But Snotnose, you don't get to do that, not even if you pay a subscription fee, everyone knows that, silly!
What sort of bad citizen are you, anyway, that you dare to want to deprive these poor, starving media companies of your money? Don't you know they'll cry if if they can't make their Porche and BMW payments? You don't want to make them cry, do you, you meanie!
You should gleefully pay your subscription fee, then faithfully watch all the commercials, and be sure to take the Commercial Content Competency Quiz afterwards, so everyone is sure the ad content fully penetrated your consciousness! xD
Nah. Next thing they'll do is make you take a multiple-choice quiz at the end of every commercial, and if you fail you have to watch the commerical again and take the quiz again. xD
All the cord-cutters who really went from the cable TV 'cord' to the Internet 'cord' (and now still pay for TV, 'streaming' or not) will at some point scream and throw fits because eventually the commercials will be at least as bad if not worse than they were on cable TV. I may just laugh myself to death if they do something like prevent you from muting your sound or minimizing your browser when the ads come on; guess you can just turn off your speakers/take off your headphones, and turn off the monitor if it bugs you so much.. oh, wait, I know what they should do: make you solve a CAPTCHA within a certain amount of time after a commercial ends, otherwise it plays another commercial. xD Then you'll have to be paying attention one way or the other. xD
Yeah sure, and historically speaking, how many warlords have done anything other than conquer their neighbors, then their neighbors, and so on, and so on, in building their empire? The Moon would be an exception simply because it's not part of the Earth, but I could also argue that the Moon is every nations' neighbor, since there's one step to getting there from your country: a rocket. You're not making a good argument for your point at all.
First of all, we are not 'designed'. We have evolved, please be more careful in your choice of terms. Furthermore, while some distant (i.e. likely on the order of X*10^6 years ago) hominid ancestor of ours might have been herbivorous, homo sapiens are clearly not; as previously stated, we have been evolving into omnivores for at least hundreds of thousands of years. We cannot change our dietary requirements on a whim any more than someone can just change the color of their eyes through a sheer act of will. You can argue against this all you want but the facts do not support your claims. In fact there is evidence suggesting that starting to become omnivorous may have been a major contributing factor in our developing the level of intelligence we now take for granted.
There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.
Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.
Meanwhile fossil fuels are not only helping destroy the environment of the planet we live on, but they're also a limited resource. So-called 'renewables' are not a limited resource, by definition. We need to move away from polluting, limited resources, and towards non-polluting, renewable resouces. People are creatures of habit; they're not going to change without a reason to do so. You have two basic philosophies to help you motivate them: carrot, or stick. Subsidies are the carrot; taxes are the stick. People greatly prefer the carrot. Make renewables, and electric vehicles, more affordable for a while until they're well-established, and the move to them will be self-sustaining. Meanwhile make fossil fuels more and more unattractive (the stick), and people will shy away from them. Eventually: mission accomplished. Away from fossil fuels and towards alternatives is the direction we inevitably need to go. Meanwhile Trump wants to turn all this upside down, and use the Stick on the alternatives, and give the Carrot to the Old Ways. He is clearly wrong.
Hey Fred we only have so much bandwidth on the wire and we need to add another hundred channels!
No problem Steve, just crank the compression rate from 50% to 90%, idiot customers won't know the difference, LOL!
Someone walks up to you and says:
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, help me spread this weaponized virus that will kill 90% of the humans on the planet, then stop and leave us alone! ..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
Someone else walks up to you and says:
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, take this bomb and go blow up that Mosque full of muslims, then take this assault rifle and go kill as many blacks as you can! ..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Humans have been -- and still are -- evolving into omnivores for hundreds of thousands of years now. No moral choice can re-sequence your DNA and magically turn you into an herbivore.
Yes, I've heard this, and I'm sure there will be push-back on that, for some reasons I've already stated: people who already invested in TVs that work just fine and will continue to work fine for years and years to come, now being told, again, too soon, that they're obsolete.
You know attention-whoring types, who post every little thing they do all day every day on Facebook or Twitter? Do you want that to be your life, by default, with no way to stop it? That's what many corporations and governments want: to have eyes and ears on you 24/7/365. Just look at China: that's precisely what they're doing. Do you want that to happen in your country? I don't think you do. Fight to take back your right to a private life. Don't make excuses about why you can't, because you can.
Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.
I agree, it probably does. The questions are, though, how long will that take, and how much collateral damage will occur in the meantime? Also doesn't help if the government doesn't punish corporations for being bad, or worse, encourages them.
You're missing the point I was making. When, 10 years ago, I dumped cable TV and started using an antenna for OTA broadcast TV, the thing I noticed immediately was that during motion on the screen the compression artifacts were at least an order of magnitude less than with cable. Cable TV (and perhaps satellite) re-compresses the content to a higher extent to fit all those hundreds of channels onto the limited bandwidth of the wire, so they can claim 1080 resolution on as many channels as possible. It's a falsehood; it's technically true, but the quality is overall lower. You don't notice it during static scenes, or scenes where there is little motion, but during high motion you really notice it. Not so much with OTA broadcasts, because they don't 'overbook' the available bandwidth of their channel like cable does. This is just 1080 we're talking about; now apply this to 8k over cable and you see where it could be a real problem.
I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is that in their drive to make this a 'new standard', they force people who otherwise were perfectly satisfied with what they have, to either buy something they can't or don't want to afford, or be left without. I suppose there'll be 'converter boxes' like they had at the OTA HD changeover, but that'll break things for many people just like those converter boxes did. In my case for instance, I'd have to toss out TiVo because the internal tuners would no longer be compatible and TiVo itself wouldn't interface with the external tuner. That's hundreds and hundreds of dollars to upgrade.
Is this really going to be better? Or is it just a solution in search of a problem, and driven by an industrys' need to continue to increase profits?
Unless you have a theatre-sized 8k screen, does this really make any difference over 1080?
What about OTA signals? How much bandwidth does an 8k full-resolution signal need? How much will compression affect picture quality during motion?
Then there's cable and satellite companies. I can't speak for satellite, but I know that the dirty little secret of cable TV is the content is re-compressed to within an inch of it's life, so they can fit those hundreds of channels into the available bandwidth. The result is poor picture quality during motion. How bad will it be for 8k?
Even over the Internet, bandwidth will be large, won't it? Again: compression. Also: data caps.
I think the TV industry knows that once someone buys a TV, that's that for up to, say, 10 years? If nothing changes, and the set still works like it's supposed to, no one goes out and buys a replacement. If you build shitty TVs that break every couple years, people complain and won't buy from you, so you can't just build poorly and get repeat sales that way. So, hey, let's keep 'upgrading' the standards every so often, just so we can make people feel like their current set is 'obsolete', regardless of whether it's still in perfect working order, so we can sell them a brand-new one! Brilliant idea! Except I think it's already at the point of diminishing returns. Does the average person even care about this? Or is 1080 more than enough? Does the average person have a ten foot TV in their house? What really makes this worth having? Just not convinced it's worthwhile. Going from a CRT TV that could only handle standard definition NTSC signals to an HDTV that can handle 1080p was great, don't regret it, but this? Not convinced.
Why do you think I don't use so-called 'social media'? Why do you think I don't use my real name online anywhere, unless it's some sort of official business, in which case it's not publicly posted anyway? Why do you think I don't put my address on my resume if I have to post it online? I wouldn't put my phone number on it either if I thought I could do that and still get taken seriously, and I use a different email address on it, one I can abandon if it get shitted up too much with spam.
Slashdot Mirror
But Snotnose, you don't get to do that, not even if you pay a subscription fee, everyone knows that, silly!
What sort of bad citizen are you, anyway, that you dare to want to deprive these poor, starving media companies of your money? Don't you know they'll cry if if they can't make their Porche and BMW payments? You don't want to make them cry, do you, you meanie!
You should gleefully pay your subscription fee, then faithfully watch all the commercials, and be sure to take the Commercial Content Competency Quiz afterwards, so everyone is sure the ad content fully penetrated your consciousness! xD
Nah. Next thing they'll do is make you take a multiple-choice quiz at the end of every commercial, and if you fail you have to watch the commerical again and take the quiz again. xD
All the cord-cutters who really went from the cable TV 'cord' to the Internet 'cord' (and now still pay for TV, 'streaming' or not) will at some point scream and throw fits because eventually the commercials will be at least as bad if not worse than they were on cable TV. I may just laugh myself to death if they do something like prevent you from muting your sound or minimizing your browser when the ads come on; guess you can just turn off your speakers/take off your headphones, and turn off the monitor if it bugs you so much.. oh, wait, I know what they should do: make you solve a CAPTCHA within a certain amount of time after a commercial ends, otherwise it plays another commercial. xD Then you'll have to be paying attention one way or the other. xD
With someone like Trump in office, it must be at least 10 times harder to keep people out who would want to kill him.
Yeah sure, and historically speaking, how many warlords have done anything other than conquer their neighbors, then their neighbors, and so on, and so on, in building their empire? The Moon would be an exception simply because it's not part of the Earth, but I could also argue that the Moon is every nations' neighbor, since there's one step to getting there from your country: a rocket. You're not making a good argument for your point at all.
First of all, we are not 'designed'. We have evolved, please be more careful in your choice of terms. Furthermore, while some distant (i.e. likely on the order of X*10^6 years ago) hominid ancestor of ours might have been herbivorous, homo sapiens are clearly not; as previously stated, we have been evolving into omnivores for at least hundreds of thousands of years. We cannot change our dietary requirements on a whim any more than someone can just change the color of their eyes through a sheer act of will. You can argue against this all you want but the facts do not support your claims. In fact there is evidence suggesting that starting to become omnivorous may have been a major contributing factor in our developing the level of intelligence we now take for granted.
There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.
Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.
Right now would be a lovely time for someone to discover an alien spacecraft sitting on the farside of the Moon.
..or earlier, and he tries to do that by fiat.
Meanwhile fossil fuels are not only helping destroy the environment of the planet we live on, but they're also a limited resource. So-called 'renewables' are not a limited resource, by definition. We need to move away from polluting, limited resources, and towards non-polluting, renewable resouces. People are creatures of habit; they're not going to change without a reason to do so. You have two basic philosophies to help you motivate them: carrot, or stick. Subsidies are the carrot; taxes are the stick. People greatly prefer the carrot. Make renewables, and electric vehicles, more affordable for a while until they're well-established, and the move to them will be self-sustaining. Meanwhile make fossil fuels more and more unattractive (the stick), and people will shy away from them. Eventually: mission accomplished. Away from fossil fuels and towards alternatives is the direction we inevitably need to go. Meanwhile Trump wants to turn all this upside down, and use the Stick on the alternatives, and give the Carrot to the Old Ways. He is clearly wrong.
Reducing the bitrate for the same resolution and framerate == increasing the compression
Anything else?
Listen ASSHOLE, there was NO REASON TO BRING RACE INTO THIS. Fuck the fuck off.
Hey Fred we only have so much bandwidth on the wire and we need to add another hundred channels!
No problem Steve, just crank the compression rate from 50% to 90%, idiot customers won't know the difference, LOL!
Do you get it now???
Oh okay I'll just stop talking about this because (You) say nobody cares.
WRONG! You have to keep talking about it so the message spreads.
Someone walks up to you and says:
..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
..what do you mean you won't help me, I said I want to improve the world!
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, help me spread this weaponized virus that will kill 90% of the humans on the planet, then stop and leave us alone!
Someone else walks up to you and says:
Hey, I want to improve the world, too! Here, take this bomb and go blow up that Mosque full of muslims, then take this assault rifle and go kill as many blacks as you can!
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Humans have been -- and still are -- evolving into omnivores for hundreds of thousands of years now. No moral choice can re-sequence your DNA and magically turn you into an herbivore.
How about 'stay the fuck out of my house and leave me the fuck alone'?
Yes, I've heard this, and I'm sure there will be push-back on that, for some reasons I've already stated: people who already invested in TVs that work just fine and will continue to work fine for years and years to come, now being told, again, too soon, that they're obsolete.
You know attention-whoring types, who post every little thing they do all day every day on Facebook or Twitter? Do you want that to be your life, by default, with no way to stop it? That's what many corporations and governments want: to have eyes and ears on you 24/7/365. Just look at China: that's precisely what they're doing. Do you want that to happen in your country? I don't think you do. Fight to take back your right to a private life. Don't make excuses about why you can't, because you can.
Trollololol. GTFO.
Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.
I agree, it probably does. The questions are, though, how long will that take, and how much collateral damage will occur in the meantime? Also doesn't help if the government doesn't punish corporations for being bad, or worse, encourages them.
You're missing the point I was making. When, 10 years ago, I dumped cable TV and started using an antenna for OTA broadcast TV, the thing I noticed immediately was that during motion on the screen the compression artifacts were at least an order of magnitude less than with cable. Cable TV (and perhaps satellite) re-compresses the content to a higher extent to fit all those hundreds of channels onto the limited bandwidth of the wire, so they can claim 1080 resolution on as many channels as possible. It's a falsehood; it's technically true, but the quality is overall lower. You don't notice it during static scenes, or scenes where there is little motion, but during high motion you really notice it. Not so much with OTA broadcasts, because they don't 'overbook' the available bandwidth of their channel like cable does. This is just 1080 we're talking about; now apply this to 8k over cable and you see where it could be a real problem.
AC, that actually sounds hellish. No privacy. 1984 much, AC?
I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is that in their drive to make this a 'new standard', they force people who otherwise were perfectly satisfied with what they have, to either buy something they can't or don't want to afford, or be left without. I suppose there'll be 'converter boxes' like they had at the OTA HD changeover, but that'll break things for many people just like those converter boxes did. In my case for instance, I'd have to toss out TiVo because the internal tuners would no longer be compatible and TiVo itself wouldn't interface with the external tuner. That's hundreds and hundreds of dollars to upgrade.
Is this really going to be better? Or is it just a solution in search of a problem, and driven by an industrys' need to continue to increase profits?
Unless you have a theatre-sized 8k screen, does this really make any difference over 1080?
What about OTA signals? How much bandwidth does an 8k full-resolution signal need? How much will compression affect picture quality during motion?
Then there's cable and satellite companies. I can't speak for satellite, but I know that the dirty little secret of cable TV is the content is re-compressed to within an inch of it's life, so they can fit those hundreds of channels into the available bandwidth. The result is poor picture quality during motion. How bad will it be for 8k?
Even over the Internet, bandwidth will be large, won't it? Again: compression. Also: data caps.
I think the TV industry knows that once someone buys a TV, that's that for up to, say, 10 years? If nothing changes, and the set still works like it's supposed to, no one goes out and buys a replacement. If you build shitty TVs that break every couple years, people complain and won't buy from you, so you can't just build poorly and get repeat sales that way. So, hey, let's keep 'upgrading' the standards every so often, just so we can make people feel like their current set is 'obsolete', regardless of whether it's still in perfect working order, so we can sell them a brand-new one! Brilliant idea! Except I think it's already at the point of diminishing returns. Does the average person even care about this? Or is 1080 more than enough? Does the average person have a ten foot TV in their house? What really makes this worth having? Just not convinced it's worthwhile. Going from a CRT TV that could only handle standard definition NTSC signals to an HDTV that can handle 1080p was great, don't regret it, but this? Not convinced.
Why do you think I don't use so-called 'social media'? Why do you think I don't use my real name online anywhere, unless it's some sort of official business, in which case it's not publicly posted anyway? Why do you think I don't put my address on my resume if I have to post it online? I wouldn't put my phone number on it either if I thought I could do that and still get taken seriously, and I use a different email address on it, one I can abandon if it get shitted up too much with spam.