A person with 20/20 visual acuity would need to sit 0.39 screen heights away to get the full benefit of the 4,320x7680 resolution. That would be 25 inches on a 65 inch diagonal TV.
This to me is the key issue so many people miss. Why is this comment only rated a 2? The 20/20 human eye can only resolve a minute of arc (Snellen Angle). One quibble - to view an 8k screen and discern the detail provided, you would have to sit 0.39 *diagonals* (not screen heights) away. This would be 25 inches for a 65 inch screen or 33 inches for an 85 inch screen. For a 4K screen, the farthest resolving distance is 0.78 diagonals, which would be 50 and 64 inches. Double those numbers again for a 1080 screen.
If you're not going to sit that close, you are wasting the resolution. You will not be able to discern the detail provided. It might as well not be there.
Hey! Hands off my Non 24! I've suffered from delayed sleep phase disorder all my life. And now that you mention it, where is the disability line? The rest of you normal-circadian-rhythm people owe me!
I'm not sure law degrees are the answer. Judges (and defense lawyers and JURIES) need some knowledge of technology, basic numeracy, and basic critical thinking skills. People (even lawyers) ignorant in these areas are too easy to fool =(
Or better yet, a Sawyer Mini which is cleanable, does not generate waste, lasts years, and is just as portable. It also attaches to standard water bottles so you don't have to suck water directly from the source. It's easy to set up a gravity-fed rig to get many gallons a day of safe drinking water. (you may want to prefilter with a cheap fuel filter). It costs USD$20 but since it lasts so long, cost per liter is low. The Sawyer is purely mechanical filtering, so there are no antibiotics that can breed superbugs. These are way better than lifestraws IMHO. I'm not affiliated with Sawyer. I've used them a lot for hiking and camping.
Every pound of fat has 3500 Calories in it. Every one of those Calories came in through the mouth. If they didn't, then the fat could not be there (conservation of energy). Hormones are chemical messengers and have no (significant) energy. If you do not overeat (consume more calories than you use) you CANNOT gain weight.
I don't think normal-sized people consuming 1800 to 2000 Cal/day with moderate activity levels will ever get fat. For example, the Mifflin equations say a 40 yo male, 5'8" (173cm), 150 lb (71kg) with a moderate activity level will require about 2470 Cal just to maintain their weight.
People love to blame hormones and "metabolism" and what (eg starch vs protein) they eat for being fat. Certainly to first order it's HOW MUCH they eat and not WHAT they eat that makes them fat. I know people who are always obsessing about their weight and are up on all the hormone, dietary composition, chocolate fad, etc stuff and have no actual clue HOW MUCH they are eating (in terms of calories).
It seems insane to me to try and jigger your metabolism to be higher (by adjusting dietary composition) rather than just eating a couple hundred Calories less a day. There is a general trend in the animal kingdom that lower metabolism animals live longer. Also, I believe there is fairly convincing evidence that people that stick to calorie-restricted diets end up being thin, have LOWER metabolisms, and live longer. I think it probable that low metabolism is a good thing. Like bogaboga said, If you want to lose weight, EAT LESS.
Slashdot Mirror
A person with 20/20 visual acuity would need to sit 0.39 screen heights away to get the full benefit of the 4,320x7680 resolution. That would be 25 inches on a 65 inch diagonal TV.
This to me is the key issue so many people miss. Why is this comment only rated a 2? The 20/20 human eye can only resolve a minute of arc (Snellen Angle). One quibble - to view an 8k screen and discern the detail provided, you would have to sit 0.39 *diagonals* (not screen heights) away. This would be 25 inches for a 65 inch screen or 33 inches for an 85 inch screen. For a 4K screen, the farthest resolving distance is 0.78 diagonals, which would be 50 and 64 inches. Double those numbers again for a 1080 screen. If you're not going to sit that close, you are wasting the resolution. You will not be able to discern the detail provided. It might as well not be there.
Hey! Hands off my Non 24! I've suffered from delayed sleep phase disorder all my life. And now that you mention it, where is the disability line? The rest of you normal-circadian-rhythm people owe me!
I'm not sure law degrees are the answer. Judges (and defense lawyers and JURIES) need some knowledge of technology, basic numeracy, and basic critical thinking skills. People (even lawyers) ignorant in these areas are too easy to fool =(
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge. Alfred North Whitehead
Or better yet, a Sawyer Mini which is cleanable, does not generate waste, lasts years, and is just as portable. It also attaches to standard water bottles so you don't have to suck water directly from the source. It's easy to set up a gravity-fed rig to get many gallons a day of safe drinking water. (you may want to prefilter with a cheap fuel filter). It costs USD$20 but since it lasts so long, cost per liter is low. The Sawyer is purely mechanical filtering, so there are no antibiotics that can breed superbugs. These are way better than lifestraws IMHO. I'm not affiliated with Sawyer. I've used them a lot for hiking and camping.
Every pound of fat has 3500 Calories in it. Every one of those Calories came in through the mouth. If they didn't, then the fat could not be there (conservation of energy). Hormones are chemical messengers and have no (significant) energy. If you do not overeat (consume more calories than you use) you CANNOT gain weight. I don't think normal-sized people consuming 1800 to 2000 Cal/day with moderate activity levels will ever get fat. For example, the Mifflin equations say a 40 yo male, 5'8" (173cm), 150 lb (71kg) with a moderate activity level will require about 2470 Cal just to maintain their weight. People love to blame hormones and "metabolism" and what (eg starch vs protein) they eat for being fat. Certainly to first order it's HOW MUCH they eat and not WHAT they eat that makes them fat. I know people who are always obsessing about their weight and are up on all the hormone, dietary composition, chocolate fad, etc stuff and have no actual clue HOW MUCH they are eating (in terms of calories). It seems insane to me to try and jigger your metabolism to be higher (by adjusting dietary composition) rather than just eating a couple hundred Calories less a day. There is a general trend in the animal kingdom that lower metabolism animals live longer. Also, I believe there is fairly convincing evidence that people that stick to calorie-restricted diets end up being thin, have LOWER metabolisms, and live longer. I think it probable that low metabolism is a good thing. Like bogaboga said, If you want to lose weight, EAT LESS.