You don't have access to the studio equipment needed to achieve a signal to noise ratio that still does not match 250kbps mp3. Your 1/8" tape moving at 2 inches/second certainly can't achieve anything remotely resembling transparency. The only thing that saves your argument is that audio transparency is subjective, so somebody who blew out their ears with earbuds at inappropriate level may be entirely correct in stating they can't hear the difference. Only because those ears now top out at 15 Khz or worse.
I think that people just tend to hate their own cable provider, and it's been a long time coming. Quality has been declining and prices have been increasing for a while...
Here's a novel idea: walk away from that junk and forget about it forever. Get 30 hours per week of your life back.
Ah, fine. Then I would immediately be wishing that the front panel space is used for display. The only substantial argument I can think of for non-mechanical off-screen buttons is, avoiding screen burn if the display type suffers from it. Better is to have a display that doesn't burn.
True, this happens a lot in games, but mainly because of naive scaling algorithms, usually bilinear scaling. This tends to be really crappy in terms of signal distortion and only works well if the original image is heavily filtered. Which most game developers don't have a clue about, so there you go. Accurate rescaling uses sinc filtering.
If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.
That depends on whether the spatial frequency of the image is limited to Nyquist frequency or not. If less than the Nyquist frequency, which would normally be true of a movie but might not be true of computer text, then the original signal (i.e., the original, nominally perfect, image that was sampled) can be recovered exactly from the upscaled image. Or to put it another way, your eyes won't notice (for good theoretical reasons) provided that your movie was encoded properly and your tv rescales it properly.
Governance of the Swift project is firmly under the control of Apple, as stated here. How can Swift ever be a true community project if Apple controls it? Look no further than Java to see what can go wrong when a corporation controls a language.
Got to the same site now, it's 3.8%, catching up with MacOS and Windows 8. Not sure what's going on there, that's the fastest growth I've seen in a decade.
Why is Linux's share of the desktop market so abysmally low, even with several of the past releases of Windows (Vista, 8, and even 10) being widely disliked, and with Linux distributions typically being free, and after existing for over two decades now?
The one-word answer for that is: Gnome. It's just needlessly unfamiliar to Windows users, and face it, clumsy for everybody. Plus keeps changing for no apparent reason. Just one random item off the top of a large stack: after all these years, GTK file open dialog still sucks.
It's almost like Linux is most successful when the software that Red Hat is involved with is not used.
To be fair, Red Hat is heavily involved in kernel development, and as we all know, Linux Kernel is far and away the most successful OS in the known universe.
Given this lack of success, should the various desktop-oriented initiatives that Red Hat has started or worked on be considered failures?
X.org: definitely not a failure. Gnome: definitely a failure. Freedesktop.org: somewhere in between. It's a mixed bag.
If they aren't currently considered failures, at what point would they be considered failures? Would Red Hat's support for them be promptly terminated if they were deemed to be failures?
Interested in Jim's answer. Gnome, definitely a failure. Only Red Hat keeps beating that dead horse. The world's most popular Linux desktop is now Unity, based on QT. Just say no to GTK and C, the world has moved on. Red Hat has no significant desktop share, time to think about why.
is Red Hat, as an organization, at all concerned about the damage that systemd has done to Linux's usability, its reputation, and its community? Is Red Hat concerned with how systemd has driven so many Linux users to FreeBSD?
Ahem, Jim only cares about extending Red Hat's own power and influence, this trumps community interests every time, this is what he is paid to care about. So when Red Hat acts against the interests of the community and to its own benefit, it should be no great surprise. One thing in particular that is ingrained in Red Hat's corporate culture: hostile takeover of community projects. Fedora is a good example. There are many others. Expect nothing more than bland diversion on this question.
What is wrong in preparing for and shaping a future market? Like Apple did with the iPod and iPhone?
You can have "actual demand" as evidenced by customers buying products, or "suppressed demand" for a variety of reasons, including product not being available or current prices too high. Apple correctly judged that suppressed demand existed for the iphone, and that it was able to create a product to convert that suppressed demand into real demand. That was smart. But entering a market where suppressed demand exists, but can't be converted into real demand, for example, because the product cannot be produced profitably at the necessary price point is just stupidity. This particular form of stupidity may be indulged in successfully by a firm with deep enough pockets, but it is a practical certainty that better return on investment could have been achieved elsewhere, and thus still qualifies as stupidity even if successful.
BTW, your other examples - ipod and space - are not good examples because actual demand already existed in both those markets.
Slashdot Mirror
they use solar in most of Canada, not just the south.
Great for running air conditioners in the summer. Heating in the winter, not so much.
You don't have access to the studio equipment needed to achieve a signal to noise ratio that still does not match 250kbps mp3. Your 1/8" tape moving at 2 inches/second certainly can't achieve anything remotely resembling transparency. The only thing that saves your argument is that audio transparency is subjective, so somebody who blew out their ears with earbuds at inappropriate level may be entirely correct in stating they can't hear the difference. Only because those ears now top out at 15 Khz or worse.
Baby boomers retiring and trying to get their youth back.
Only to someone who can't hear high frequencies.
If you're confused about that then just keep watching TV.
I think that people just tend to hate their own cable provider, and it's been a long time coming. Quality has been declining and prices have been increasing for a while...
Here's a novel idea: walk away from that junk and forget about it forever. Get 30 hours per week of your life back.
Nobody sensible predicted that Apple fans would reject the iPhone because of the lack of 3.5mm jack.
Reject would be a bit strong, but didn't pull iPhone out of its slump either. At least part of that would be the headphone jack.
Ah, fine. Then I would immediately be wishing that the front panel space is used for display. The only substantial argument I can think of for non-mechanical off-screen buttons is, avoiding screen burn if the display type suffers from it. Better is to have a display that doesn't burn.
Mandatory taller change parody
I'm a fan of 1.41:1.
I'm a fan of golden mean myself. Theatre widescreen is kind of stupid, it is certainly not about best viewing quality or Imax would use it.
Maybe they missed math, but they didn't miss marketing.
How about 2880:1440? Oh, whoops, ran out of fingers to count on.
why not just get a phone with those buttons outside of the display area? my droid turbo has its nav buttons off screen and a 16:9 1440p screen
Pretty annoying to have those pixels available and not be able to use them for image display.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
True, this happens a lot in games, but mainly because of naive scaling algorithms, usually bilinear scaling. This tends to be really crappy in terms of signal distortion and only works well if the original image is heavily filtered. Which most game developers don't have a clue about, so there you go. Accurate rescaling uses sinc filtering.
If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.
That depends on whether the spatial frequency of the image is limited to Nyquist frequency or not. If less than the Nyquist frequency, which would normally be true of a movie but might not be true of computer text, then the original signal (i.e., the original, nominally perfect, image that was sampled) can be recovered exactly from the upscaled image. Or to put it another way, your eyes won't notice (for good theoretical reasons) provided that your movie was encoded properly and your tv rescales it properly.
Governance of the Swift project is firmly under the control of Apple, as stated here. How can Swift ever be a true community project if Apple controls it? Look no further than Java to see what can go wrong when a corporation controls a language.
One Slashdot submission from July 2016 puts Linux's desktop market share at just over 2%.
Got to the same site now, it's 3.8%, catching up with MacOS and Windows 8. Not sure what's going on there, that's the fastest growth I've seen in a decade.
A similar submission from October 2016 puts it just over 2%, as well.
Why is Linux's share of the desktop market so abysmally low, even with several of the past releases of Windows (Vista, 8, and even 10) being widely disliked, and with Linux distributions typically being free, and after existing for over two decades now?
The one-word answer for that is: Gnome. It's just needlessly unfamiliar to Windows users, and face it, clumsy for everybody. Plus keeps changing for no apparent reason. Just one random item off the top of a large stack: after all these years, GTK file open dialog still sucks.
It's almost like Linux is most successful when the software that Red Hat is involved with is not used.
To be fair, Red Hat is heavily involved in kernel development, and as we all know, Linux Kernel is far and away the most successful OS in the known universe.
Given this lack of success, should the various desktop-oriented initiatives that Red Hat has started or worked on be considered failures?
X.org: definitely not a failure. Gnome: definitely a failure. Freedesktop.org: somewhere in between. It's a mixed bag.
If they aren't currently considered failures, at what point would they be considered failures? Would Red Hat's support for them be promptly terminated if they were deemed to be failures?
Interested in Jim's answer. Gnome, definitely a failure. Only Red Hat keeps beating that dead horse. The world's most popular Linux desktop is now Unity, based on QT. Just say no to GTK and C, the world has moved on. Red Hat has no significant desktop share, time to think about why.
is Red Hat, as an organization, at all concerned about the damage that systemd has done to Linux's usability, its reputation, and its community? Is Red Hat concerned with how systemd has driven so many Linux users to FreeBSD?
Ahem, Jim only cares about extending Red Hat's own power and influence, this trumps community interests every time, this is what he is paid to care about. So when Red Hat acts against the interests of the community and to its own benefit, it should be no great surprise. One thing in particular that is ingrained in Red Hat's corporate culture: hostile takeover of community projects. Fedora is a good example. There are many others. Expect nothing more than bland diversion on this question.
Nice. It has a SD slot. I wonder about unlockable boot and root?
I hate really stupid terms and mid-end is really stupid.
How true. "Non-end" would be more logical.
But says "Nokia" on it. I bet it has a headphone jack.
What is wrong in preparing for and shaping a future market? Like Apple did with the iPod and iPhone?
You can have "actual demand" as evidenced by customers buying products, or "suppressed demand" for a variety of reasons, including product not being available or current prices too high. Apple correctly judged that suppressed demand existed for the iphone, and that it was able to create a product to convert that suppressed demand into real demand. That was smart. But entering a market where suppressed demand exists, but can't be converted into real demand, for example, because the product cannot be produced profitably at the necessary price point is just stupidity. This particular form of stupidity may be indulged in successfully by a firm with deep enough pockets, but it is a practical certainty that better return on investment could have been achieved elsewhere, and thus still qualifies as stupidity even if successful.
BTW, your other examples - ipod and space - are not good examples because actual demand already existed in both those markets.
Ok, you invest your money in a budget all-electric car company, let us know how that works out for you. Good luck with those lead-acid batteries.
Apple cultists are so entertaining, especially when they flock.