The controversy is about Netflix refusing to screen their films in theaters
But that is not even true, as they did put Roma in a small number of theaters.
The story is about Speilburg saying Netflix doesn't belong even if they do that, because they offer only a TV experience.
What I am saying, is that at this point for a lot of people from a quality standpoint, TV viewing and theater viewing now kind of overlap in terms of quality. Depending on your weighting of importance for aspects of viewing (like distraction free viewing) a better viewing (or at least comparable) can easily be had at home now. So it's not a good argument to say Netflix is only offering a TV like experience, when it can rival theaters... I liked Bird Box as much as a lot of things I've seen in theaters.
In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9ÂC, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying âoethermal lagâ is going to take place. It is clear that thereâ(TM)ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter.
In a lot of movie theaters today, aren't the screens rather small? I use a projector and I tend to think the field of view for the movies I watch is not really that much different than movies theaters I've been in (apart from IMAX of course). With so many very large screen TV's around these days it seems like this would be true of a lot of people.
I would say without hesitation the audio is WAY better than most movie theaters as I can hear it instead of a muddy mess.
And of course, it doesn't have other people distracting you while watching...
If you really value the cinematic experience, value the home theater for that is where people are truly WATCHING movies as opposed to just killing time.
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature.
That on the face of it should raise red flags. It's not like we have highly accurate data on just about anything related to the ocean going back very far at all, and they claim they have separated out the effects of an unknown amount of warming from an equally unknown amount of overfishing? Yeahhhhh I'm going to need them to work over the weekend on that one.
Sorry but I call bullshit on the whole facade. The only thing of value is studying how different fish populations react to actual warming, but then what do you do with that info when you have no way to really know at the moment if the oceans will warm appreciably at all (and that is even if the climate warms much at all which is also not really a known factor)?
This almost could be construed as an attempt to white-wash over serious overfishing issues that industry and governments are loathe to acknowledge. If you read fishing stories from the 40's-50's set in Florida, you know there were massive populations of huge tuna (each one a ton or more) just sailing around, and a lot of other abundant fish that you can't find much of anymore. None of that was affected by the ocean being 0.00001 degrees warmer on the first foot of the ocean surface...
Turns out there was a major problem with the study it said it was.
Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Google is working on a fix and has disabled Google Photos screensavers in the meantime.
This stinks not only in that your photos might be exposed, but suddenly a feature you expected to be there to show off some photos of your own to others is disabled. So literally other people could now see your photos in a way you cannot (if they somehow blocked the shut-off update).
Use a *mobile device* for logging in somewhere? That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. I wouldn't trust a mobile device for anything that requires security.
That's kind of hilarious because the OPPOSITE is true. You are an idiot if you trust any desktop OS to truly secure material, with years of hidden security holes and apps not really that well sandboxed.
I only deal with banks now through mobile apps if I can help it, because it is WAY more secure. I can control what updates go on my device, I can be far more sure that some random app cannot see what is going on with the banking app.
most people load them up with all sorts of "apps" that are actually tracking/monitoring programs.
Only while I'm using the apps. I'm on iOS, I choose what and when they can see anything related to what I am doing.
Yet the federal government has done nothing about it, largely due to the telecom lobbyists. But local governments are taking notice and passing laws.
Wow, they passed some laws! Awesome! Then in areas where they have passed laws, citizens have entirely stopped using phones in cars, just as they have stopped speeding thanks to local speed limits.
Oh wait. In fact the laws have exactly ZERO effect on behavior apart from the state mining slightly more money from citizens. Just as people still speed, people still use phones in cases because people are people.
If you actually cared about dangers of cell phones use in cars, you would push for something that actually resulted in less danger from that activity - basically meaning a big push for autonomous or semi-autonomous driving abilities for all cars. But how much money would that earn the Sate? None, that's how much - in fact it would be a tremendous loss from speeding and cell phone use fines never to be collected.
CDs get lost, burn up in fires, get scratch, lots of things happen. streaming services generally are a much better way to preserve the files.
You think that right up until your streaming service of choice suddenly drops some music you listen to often. There is more music than you think that can drift in and out of music service coverage... this has happened to my wife before.
With a CD, as long as you can read it once you are golden. Just digitize it yourself - using a service like iTunes Match even means you can still listen to it even if it's not on the streaming service the company offers. (not sure what companies besides Apple offer something like iTunes Match).
The French trains are OK, I've used them a few times - they are not dramatically fast compared to most other countries though, and because of the very real threat of strikes I would be leery of relying on them too much for crucial connections. It worked out fine when we took them to a few destinations outside of Paris.
The Chunnel train to London is probably more of an exception though in terms of being more reliable, I'm not sure that is as affected by strikes since it's more crucial.
I just assumed it was not UK only, otherwise what is the point?
But even if it were not, from recent years of British TV I seriously have doubts of BBC to produce enough content of value to challenge Netflix in any market. In the heyday of Dr. Who they might have managed but not any longer (I stopped watching Dr. Who a few doctors ago as the quality just went down and down).
Funny, as I was reading my original post before I read your response I noticed that typo instantly. You deserved some +1funny mods for that with such a great handover...
People who insist on fashion aren't even in the market
There has actually so much publicity around this all I can assume is that you are a liar.
Didn't even read the rest of your post, nor will I read a response as I find it pointless to discuss anything with people who simply lie outright to try and "win".
From the summary Infra-red shows up as green for the mice; so presumably the mice lost colour depth perception
The rest of the colors should be visible normally - all that happens is that some infra-red wavelengths are transformed into green light the eye can see. Normal wavelengths would not be altered.
iterative improvements on their own (iMac Pro, Mac mini) or other people's (Watch, AirPods) products.
I'll grant the Mac improvements were more iterative.
But AirPods and the Apple Watch were not at all iterative. AirPods had quite a lot of innovation all in one, from the charging case to the custom pairing method that was WAY easier than any other bluetooth device I had ever set up before.
The Apple Watch even moreso - just like with the iPhone, it seems like no-one can remember what a horrible piece of crap smart watches were before the Apple Watch. I know as I had a few Pebbles - I really, really wanted that platform to do well but there way simply no denying how much heads and shoulders better the AppleWatch was by any measure. It was a true leap and the truth of that is evident in how weak competition is against it even now, years later.
Slashdot Mirror
The controversy is about Netflix refusing to screen their films in theaters
But that is not even true, as they did put Roma in a small number of theaters.
The story is about Speilburg saying Netflix doesn't belong even if they do that, because they offer only a TV experience.
What I am saying, is that at this point for a lot of people from a quality standpoint, TV viewing and theater viewing now kind of overlap in terms of quality. Depending on your weighting of importance for aspects of viewing (like distraction free viewing) a better viewing (or at least comparable) can easily be had at home now. So it's not a good argument to say Netflix is only offering a TV like experience, when it can rival theaters... I liked Bird Box as much as a lot of things I've seen in theaters.
The movie theater I go to for most of my movies (because its the cheapest in town) has a 25 meter screen
Yes but how far away do you sit from it?
The projection system is for sure better than a home projector or really large TV... but then again you are much farther from the screen.
Saying that the top few feet of ocean warming isn't going to dramatically effect the rest of the ocean is silly. Of course its going to effect it.
Not really.
In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9ÂC, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying âoethermal lagâ is going to take place. It is clear that thereâ(TM)ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter.
In a lot of movie theaters today, aren't the screens rather small? I use a projector and I tend to think the field of view for the movies I watch is not really that much different than movies theaters I've been in (apart from IMAX of course). With so many very large screen TV's around these days it seems like this would be true of a lot of people.
I would say without hesitation the audio is WAY better than most movie theaters as I can hear it instead of a muddy mess.
And of course, it doesn't have other people distracting you while watching...
If you really value the cinematic experience, value the home theater for that is where people are truly WATCHING movies as opposed to just killing time.
Nice try but your last link was already debunked.
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature.
That on the face of it should raise red flags. It's not like we have highly accurate data on just about anything related to the ocean going back very far at all, and they claim they have separated out the effects of an unknown amount of warming from an equally unknown amount of overfishing? Yeahhhhh I'm going to need them to work over the weekend on that one.
Sorry but I call bullshit on the whole facade. The only thing of value is studying how different fish populations react to actual warming, but then what do you do with that info when you have no way to really know at the moment if the oceans will warm appreciably at all (and that is even if the climate warms much at all which is also not really a known factor)?
This almost could be construed as an attempt to white-wash over serious overfishing issues that industry and governments are loathe to acknowledge. If you read fishing stories from the 40's-50's set in Florida, you know there were massive populations of huge tuna (each one a ton or more) just sailing around, and a lot of other abundant fish that you can't find much of anymore. None of that was affected by the ocean being 0.00001 degrees warmer on the first foot of the ocean surface...
Oh,you believe in Aquaculture?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Not to mention we can switch to eating invasive species like Lionfish that there are plenty of.
Who even owns these devices? I never met anyone in my entire life with such a thing.
I have to admit the only surprise for me in this story, was that anyone had uploaded photos on these devices to find...
Turns out there was a major problem with the study it said it was.
Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Prices are rising and there seems no end to it. I expect this to get worse with climate change.
If the Earth is getting warming it would mean a lot of Northern areas that are currently more undesirable to live in would have a better climate.
What that means is vastly more livable land areas than the relatively tiny amount of coast lost fo rising oceans.
If you really think the world is warming the smart move is to buy real estate somewhere overly cold now and reap the benefits later.
Google is working on a fix and has disabled Google Photos screensavers in the meantime.
This stinks not only in that your photos might be exposed, but suddenly a feature you expected to be there to show off some photos of your own to others is disabled. So literally other people could now see your photos in a way you cannot (if they somehow blocked the shut-off update).
Use a *mobile device* for logging in somewhere? That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. I wouldn't trust a mobile device for anything that requires security.
That's kind of hilarious because the OPPOSITE is true. You are an idiot if you trust any desktop OS to truly secure material, with years of hidden security holes and apps not really that well sandboxed.
I only deal with banks now through mobile apps if I can help it, because it is WAY more secure. I can control what updates go on my device, I can be far more sure that some random app cannot see what is going on with the banking app.
most people load them up with all sorts of "apps" that are actually tracking/monitoring programs.
Only while I'm using the apps. I'm on iOS, I choose what and when they can see anything related to what I am doing.
Yet the federal government has done nothing about it, largely due to the telecom lobbyists. But local governments are taking notice and passing laws.
Wow, they passed some laws! Awesome! Then in areas where they have passed laws, citizens have entirely stopped using phones in cars, just as they have stopped speeding thanks to local speed limits.
Oh wait. In fact the laws have exactly ZERO effect on behavior apart from the state mining slightly more money from citizens. Just as people still speed, people still use phones in cases because people are people.
If you actually cared about dangers of cell phones use in cars, you would push for something that actually resulted in less danger from that activity - basically meaning a big push for autonomous or semi-autonomous driving abilities for all cars. But how much money would that earn the Sate? None, that's how much - in fact it would be a tremendous loss from speeding and cell phone use fines never to be collected.
CDs get lost, burn up in fires, get scratch, lots of things happen. streaming services generally are a much better way to preserve the files.
You think that right up until your streaming service of choice suddenly drops some music you listen to often. There is more music than you think that can drift in and out of music service coverage... this has happened to my wife before.
With a CD, as long as you can read it once you are golden. Just digitize it yourself - using a service like iTunes Match even means you can still listen to it even if it's not on the streaming service the company offers. (not sure what companies besides Apple offer something like iTunes Match).
The French trains are OK, I've used them a few times - they are not dramatically fast compared to most other countries though, and because of the very real threat of strikes I would be leery of relying on them too much for crucial connections. It worked out fine when we took them to a few destinations outside of Paris.
The Chunnel train to London is probably more of an exception though in terms of being more reliable, I'm not sure that is as affected by strikes since it's more crucial.
Just threats, the police probably wouldn't do anything - actual harassing phone calls or emails they might, because now they have something to trace.
I do wonder what the heck he was doing in CoD that irked people so much they went to that kind of trouble...
Maybe it has an impact on memory...
What addiction would be related to breathing suppression
Hey man, I did say sea-urchins.
Also have you HEARD a heavy smoker trying to breathe?
As long as the service is UK-only
I just assumed it was not UK only, otherwise what is the point?
But even if it were not, from recent years of British TV I seriously have doubts of BBC to produce enough content of value to challenge Netflix in any market. In the heyday of Dr. Who they might have managed but not any longer (I stopped watching Dr. Who a few doctors ago as the quality just went down and down).
Funny, as I was reading my original post before I read your response I noticed that typo instantly. You deserved some +1funny mods for that with such a great handover...
I was wondering the same thing, he's not much of a cautionary tale if we have no idea what to beware of...
Cigarettes? Pachinko parlors? Mainlining sea-urchins?
People who insist on fashion aren't even in the market
There has actually so much publicity around this all I can assume is that you are a liar.
Didn't even read the rest of your post, nor will I read a response as I find it pointless to discuss anything with people who simply lie outright to try and "win".
Straighten up buddy.
From the summary Infra-red shows up as green for the mice; so presumably the mice lost colour depth perception
The rest of the colors should be visible normally - all that happens is that some infra-red wavelengths are transformed into green light the eye can see. Normal wavelengths would not be altered.
Yeah, why have one general purpose IoT device rather than two dozen single-purpose IoT devices?
Wy indeed, I guess you'd rather have one internet connected microphone than ten dumb button-only units...
iterative improvements on their own (iMac Pro, Mac mini) or other people's (Watch, AirPods) products.
I'll grant the Mac improvements were more iterative.
But AirPods and the Apple Watch were not at all iterative. AirPods had quite a lot of innovation all in one, from the charging case to the custom pairing method that was WAY easier than any other bluetooth device I had ever set up before.
The Apple Watch even moreso - just like with the iPhone, it seems like no-one can remember what a horrible piece of crap smart watches were before the Apple Watch. I know as I had a few Pebbles - I really, really wanted that platform to do well but there way simply no denying how much heads and shoulders better the AppleWatch was by any measure. It was a true leap and the truth of that is evident in how weak competition is against it even now, years later.