The mouth and nose area are also important indicators of (micro)emotion ( http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx ), which could explain why many people (and women especially, I've noticed) regularly glance at that area when they are talking themselves. I believe it is to gauge the emotional reaction of the conversation partner to what they are saying.
Considering that these are undoubtedly the cherrypicked best results and that the example images are low resolution, I'd say that the technology needs some more work. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with the idea in itself.
Yes, terawatt-hours per year is a valid way to state average power. It's obfuscatory, though, because most people can't do a quick mental conversion based on the number of hours in a year.
No, that doesn't matter at all as the argument goes both ways, i.e.: if average power consumption is 1W, how many Wh is that in a year? It just depends on what you are comparing with, and as it happens, for energy consumption/production on societal scales, Wh is apparently the convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
If the article had stated that one TWh is enough to supply 85,000 homes for a year, it would have been a coherent and perhaps useful statement -- but why not just carry out the rest of the calculation (1400 * 85000), and say that this has the potential to power almost 12 million homes?
For that matter, why not 1.4 petawatthour and 85 million homes? The conversion would have been even more natural and less error-prone;-), as pretty much everyone should be able to easily mentally calculate what 1.4 * 85 comes close to.
Some quick Googling turns up US average household energy consumption of 6000 kWh, or 8900 kWh, or 14000 kWh, corresponding to average power consumption of 685 W, 1 kW, and 1.6 kW.
If the semantics I'm trying to salvage from the summary are correct, it's claiming a figure of 1340 W.
Actually, 1.4 Wh * 10^15 / 1 year = 1.4 Wh * 10^15 / (1*365*24h) = 1.4 W * 10^15 / 8760 = 1.4 / 8.76 * 10^12 W =~ 160 * 10^9 W =~ 160 GW
That is pretty ridiculously high, of course. But then again, they're probably talking about the entire energy potential of all the coastal waters of the US, as opposed to what the pilot projects could deliver.
(I don't claim to be a unit-analysis wizard, but I was stating fuel efficiency in inverse acres years before XKCD covered it...)
Any time someone talks about a power facility in terms of "terawatt-hours per year", they're either confused themselves, or they're trying to confuse you.
Actually, that specific bit makes complete sense. It's not exactly SI, but other than that, there is nothing wrong with it. Power plants differ in how much useful energy they can generate at different times, so stating the (approximate) absolute amount of generated useful energy over a meaningful period of time is informative. The alternative would be to quote an average power output, which contains the same information.
An analogy that people can relate to: watthour = egg watt = chicken power (verb) = feed power (noun) = animals energy = food
"The US Energy Department this week said it would spend $16 million for seventeen projects to help research and develop food generating systems from waves, tides and currents. The food agency says the US could generate up to 1,400 tera-eggs of potential animals per year. One tera-egg is enough to feed 85,000 homes, according to the agency."
As you can see, the mistakes are then readily apparent.
don't care for it for my desktop largely due to price. For $60, I can get an 80GB SSD
Wat. There hasn't been a better way to spend $60 to upgrade the performance of your desktop since.. Well, ever. The only thing that comes close is adding a stick of RAM to a machine that is RAM-starved in the first place and has to swap to the HDD all the time.
I can understand choosing a normal HDD in a laptop as space is limited. But in a desktop? How cheap do you want (80GB) SSDs to become before you plug one in? $30? $10?
My (technologically challenged) friends that have listened to my advice about putting an SSD in their new system worship the ground I walk on because of that advice (I might be exaggerating slightly here;-). They all experience the same thing when going back to a machine without an SSD:
Huh..? What's happening..? I clicked on it, right? Why is it..? *hears HDD rattle* Ah.
I use ssh frequently without much of an issue. Vim too. It's not the best experience [...]
That is an understatement, my friend. It is a terrible experience. There is little one could do to make it worse. I take it you switch to a specialty 'programmers' onscreen keyboard and use your hardware volume buttons and camera button to emulate CTRL and ALT?
My slight hostility (born out of frustration) put aside: if you haven't recently, you should really try using a slide out keyboard phone in conjunction with ssh (if necessary with a little keymap tweaking for special keys). Use it for a little while, then go back to the onscreen keyboard. The experiences aren't even in the same league.
Multiple users achieving 50-70wps with a few different Android keyboards.
Alright, now show me a testing application where every error has to be corrected (which is trivial and fast on a hardware keyboard) and where the text consists of slightly more complex and less ubiquitous strings of characters than 'dog' and 'pony'. If you add word completion to typing on a hardware keyboard, it becomes even faster than it already is for 'normal' text.
Another great test is using ssh or any other command line on your phone using a onscreen keyboard. You'll be crying in a corner after three commands. Warning: you'll die of frustration if you try to use vi with an onscreen keyboard.
The structures of mushrooms more closely resemble the brain of mammals than almost anything.
Sure. Now show me where the visual cortex is in a fungal network. Or any reasonably discernable complex part with a specific function, for that matter. Big and connected network != highly organized network.
Even the simplest nervous system is more organized than a fungal network. Let's also not forget that the study in TFA tested the communication capabilities over a distance of about 5cm. I know everybody was visualizing huge fungal networks communicating cross-continent, but we're not quite there yet - to put it mildly.
complete with no substance yet full of appeal-to-emotion bullshit like "living wage" and "slavery."
This is an appeal to people to hate the Libertarians. More hate from the left, and ironically the one thing this man didn't quote from the person he replied to was about the intolerance and hate of the left-wing.
No, I think the average Joe won't be able to understand formulas at all
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You haven't talked to a lot of average Joes, have you? I've tutored some, and the two things holding back understanding are disdain for the subject among their peers and elitist assholes that approach them with condescension. Think about that the next time you curse at the people for not grasping basic statistics, voting like sheep or uttering stupidities.
The idiotic thing of course is that they 'disrupted' only 42 out of the 54 'terrorist-related activities', which means that 12 of those activities were not disrupted.
One could ask: so, what happened? Were they unable to do anything about more than 20% of the stuff they found out about? Or unwilling? Or were those activities just so insignificant and almost completely harmless that they could just let them take place?
1. I never said that people would somehow magically understand all equations. I said it would make them more understandable.
2. Actually, the equation in this case is (of course) equivalent to x = y * z. The meaning of the variables is what makes the equation interesting in the first place. And somehow you are arguing that using the word representing the meaning of a variable is pretty much identical to using an arbitrary almost ungoogleable single-letter symbolic representation of it when it comes to understanding what an equation using said variable means?
3. The problem is not 'remembering variable names'. The problem is finding out what the fuck they mean in the first place. Do you really believe that the average Joe when confronted with math in his (online) newspaper will be able to 'remember' what the symbol for standard deviation was? No, because if he's ever seen it at all, it was probably in a context where his mind wasn't really soaking up the knowledge, so to speak.
But, oddly, I just started testing myself due to some developing symptoms over the last few months, and I actually think I'm just now starting to develop lactose intolerance
I wasn't aware that one could develop such later in life. Anyway, I'm told that supplementation with lactase is very effective. Slightly expensive, but effective.
Ok, one last thing you might be interested by. This conversation directly prompted me to do two things to this dish I cooked just a couple nights ago. 1. Deglaze the pan: I do sometimes do this, but often don't bother. 2. Add sugar to the degalze. Because it was just calling for it. I was going to add rice-wine vinegar, but then figured it was really just the sweetness I was after.
I bet it tasted great;-) On my end, I've restarted my efforts to gradually decrease the amount of sugar I add to my coffee and tea as well as increased my vigilance in looking for hydrogenated oil on labels. And increased my appetite for vegetables, herbs and spices, of course.
I guess your code also only contains single-letter variables? Because it has absolutely no effect on readability or ease of understanding? You just 'remember' what the variables are? Especially when you're looking at somebody else's single-letter variable code?
Tell me, what's easier to understand for a layperson: F = ma or: force = mass * acceleration
It's really very simple. Rewrite any equation as a high level programming language expression, using (lots of) sensible variable names, and the equation becomes instantly more understandable for pretty much anyone.
Not only is it a lot easier to understand for people who understand what a standard deviation is, you'll also remember it much easier. Unless you don't speak English.
You need the formulas to verify your understanding and to verify the work.
I think that indicates that a lot of people would like to understand the equations, but that they just consider it too much effort.
The thing with a lot of equations is that they are too concise to be easy to understand. I'm going to make a programming analogy here: Looking at any sufficiently sizable and advanced formula is like looking at a sufficiently sizable and advanced regular expression. Sure, if you take the time to carefully examine the regular expression, you will find out what it matches for. It will take a lot more time, however, compared to the exact same regular expression split up into functionally named parts.
An example: pattern = "\b(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\b"
compared to: matchUpTo255 = "25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?" pattern = "\b("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\b"
The latter is obviously much simpler to understand, in part due to using a variable name that has meaning to a human. I'm not saying that using a similar approach for all equations is going to be an option or even desirable (simplifications could be overlooked), but when it comes to making them easily understandable to a broad audience: I'd rather see more of it!
That's irrelevant, what they are selling is bandwidth and there should be no restrictions on how you can use the bandwidth that you've paid for.
Technically, this is more about restrictions on the provider than the consumer. Net neutrality is about legally restricting what an ISP can offer you. Remember that you don't have to use their services. Technically.
The reality is that internet access has pretty much attained the status of being a utility service. Its (currently) private nature means that we need to have laws to prevent everybody from being fucked over. This does not qualify as the latter.
I suspect that linear scaling comes close enough for a ballpark estimate.
I wish I could find a graph, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Encoding a blue sky would be relatively more efficient in higher resolutions. IIRC, file size also doesnt scale linearly with frame rate, due to the generally relatively low amount of information added by the extra frames. Another thing not to forget is that a lot of the new digitally recorded material is generally fairly noise-free, which allows for huge savings in encoding.
At least here in the UK traditional exchange based ADSL is usually advertised "up to 8Mbps" (or sometimes more if the provider uses ADSL2+ gear) but what speed you actually get depends on the condition of your phone line and you don't get any discount if your line sucks.
True, although in general, ADSL2+ gear is fairly common. VDSL(2) is starting to become common. I'm assuming that most of the subscriptions will be artificially limited instead of technically limted. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the distribution of attained speeds is, so I'm downloading the netindex source data, in the hope that it will provide answers: http://www.netindex.com/source-data/
At the core of the problem is the poor quality of Internet service. I'm in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and the fastest Internet service available to me is 3Mbps. If I change ISPs and add channel bonding, I can push it up to the high single digits.
That is absolutely terrible. The slowest subscription I can find here is 8Mbps (~USD 22/month). That is enough to stream a decently x264 encoded AVC 1080p movie.
If I'm not mistaken, bitrate doesn't scale linearly with resolution, which means that 4k video wouldn't require 32Mbps for equal quality. In addition to that, HEVC is knocking on the door, and can apparently produce good quality 4k video at a 15 Mbps bitrate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding ).
All in all, I think that in a lot of the developed world, high quality video streaming is going to be a very viable option.
Clearly you absolutely refuse to learn anything from anyone.
Please, enlighten me as to what I should have 'learnt' from your previous post and how it is clear that I didn't.
Download open roads voyager
You're going to have to provide a link. Google doesn't find any pages containing "open roads voyager".
I'd like to stress that nowhere did I claim to be 100% sure of su applications not being (easily) exploitable. I said I'd be surprised if they were. Let me add that I would also be disappointed if they were.
When people open a root app and they get the same prompt they always get, they don't re-read it every time.
The reality is, however, is that people tick the 'always allow' checkbox and get suspicious when they get a prompt for an application they had previously given permanent access to root privileges. Having said that: there is no curing stupid. Giving applications root access is potentially dangerous and should be done with care.
I'd be surprised if su applications don't [control the video memory]
Welcome to surprised.
And the malware does control the video memory? Don't be silly. Are you implying that making a secure prompt (like the UAC prompt) is impossible in Android? If not, you'd have to show that the existing su applications don't to surprise me.
Slashdot Mirror
The mouth and nose area are also important indicators of (micro)emotion ( http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx ), which could explain why many people (and women especially, I've noticed) regularly glance at that area when they are talking themselves. I believe it is to gauge the emotional reaction of the conversation partner to what they are saying.
See also:
http://theconversation.com/face-value-where-to-look-when-you-want-to-read-someone-11219
In most of the images, it looks reasonable, but in a few it just looks a bit off somehow.
I'd call the latter a bit of an understatement: http://www.gizmag.com/skype-eye-contact/28843/pictures#3
The left guy in the right picture looks like he's changed race or even species.
Considering that these are undoubtedly the cherrypicked best results and that the example images are low resolution, I'd say that the technology needs some more work. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with the idea in itself.
Yes, terawatt-hours per year is a valid way to state average power. It's obfuscatory, though, because most people can't do a quick mental conversion based on the number of hours in a year.
No, that doesn't matter at all as the argument goes both ways, i.e.: if average power consumption is 1W, how many Wh is that in a year?
It just depends on what you are comparing with, and as it happens, for energy consumption/production on societal scales, Wh is apparently the convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
If the article had stated that one TWh is enough to supply 85,000 homes for a year, it would have been a coherent and perhaps useful statement -- but why not just carry out the rest of the calculation (1400 * 85000), and say that this has the potential to power almost 12 million homes?
For that matter, why not 1.4 petawatthour and 85 million homes? The conversion would have been even more natural and less error-prone ;-), as pretty much everyone should be able to easily mentally calculate what 1.4 * 85 comes close to.
Some quick Googling turns up US average household energy consumption of 6000 kWh, or 8900 kWh, or 14000 kWh, corresponding to average power consumption of 685 W, 1 kW, and 1.6 kW.
For the record: those are staggering amounts: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption
Then again, it is electricity only. I'm pretty sure that natural gas consumption changes the numbers quite a bit.
If the semantics I'm trying to salvage from the summary are correct, it's claiming a figure of 1340 W.
Actually,
1.4 Wh * 10^15 / 1 year =
1.4 Wh * 10^15 / (1*365*24h) =
1.4 W * 10^15 / 8760 =
1.4 / 8.76 * 10^12 W =~
160 * 10^9 W =~ 160 GW
That is pretty ridiculously high, of course. But then again, they're probably talking about the entire energy potential of all the coastal waters of the US, as opposed to what the pilot projects could deliver.
(I don't claim to be a unit-analysis wizard, but I was stating fuel efficiency in inverse acres years before XKCD covered it...)
Hehehe :-)
Any time someone talks about a power facility in terms of "terawatt-hours per year", they're either confused themselves, or they're trying to confuse you.
Actually, that specific bit makes complete sense. It's not exactly SI, but other than that, there is nothing wrong with it.
Power plants differ in how much useful energy they can generate at different times, so stating the (approximate) absolute amount of generated useful energy over a meaningful period of time is informative. The alternative would be to quote an average power output, which contains the same information.
An analogy that people can relate to:
watthour = egg
watt = chicken
power (verb) = feed
power (noun) = animals
energy = food
"The US Energy Department this week said it would spend $16 million for seventeen projects to help research and develop food generating systems from waves, tides and currents. The food agency says the US could generate up to 1,400 tera-eggs of potential animals per year. One tera-egg is enough to feed 85,000 homes, according to the agency."
As you can see, the mistakes are then readily apparent.
Actually, the biggest problem with reporting on sea levels is that the significant effects of gravity are often omitted:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt?page=0,0
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index.aspx?id=8912
Life is unfair, and who will have the biggest issues with rising sea levels seems in line with that.
don't care for it for my desktop largely due to price. For $60, I can get an 80GB SSD
Wat. There hasn't been a better way to spend $60 to upgrade the performance of your desktop since .. Well, ever. The only thing that comes close is adding a stick of RAM to a machine that is RAM-starved in the first place and has to swap to the HDD all the time.
I can understand choosing a normal HDD in a laptop as space is limited. But in a desktop?
How cheap do you want (80GB) SSDs to become before you plug one in? $30? $10?
My (technologically challenged) friends that have listened to my advice about putting an SSD in their new system worship the ground I walk on because of that advice (I might be exaggerating slightly here ;-). They all experience the same thing when going back to a machine without an SSD:
Huh..?
What's happening..?
I clicked on it, right?
Why is it..?
*hears HDD rattle*
Ah.
So, do you have any experience with doing similar things on a phone with a slide out hardware keyboard?
I use ssh frequently without much of an issue. Vim too. It's not the best experience [...]
That is an understatement, my friend. It is a terrible experience. There is little one could do to make it worse.
I take it you switch to a specialty 'programmers' onscreen keyboard and use your hardware volume buttons and camera button to emulate CTRL and ALT?
My slight hostility (born out of frustration) put aside: if you haven't recently, you should really try using a slide out keyboard phone in conjunction with ssh (if necessary with a little keymap tweaking for special keys). Use it for a little while, then go back to the onscreen keyboard. The experiences aren't even in the same league.
Multiple users achieving 50-70wps with a few different Android keyboards.
Alright, now show me a testing application where every error has to be corrected (which is trivial and fast on a hardware keyboard) and where the text consists of slightly more complex and less ubiquitous strings of characters than 'dog' and 'pony'. If you add word completion to typing on a hardware keyboard, it becomes even faster than it already is for 'normal' text.
Another great test is using ssh or any other command line on your phone using a onscreen keyboard. You'll be crying in a corner after three commands.
Warning: you'll die of frustration if you try to use vi with an onscreen keyboard.
Maybe half a decade ago, but slide-style keyboards like Swype and Google Keyboard are almost as fast as physical keys
Try typing a password or a marginally complex URL.
You'll simply give up and go back to browsing YouTube.
The structures of mushrooms more closely resemble the brain of mammals than almost anything.
Sure. Now show me where the visual cortex is in a fungal network. Or any reasonably discernable complex part with a specific function, for that matter.
Big and connected network != highly organized network.
Even the simplest nervous system is more organized than a fungal network. Let's also not forget that the study in TFA tested the communication capabilities over a distance of about 5cm. I know everybody was visualizing huge fungal networks communicating cross-continent, but we're not quite there yet - to put it mildly.
Whoosh.
complete with no substance yet full of appeal-to-emotion bullshit like "living wage" and "slavery."
This is an appeal to people to hate the Libertarians. More hate from the left, and ironically the one thing this man didn't quote from the person he replied to was about the intolerance and hate of the left-wing.
You're funny.
Blinded by tribalism, but funny.
No, I think the average Joe won't be able to understand formulas at all
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You haven't talked to a lot of average Joes, have you? I've tutored some, and the two things holding back understanding are disdain for the subject among their peers and elitist assholes that approach them with condescension. Think about that the next time you curse at the people for not grasping basic statistics, voting like sheep or uttering stupidities.
Also, thank you for conceding to my other points.
The idiotic thing of course is that they 'disrupted' only 42 out of the 54 'terrorist-related activities', which means that 12 of those activities were not disrupted.
One could ask: so, what happened?
Were they unable to do anything about more than 20% of the stuff they found out about? Or unwilling?
Or were those activities just so insignificant and almost completely harmless that they could just let them take place?
By the way, audio of the speech:
https://soundcloud.com/larrymagid/nsa-director-general-keith
1. I never said that people would somehow magically understand all equations. I said it would make them more understandable.
2. Actually, the equation in this case is (of course) equivalent to x = y * z. The meaning of the variables is what makes the equation interesting in the first place. And somehow you are arguing that using the word representing the meaning of a variable is pretty much identical to using an arbitrary almost ungoogleable single-letter symbolic representation of it when it comes to understanding what an equation using said variable means?
3. The problem is not 'remembering variable names'. The problem is finding out what the fuck they mean in the first place. Do you really believe that the average Joe when confronted with math in his (online) newspaper will be able to 'remember' what the symbol for standard deviation was? No, because if he's ever seen it at all, it was probably in a context where his mind wasn't really soaking up the knowledge, so to speak.
But, oddly, I just started testing myself due to some developing symptoms over the last few months, and I actually think I'm just now starting to develop lactose intolerance
I wasn't aware that one could develop such later in life. Anyway, I'm told that supplementation with lactase is very effective. Slightly expensive, but effective.
Ok, one last thing you might be interested by. This conversation directly prompted me to do two things to this dish I cooked just a couple nights ago. 1. Deglaze the pan: I do sometimes do this, but often don't bother. 2. Add sugar to the degalze. Because it was just calling for it. I was going to add rice-wine vinegar, but then figured it was really just the sweetness I was after.
I bet it tasted great ;-)
On my end, I've restarted my efforts to gradually decrease the amount of sugar I add to my coffee and tea as well as increased my vigilance in looking for hydrogenated oil on labels. And increased my appetite for vegetables, herbs and spices, of course.
I guess your code also only contains single-letter variables? Because it has absolutely no effect on readability or ease of understanding? You just 'remember' what the variables are? Especially when you're looking at somebody else's single-letter variable code?
Tell me, what's easier to understand for a layperson:
F = ma
or:
force = mass * acceleration
It's really very simple. Rewrite any equation as a high level programming language expression, using (lots of) sensible variable names, and the equation becomes instantly more understandable for pretty much anyone.
Look at the page for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
The first equation you see is completely meaningless to the uninitiated.
Lets rewrite it:
positionStandardDeviation * momentumStandardDeviation >= REDUCED_PLANCK_CONSTANT / 2
Not only is it a lot easier to understand for people who understand what a standard deviation is, you'll also remember it much easier.
Unless you don't speak English.
You need the formulas to verify your understanding and to verify the work.
I think that indicates that a lot of people would like to understand the equations, but that they just consider it too much effort.
The thing with a lot of equations is that they are too concise to be easy to understand. I'm going to make a programming analogy here: Looking at any sufficiently sizable and advanced formula is like looking at a sufficiently sizable and advanced regular expression. Sure, if you take the time to carefully examine the regular expression, you will find out what it matches for. It will take a lot more time, however, compared to the exact same regular expression split up into functionally named parts.
An example:
pattern = "\b(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\b"
compared to:
matchUpTo255 = "25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?"
pattern = "\b("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\.("+matchUpTo255+")\b"
The latter is obviously much simpler to understand, in part due to using a variable name that has meaning to a human. I'm not saying that using a similar approach for all equations is going to be an option or even desirable (simplifications could be overlooked), but when it comes to making them easily understandable to a broad audience: I'd rather see more of it!
That's irrelevant, what they are selling is bandwidth and there should be no restrictions on how you can use the bandwidth that you've paid for.
Technically, this is more about restrictions on the provider than the consumer.
Net neutrality is about legally restricting what an ISP can offer you. Remember that you don't have to use their services. Technically.
The reality is that internet access has pretty much attained the status of being a utility service. Its (currently) private nature means that we need to have laws to prevent everybody from being fucked over. This does not qualify as the latter.
I suspect that linear scaling comes close enough for a ballpark estimate.
I wish I could find a graph, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Encoding a blue sky would be relatively more efficient in higher resolutions.
IIRC, file size also doesnt scale linearly with frame rate, due to the generally relatively low amount of information added by the extra frames.
Another thing not to forget is that a lot of the new digitally recorded material is generally fairly noise-free, which allows for huge savings in encoding.
As always with video, seeing is believing. You should check out the sample material here: http://labs.divx.com/node/127909
or here: http://www.elecard.com/en/download/videos.html
The video bitrates just seem absolutely ridiculous, until you actually look at the videos and see the quality.
At least here in the UK traditional exchange based ADSL is usually advertised "up to 8Mbps" (or sometimes more if the provider uses ADSL2+ gear) but what speed you actually get depends on the condition of your phone line and you don't get any discount if your line sucks.
True, although in general, ADSL2+ gear is fairly common. VDSL(2) is starting to become common. I'm assuming that most of the subscriptions will be artificially limited instead of technically limted. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the distribution of attained speeds is, so I'm downloading the netindex source data, in the hope that it will provide answers: http://www.netindex.com/source-data/
At the core of the problem is the poor quality of Internet service. I'm in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and the fastest Internet service available to me is 3Mbps. If I change ISPs and add channel bonding, I can push it up to the high single digits.
That is absolutely terrible. The slowest subscription I can find here is 8Mbps (~USD 22/month). That is enough to stream a decently x264 encoded AVC 1080p movie.
If I'm not mistaken, bitrate doesn't scale linearly with resolution, which means that 4k video wouldn't require 32Mbps for equal quality. In addition to that, HEVC is knocking on the door, and can apparently produce good quality 4k video at a 15 Mbps bitrate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding ).
All in all, I think that in a lot of the developed world, high quality video streaming is going to be a very viable option.
How in the world can you spell?
Meh, I've seen funnier attempts at insults.
Clearly you absolutely refuse to learn anything from anyone.
Please, enlighten me as to what I should have 'learnt' from your previous post and how it is clear that I didn't.
Download open roads voyager
You're going to have to provide a link. Google doesn't find any pages containing "open roads voyager".
I'd like to stress that nowhere did I claim to be 100% sure of su applications not being (easily) exploitable. I said I'd be surprised if they were. Let me add that I would also be disappointed if they were.
When people open a root app and they get the same prompt they always get, they don't re-read it every time.
The reality is, however, is that people tick the 'always allow' checkbox and get suspicious when they get a prompt for an application they had previously given permanent access to root privileges. Having said that: there is no curing stupid. Giving applications root access is potentially dangerous and should be done with care.
I'd be surprised if su applications don't [control the video memory]
Welcome to surprised.
And the malware does control the video memory? Don't be silly.
Are you implying that making a secure prompt (like the UAC prompt) is impossible in Android? If not, you'd have to show that the existing su applications don't to surprise me.