40 ms of latency would actually be grotesquely bad unless corrected for by software.
It really wouldn't be: the vast majority of displays/TVs add more delay to the video than that, for example. You won't notice lipsync issues at 40ms, which is less than one frame of 23.976fps video. I'm going to call BS on a sub-frame amount of delay being an issue, and I'm speaking as somebody who's overly sensitive to latency issues and tries to stick to CRTs for retro gaming.
iOS may be overly aggressive with power management, but at least it consistently connects with AAC. Getting OS X to connect with AAC is a huge pain in the neck, and bluetooth range/reliability is pretty poor on a macbook compared to an iPhone. So at least the iPhone "just works" and works reliably. When I'm listening to music, the power management isn't an issue. When I'm watching a video on a mobile device (and not a PC or TV), I'm usually traveling somewhere and wouldn't be pausing too often.
> Gone are the days when the left and right speaker are in perfect sync.
That is only a potential problem when using earbuds that aren't connected. Regular bluetooth headphones and earbuds are accepting a single stereo audio stream, and don't have that problem.
> Gone are the days when your audio and video were in sync.
I don't see why the external audio DAC in the lightning headphone adapter should have any more latency than the internal DAC in the previous iPhones did. That said, the 40ms latency of aptX LL is quick enough to avoid any perceptible sync issues. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't support it, or regular aptX for that matter.
The rumour on the iPhone 7 is that they had intended for a more substantial redesign. A move to OLED, the removal of the home button, touch ID directly on the screen instead of a separate button, etc. They wanted to turn the entire front of the phone into a big display. Unfortunately, things weren't ready, so the iPhone 7 was their fallback plan.
Well, quantum dots are actually a thing, and they are appropriately named (they're very small, with the size of a particular dot determining the colour they emit) and this display does use them... it just doesn't use them how their marketing name of "QLED" implies they're using them.
Because real QLEDs are likely some way away, and they'll sell more of them if they can convince consumers that somehow their displays are better than OLEDs.
> Samsung’s QLED TVs still require backlighting and those crystals don’t self-emit light in the same way that OLEDs do. This isn’t some reinvention of display technology.
These aren't actually QLED displays (QLED would be self-emissive), so they're just using QLED as a fancy marketing name for quantum dot LCDs designed to trick the consumer into thinking they're like OLED via the similar name. It's like how DSL and cable companies try to pretend their copper is fibre, with Bell Canada going so far as to call their DSL service "Fibe".
Basically they have a regular backlight and a regular LCD panel, but instead of using a colour filter layer, they use the light from the backlight to excite the quantum dots, and modulate it with the LCD panel.
As long as they're still relying on an LCD, at the very least they will still suffer from the comparatively slow response time of an LCD panel.
It's true that real QLED displays could compete with OLED in many regards, but these aren't QLED displays.
Their products weren't flying off the shelves, and they had crippled the development on their NV20 competitor to get the V4/5 out the door. Even if the creditors hadn't killed the company prematurely, their past mistakes meant that they probably would have put out a card competitive with the GeForce 3 right as the GeForce 4 was coming out.
That's the whole point, though. If the drone lands and the thieves take the package, the drone can be recovered. If the drone just lets them keep shooting at it, the drone will crash and be damaged (potentially beyond repair), and the thieves still get the package.
It's better to lose the $50 package than have the $5000 drone be destroyed.
If somebody is shooting stuff at the drone, they've got a pretty good chance of taking it down if they keep at it. At which point, what's more valuable, the $50 package, or the $5,000 drone?
This isn't really a problem for the customer, Amazon knows they didn't get their package, and can take the appropriate action (refund, dispatch another drone, dispatch a same-day-delivery driver, dispatch a regular delivery, etc.) But from their perspective, it's probably better to let the thief have the package and be able to recover the drone. Besides, the drone might end up with pretty good video footage of the thief that it can give to the police.
The article you linked to also seems to say that they didn't encounter any battery life issues at all when running Chrome, so that tends to indicate a bug in Safari rather than a problem with the laptop itself.
Apple has had a reputation in the past (and by that I mean they maintained that reputation for many years) for posting relatively accurate battery life figures. It's only very recently that this has been an issue. Apple is claiming 10 hours, and CR was seeing anywhere from 4.5 hours to 19.5 hours. The 19.5 hour figure is probably more interesting than the 4.5 hour figure: what happened there? That's almost double the estimates.
Yes, but this sounds more like a software issue than a hardware issue, I think it's unlikely that battery lifetimes being so inconsistent on a single unit would be from a hardware issue: if it was, you'd expect to see consistently poor battery life.
My guess is there's some glitch in the power management that's causing the notebook to get stuck in a high-power state.
Because the amount of testing that a company can do internally pales in comparison to what customers will do when you put millions of units in their hands. Internal testing can't cover the same scale as the mass market.
The CRTC doesn't regulate retail rates, but enforce a wholesale regime that results in independent ISPs covering all incumbent territory with prices that are generally somewhere around two thirds that of incumbents. So their strategy seems to be working pretty decently on that front.
What has the FCC ever done? The CRTC maintains an effective wholesale access regime (enabling providers like TekSavvy to exist), and has managed to piss off incumbent providers to no end with their wireless code (mandating, among other things, the end to 3+ year contracts) and television code (mandating skinny basic and pick-and-pay). The incumbents fought tooth and nail against those. The incumbents also screamed bloody murder when the CRTC mandated that all the next-gen networks (FTTH and fiber-fed DOCSIS) need to be available to wholesale providers, and they also raised a big ruckus when the CRTC recently dropped the wholesale rates by up to 90% recently...
> You are actually ready to trust the company that gave us Windows 10, then?
I don't really need to trust them, because Microsoft gave up control over.NET when they assigned all their key components (including the compiler) to an independent company (the.NET Foundation) and opensourced most of.NET. It lives on GitHub now. And should Microsoft change their mind, a-la Oracle? Well, the opensource genie isn't going back in the bottle, and those will-not-sue legal guarantees could come in handy, but there were open alternatives like Mono long before.NET itself was opensourced.
We're 16 years into C# and 14 years into.NET, and they've gone from "will not sue" licensing to full blown opensource and multiplatform, with alternate GPL'd implementations if you don't like Microsoft's. How long do we need to wait before you'll move beyond blind religious zeal?
That's the same thing that AMD has been saying for every new chip for the past decade. They haven't had a hit since the Althon 64, and that was 13 years ago. I'll believe it when I see it, until then, I'll expect Zen to be a repeat of the Bulldozer disaster. I'd like for it to turn out to be another Athlon 64, though: it's been a very long time since there has been any competition in the x86 market.
Mostly because they typically report dynamic contrast ratios, which really are bullshit. In this case, they basically appear to be layering on an additional LCD panel whose sole job is to control the amount of light that gets through to the regular LCD. And sure enough, if you layer two LCD panels which each have a 1000:1 contrast ratio, then you get a 1000000:1 contrast ratio.
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be practical apart from the increase in cost and thickness this would involve.
Slashdot Mirror
You could have at least read the summary, where they say they're going to cut coal use by 30% this year alone.
40 ms of latency would actually be grotesquely bad unless corrected for by software.
It really wouldn't be: the vast majority of displays/TVs add more delay to the video than that, for example. You won't notice lipsync issues at 40ms, which is less than one frame of 23.976fps video. I'm going to call BS on a sub-frame amount of delay being an issue, and I'm speaking as somebody who's overly sensitive to latency issues and tries to stick to CRTs for retro gaming.
iOS may be overly aggressive with power management, but at least it consistently connects with AAC. Getting OS X to connect with AAC is a huge pain in the neck, and bluetooth range/reliability is pretty poor on a macbook compared to an iPhone. So at least the iPhone "just works" and works reliably. When I'm listening to music, the power management isn't an issue. When I'm watching a video on a mobile device (and not a PC or TV), I'm usually traveling somewhere and wouldn't be pausing too often.
> Gone are the days when the left and right speaker are in perfect sync.
That is only a potential problem when using earbuds that aren't connected. Regular bluetooth headphones and earbuds are accepting a single stereo audio stream, and don't have that problem.
> Gone are the days when your audio and video were in sync.
I don't see why the external audio DAC in the lightning headphone adapter should have any more latency than the internal DAC in the previous iPhones did. That said, the 40ms latency of aptX LL is quick enough to avoid any perceptible sync issues. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't support it, or regular aptX for that matter.
The rumour on the iPhone 7 is that they had intended for a more substantial redesign. A move to OLED, the removal of the home button, touch ID directly on the screen instead of a separate button, etc. They wanted to turn the entire front of the phone into a big display. Unfortunately, things weren't ready, so the iPhone 7 was their fallback plan.
Well, quantum dots are actually a thing, and they are appropriately named (they're very small, with the size of a particular dot determining the colour they emit) and this display does use them... it just doesn't use them how their marketing name of "QLED" implies they're using them.
I would imagine that eCigs use something way smaller than an 18650 cell, they're nearly an inch wide and two and a half inches long.
Because real QLEDs are likely some way away, and they'll sell more of them if they can convince consumers that somehow their displays are better than OLEDs.
RTFM:
> Samsung’s QLED TVs still require backlighting and those crystals don’t self-emit light in the same way that OLEDs do. This isn’t some reinvention of display technology.
These aren't actually QLED displays (QLED would be self-emissive), so they're just using QLED as a fancy marketing name for quantum dot LCDs designed to trick the consumer into thinking they're like OLED via the similar name. It's like how DSL and cable companies try to pretend their copper is fibre, with Bell Canada going so far as to call their DSL service "Fibe".
Basically they have a regular backlight and a regular LCD panel, but instead of using a colour filter layer, they use the light from the backlight to excite the quantum dots, and modulate it with the LCD panel.
As long as they're still relying on an LCD, at the very least they will still suffer from the comparatively slow response time of an LCD panel.
It's true that real QLED displays could compete with OLED in many regards, but these aren't QLED displays.
Their products weren't flying off the shelves, and they had crippled the development on their NV20 competitor to get the V4/5 out the door. Even if the creditors hadn't killed the company prematurely, their past mistakes meant that they probably would have put out a card competitive with the GeForce 3 right as the GeForce 4 was coming out.
It sounds like you'd end up with the police doing the same to you. Just on matter of principle.
That's the whole point, though. If the drone lands and the thieves take the package, the drone can be recovered. If the drone just lets them keep shooting at it, the drone will crash and be damaged (potentially beyond repair), and the thieves still get the package.
It's better to lose the $50 package than have the $5000 drone be destroyed.
If somebody is shooting stuff at the drone, they've got a pretty good chance of taking it down if they keep at it. At which point, what's more valuable, the $50 package, or the $5,000 drone?
This isn't really a problem for the customer, Amazon knows they didn't get their package, and can take the appropriate action (refund, dispatch another drone, dispatch a same-day-delivery driver, dispatch a regular delivery, etc.) But from their perspective, it's probably better to let the thief have the package and be able to recover the drone. Besides, the drone might end up with pretty good video footage of the thief that it can give to the police.
The article you linked to also seems to say that they didn't encounter any battery life issues at all when running Chrome, so that tends to indicate a bug in Safari rather than a problem with the laptop itself.
Apple has had a reputation in the past (and by that I mean they maintained that reputation for many years) for posting relatively accurate battery life figures. It's only very recently that this has been an issue. Apple is claiming 10 hours, and CR was seeing anywhere from 4.5 hours to 19.5 hours. The 19.5 hour figure is probably more interesting than the 4.5 hour figure: what happened there? That's almost double the estimates.
Yes, but this sounds more like a software issue than a hardware issue, I think it's unlikely that battery lifetimes being so inconsistent on a single unit would be from a hardware issue: if it was, you'd expect to see consistently poor battery life.
My guess is there's some glitch in the power management that's causing the notebook to get stuck in a high-power state.
Because the amount of testing that a company can do internally pales in comparison to what customers will do when you put millions of units in their hands. Internal testing can't cover the same scale as the mass market.
The CRTC doesn't regulate retail rates, but enforce a wholesale regime that results in independent ISPs covering all incumbent territory with prices that are generally somewhere around two thirds that of incumbents. So their strategy seems to be working pretty decently on that front.
What has the FCC ever done? The CRTC maintains an effective wholesale access regime (enabling providers like TekSavvy to exist), and has managed to piss off incumbent providers to no end with their wireless code (mandating, among other things, the end to 3+ year contracts) and television code (mandating skinny basic and pick-and-pay). The incumbents fought tooth and nail against those. The incumbents also screamed bloody murder when the CRTC mandated that all the next-gen networks (FTTH and fiber-fed DOCSIS) need to be available to wholesale providers, and they also raised a big ruckus when the CRTC recently dropped the wholesale rates by up to 90% recently...
> You are actually ready to trust the company that gave us Windows 10, then?
I don't really need to trust them, because Microsoft gave up control over .NET when they assigned all their key components (including the compiler) to an independent company (the .NET Foundation) and opensourced most of .NET. It lives on GitHub now. And should Microsoft change their mind, a-la Oracle? Well, the opensource genie isn't going back in the bottle, and those will-not-sue legal guarantees could come in handy, but there were open alternatives like Mono long before .NET itself was opensourced.
We're 16 years into C# and 14 years into .NET, and they've gone from "will not sue" licensing to full blown opensource and multiplatform, with alternate GPL'd implementations if you don't like Microsoft's. How long do we need to wait before you'll move beyond blind religious zeal?
The Win64 ones aren't emulated because they simply aren't supported.
That's the same thing that AMD has been saying for every new chip for the past decade. They haven't had a hit since the Althon 64, and that was 13 years ago. I'll believe it when I see it, until then, I'll expect Zen to be a repeat of the Bulldozer disaster. I'd like for it to turn out to be another Athlon 64, though: it's been a very long time since there has been any competition in the x86 market.
h.264 doesn't have fixed macroblock sizes, but it's true that 16x16 is the largest.
Mostly because they typically report dynamic contrast ratios, which really are bullshit. In this case, they basically appear to be layering on an additional LCD panel whose sole job is to control the amount of light that gets through to the regular LCD. And sure enough, if you layer two LCD panels which each have a 1000:1 contrast ratio, then you get a 1000000:1 contrast ratio.
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be practical apart from the increase in cost and thickness this would involve.
Well, yeah, it is a bargain, actually. For comparison, the new nuclear power plants that the US is building cost roughly 5x as much per megawatt.