowledge that the goodwill side is hard to measure, and you've therefore decided to assume, without knowing what the costs of maintaining the games are, that the goodwill must be greater than those costs.
Headline would have been better written as "Stanford Ridding $18 Billion Endowment of Coal Stock."
1. Balance is $32B. Payout is about $1.5B (about 5%). If you eliminated all student payments, payout would rise to about $2.3B/year. So, after 40 years, your balance would be $32B lower than it would be with $1.5B in annual payouts. Actually, the lower balance would be even greater, since you'd lose the compounding effect of gains on the higher balance. For Harvard to eliminate tuition, it would have to raise the payout to over 7%.
2. This isn't a charity trust. There's no minimum payout rule for University endowments.
So, just because they might have a billion in revenue, they can't exist for education purposes? If they split into two halves, with $500 million in revenue each, would each suddenly become a legitimate educational institution?
That $18.7 billion is the entire endowment, not just the portion invested in coal.
Actually, no, they couldn't. Net student income (i.e. total tuition, housing payments, etc.) was about $800 million last year. The endowment was $32 billion, of which $1.5 billion was spent last year. All else being equal, if you cut tuition to zero, you'd burn through the endowment in 40 years. Given that the institution has been around for nearly 400 years at this point, that would be incredibly short-sighted.