If you really want to break it down to costs, keep in mind the price difference between each item. If the new more efficient bulb is 10x more expensive, you have to save that much in energy costs just to break even in the long run. This is the main reason why you don't see more houses have motion-sensed switches. The amount of energy you save by automatically shutting off lights will take many years to just pay the extra costs of the switches. In addition, this is also the same reasn why Hybrids are not economically. By the time you save money on fuel to pay the difference in the price of the car, you'll more than likely have to replace the batteries. I hear that's around $5k. That's a lot of gasoline!
This is why I never use Debit at a store. Yeah it sucks when your credit card is stolen. Discover has been quick to issue a new card and restore my credit line. However, I always have a 2nd card for back-up. My debit card will never be used in a store because it is my money that is stolen. That is, they get access to my actual cash (well electronic funds) and not a line of credit. I'd much rather risk some credit dollars since I don't pay the disputed amount.
The problem with your argument is that the analogy doesn't hold. There are no side effects to wearing the seat belt on daily basis. It was designed, verified (i hope) and installed. It doesn't change and it does not update. Can it break? Sure, but that's that a completely different situation. Can it jam after an accident? Sure. This is why seat belt laws are stupid. Let people evaluate the situation and do what they want. However, if a body flies into my car, expect a lawsuit. You only have the right to kill yourself (in my opinion).
I will never use anit-virus software because it messes with your computer. The performance suffers, it has access to items that can break the machine (obvious example is the main topic). The cost-benefit does not work out for me. A seatbelt does not alter the performance of the vehicle.
I have not used any AV software, ever! I've never had a virus and the last I checked, no spyware either. I treat my computer with care. I don't install random things, I have a pop-up blocker, and I don't open attachments. I have a firewall and I keep windows updated with security patches and I try not to visit questionable websites.
Verizon's network is different from T-mobile, etc. From my understanding, CDMA requires a lot more power than GSM. Therefore, I'd like to see some results clearly pointing out these differences. I'm sure the RAZR for Cingular has less radiation power than the one for Verizon.
Granted I could try to figure this out using the data in CNETs article, but that won't help educate others.
First of all, I don't have a 100 in flat panel - I have a front projector. Runs about the same price as a nice mid 50+in DLP/LCD rear projection (aka less than a 45 in flat panel). Secondly, I'm not sure how "I have a life" relates to debate of extra resolution that high definition contains. My point, which I thought I clearly made, was that HD content,TV, movies, and video games, is not just about more pixels, but to allow larger TVs. I'm sorry to hear about your vision problems, but SDTV looks like complete shit on any TV greater than 40in. 32 is the limit, in my opinion. If the data is not there, I don't care what alogorithm you invent, it just won't look good. Better? Sure, good - no way.
And we haven't even mentioned the more natural 16:9 format over 4:3 or PAL.
Most people I talk to say the same thing: Once you see HDTV, it is next to impossible to watch SDTV. Obviously the all-digital nature of HDTV makes a cleaner image, but I don't think it is just that.
I bet you could see the difference on my 100" screen. That's the point of high def. I recommend to my friends anything below 32in should be standard definition.
About 10 years ago when I first started to hear about HDTV, it was said TVs would be measured in FT not inches. I think that's what people need to keep in mind.
If you really look at traffic laws, saftey is not the top priority. Money is. Most people don't weave in and out of lanes for the fun of it. They do it because cops don't enforce the keep to the right policy. Try that on the Autobahn in German. In fact, the unrestricted speed parts of the Autobahn are one of, if not the, safest stretches of highways. Why? 1) Good design 2) strict enforcement of driving habits that actually yield accidents. Speed doesn't kill - the accident does. Speed just makes it more likely you'll be sorry after that accident. Road rage is one thing, but has anyone spent some time investigating why people are getting this rage? Are we all nuts or just sick of other inconsiderate drivers?
How about those seat belt check points? If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt? Ok fine, parents can be more responsible for their children. I guess there's a finite chance you could become a missle in an accident and hurt someone else with your flying body. In reality, this is just another cash cow. A few years ago a State trooper was killed in NJ when he was hit at a toll booth checking for seat belts (fell into on coming traffic). Try explaining that one to his family.
...and don't get me started about GEICO (or auto insurance in general).
I understand the difference. No where did I say music should just be released for the masses. My point clearly said that after 5 years, it should go back to the ARTIST. Any 1-hit wonder band would release their music as cheap as possible because they would now have the power to make more money. In addition, popular bands such as Dave Matthews could, if that wanted to, force RIAA companies to lower their prices or they would switch to another CD distributor (if they liked their fans).
Since drugs take so long to develope/approve, than shouldn't your argument be for no generics? Obviously drug companies want that, but the government has step up somewhat to protect the consumer/poor.
Why does the RIAA have more protection than drug companies? Even a drug goes "generic" after 7 or so years. Why doesn't this apply to music? One could at least argue drug companies deserve more protection so that they could spend more R&D money on new drugs/cure (note: I'm not agreeing with drug companies - just an analogy).
What goood does the RIAA provide by having an almost unlimited and unrestricted monopoly on music? My compromise: First 5 years, RIAA can do what ever they want. After 5 years, the ARTIST owns the music and do what ever THEY want. I'll tell you right now, I would buy many more CDs if they were $5 than $18. Or, I would pay $0.25 for an MP3 than $0.99 for an iTunes format I can't use when my iPod dies (won mine at work and wouldn't buy such a restricted devices).
I believe the key thing people overlook is the absolute value of black. I have an LCD projector with a decent contrast ratio. However, the black just is not black enough for me. A contrast ration of 1200:1 or 100,000:1 tells you nothing about how black a dark scene can get. There is no way properly spec a device if you do not have a measurement from a fixed reference. Contrast ratio is a delta measurement.
This is similar to Chevy releasing 60MPH accerlation speeds. Not 0-60 but more like 10-70. It would make you think 60MPH increase is pretty quick.
I don't know of any hardware that can encode 1.5Gbps on the fly... I would bet TV stuidos and movie companies have 2 pass encoding and it is not done in real time.
I think you missed the entire point of my comment. It is a dumb idea to add copy protection on the uncompressed video output. The bandwidth and hardware requirements make implementaton rather difficult and expensive. As you pointed out, who cares about the decompressed video. I would agree but I do care when my LCD monitor can't play HDTV because I didn't pay for a useless HDCP chip. Hence, it is stupid to do the copy proection at that point.
1) DVI/HDMI capture would require 190MB/s hard drives. It is rather secure simply by being too expensive to deal with (item 2 below makes this crack a waste of money anyway)
2) DRM'd video would not be protected by HDCP if the video file no longer required it (i.e, the file was hacked).
3) By implementing it on this link, you lose backwards compatibility (LCD montiors as LCDTVs)
Finally, I agree with your JPEG/MPEG approximations of pixel info as a COMPRESSED image/video. My comment was based on the hardware control of your display - UNcompressed per pixel information (think bitmap) - the DVI/HDMI data protocol. I clearly understand the quantized color information and the fact that the color output is not in the analog spectrum. By the way I have my B.S. in EE. I did assume 24 bit color - 8 bit per color or about 256 different color intensities per primary color. I do believe HDTV does not use all 8-bits, but I'm not sure of the exact number.
If I'm not right about DVI, how come the spec calls for such extreme data rates? Or are you implying my monitor can play back DIVX, MPEG, MPEG2, WMV, MOV, etc. natively?
DVD is about 1/6th that of 720p HDTV (1080i is 2x 720). I think that is a big difference. Most HDD can write at 32MB/s or a simple RAID can take care of that.
My point with HDTV fixed resolutions is that that the data rate is independent of content or quality after it is decompressed.
Video formats may store the data however they want, fixed pixel displays need to have color info for every pixel. How else would you display something? You don't think every 4 pixels are the same right?
Yes, after decompression the quality is no where near the original. However, you over looked one key thing: HDTV has fixed resolutions. 1280x720 is a specified format (same with 1080i, 480p etc). You need to specify color info for each and every pixel. I used 24 bits of color, maybe it is less, but I would be surprised. Just because you decode a MPEG-looking video doesn't mean the decompressed data rate is any lower.
This is why a friend of mine and I really believe we have to move the decoders into TVs and only ever deal with compressed video. Therefore, we can finally get rid of stupid wires to begin with!
A quick calculation shows 1280x720 60fps at 24 bit color is 1.5Gbps. I don't know about you, but my computer cannot possibly capture that. I don't know of a single hard drive or RAID system that can write 190MB/s that does not cost as much as my Nissan 350z. To buy hardware to copy this stuff is just as dumb as buying a Toyota Hybrid to save money on Gas. (10 years at 15k miles per year to make up the cost difference from a civic).
The wires are not the cause of heat problems. Transistors switching require charging and discharging of capacitors. The formula is approx:
P=1/2cv^2*f
Therefore, lowering the voltage does a lot for power consumuption. However, this usually conincides with an increase in frequency. Since Vcore does not decrease as fast as the frequency is increasing we see net power increase.
This is all dynamic power loss (useful I guess). Since transistors have been shrinking, the leakage currents have been growing exponentially. One of the recent Intel chips leaked about 25A of current as soon as you applied Vcore. That means you were using over 35W of power and got no benefit.
The wires/interconnects are not the major problem for power loss
Not profitable? You must be kidding. How about the airline industry? Other than some clouds and air, what's in the sky? Takes like 90 min for the shuttle to go around Earth right? NYC to LA in an hour? Maybe expensive, but then again, look at the things bought by people with a TON of money.
What you are saying, is we should only do stuff we know is profitable right? Ask any major company to comment on that question. OBVIOUSLY we would rather just fund stuff we know will have a high ROI. Picking those things is exactly the difference between success and failure. EDUCATED decision must be made. I'll bet on space travel rather than your argument.
I would love to switch to OS X, but I'm not changing hardware.
If they released an Intel/x86 version of OS X I would immediately give it a try. Otherwise I'm sticking with WinXP SP2 because it works nicely. Linux is missing too many drivers and the "easy" factor. My computer is a tool not a project.
Is it possible that a big reason behind the delay is all the copy protection in the digital signals? Given the volume of TVs that would need digital boxes, I cannot imagine the hardware would cost much at all. However, cable companies have a monopoly on their digital cable signals and therefore outside vendors cannot offer cheap digital boxes.
Maybe congress should delay the force switch over until the fully featured cable card is ready. I believe the first featured-limited card is out now, but I doubt I can get it from my company. Plus, companies haven't started offering a ton of hardware yet....almost sounds like a chicken and the egg problem.
Given that a ton of non-geek relatives of mine along with numerous non-geek friends have all been buying large HDTVs, your comment is definitely not true.
HDTV does not help you with 27" TVs. However, I would say it is almost required for 40" and above. Even grandma could see the difference at that point. Large TVs is also a driving force behind HDTV, along with the consipiracy theorist's idea of content control via DRM (actually I do think that is partial true).
....and I have been screaming at my PVR cable box because the software was written by people who do not understand the application or they were just plain stupid.
That being said, I do agree with the rest of your post. Although I'm an EE, one comment I heard from a CE professor seems all to true: The difference between a computer engineer and a computer science major is that the engineer knows the meaning be hind the numbers/bits in product.
I'm not bashing CS majors in general, but I do feel a lot of them are grossly undereducated on the basics behind their software. Can you imagine trying to apply a patch to an Intel chip? Hmmm...they had to with the original pentium chip and we know how bad that was...
Although I doubt it sounds this way, but I do mean this as a motivational point. I need to write software inorder to do my hardware designs. I really thinks programmers need to know more hardware to better write their software.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to break it down to costs, keep in mind the price difference between each item. If the new more efficient bulb is 10x more expensive, you have to save that much in energy costs just to break even in the long run. This is the main reason why you don't see more houses have motion-sensed switches. The amount of energy you save by automatically shutting off lights will take many years to just pay the extra costs of the switches. In addition, this is also the same reasn why Hybrids are not economically. By the time you save money on fuel to pay the difference in the price of the car, you'll more than likely have to replace the batteries. I hear that's around $5k. That's a lot of gasoline!
This is why I never use Debit at a store. Yeah it sucks when your credit card is stolen. Discover has been quick to issue a new card and restore my credit line. However, I always have a 2nd card for back-up. My debit card will never be used in a store because it is my money that is stolen. That is, they get access to my actual cash (well electronic funds) and not a line of credit. I'd much rather risk some credit dollars since I don't pay the disputed amount.
The problem with your argument is that the analogy doesn't hold. There are no side effects to wearing the seat belt on daily basis. It was designed, verified (i hope) and installed. It doesn't change and it does not update. Can it break? Sure, but that's that a completely different situation. Can it jam after an accident? Sure. This is why seat belt laws are stupid. Let people evaluate the situation and do what they want. However, if a body flies into my car, expect a lawsuit. You only have the right to kill yourself (in my opinion).
I will never use anit-virus software because it messes with your computer. The performance suffers, it has access to items that can break the machine (obvious example is the main topic). The cost-benefit does not work out for me. A seatbelt does not alter the performance of the vehicle.
I have not used any AV software, ever! I've never had a virus and the last I checked, no spyware either. I treat my computer with care. I don't install random things, I have a pop-up blocker, and I don't open attachments. I have a firewall and I keep windows updated with security patches and I try not to visit questionable websites.
Verizon's network is different from T-mobile, etc. From my understanding, CDMA requires a lot more power than GSM. Therefore, I'd like to see some results clearly pointing out these differences. I'm sure the RAZR for Cingular has less radiation power than the one for Verizon.
Granted I could try to figure this out using the data in CNETs article, but that won't help educate others.
First of all, I don't have a 100 in flat panel - I have a front projector. Runs about the same price as a nice mid 50+in DLP/LCD rear projection (aka less than a 45 in flat panel). Secondly, I'm not sure how "I have a life" relates to debate of extra resolution that high definition contains. My point, which I thought I clearly made, was that HD content,TV, movies, and video games, is not just about more pixels, but to allow larger TVs. I'm sorry to hear about your vision problems, but SDTV looks like complete shit on any TV greater than 40in. 32 is the limit, in my opinion. If the data is not there, I don't care what alogorithm you invent, it just won't look good. Better? Sure, good - no way.
And we haven't even mentioned the more natural 16:9 format over 4:3 or PAL.
Most people I talk to say the same thing: Once you see HDTV, it is next to impossible to watch SDTV. Obviously the all-digital nature of HDTV makes a cleaner image, but I don't think it is just that.
I bet you could see the difference on my 100" screen. That's the point of high def. I recommend to my friends anything below 32in should be standard definition.
About 10 years ago when I first started to hear about HDTV, it was said TVs would be measured in FT not inches. I think that's what people need to keep in mind.
"All your base are belong to us"
If you really look at traffic laws, saftey is not the top priority. Money is. Most people don't weave in and out of lanes for the fun of it. They do it because cops don't enforce the keep to the right policy. Try that on the Autobahn in German. In fact, the unrestricted speed parts of the Autobahn are one of, if not the, safest stretches of highways. Why? 1) Good design 2) strict enforcement of driving habits that actually yield accidents. Speed doesn't kill - the accident does. Speed just makes it more likely you'll be sorry after that accident. Road rage is one thing, but has anyone spent some time investigating why people are getting this rage? Are we all nuts or just sick of other inconsiderate drivers?
How about those seat belt check points? If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt? Ok fine, parents can be more responsible for their children. I guess there's a finite chance you could become a missle in an accident and hurt someone else with your flying body. In reality, this is just another cash cow. A few years ago a State trooper was killed in NJ when he was hit at a toll booth checking for seat belts (fell into on coming traffic). Try explaining that one to his family.
...and don't get me started about GEICO (or auto insurance in general).
I understand the difference. No where did I say music should just be released for the masses. My point clearly said that after 5 years, it should go back to the ARTIST. Any 1-hit wonder band would release their music as cheap as possible because they would now have the power to make more money. In addition, popular bands such as Dave Matthews could, if that wanted to, force RIAA companies to lower their prices or they would switch to another CD distributor (if they liked their fans).
Since drugs take so long to develope/approve, than shouldn't your argument be for no generics? Obviously drug companies want that, but the government has step up somewhat to protect the consumer/poor.
Why does the RIAA have more protection than drug companies? Even a drug goes "generic" after 7 or so years. Why doesn't this apply to music? One could at least argue drug companies deserve more protection so that they could spend more R&D money on new drugs/cure (note: I'm not agreeing with drug companies - just an analogy).
What goood does the RIAA provide by having an almost unlimited and unrestricted monopoly on music? My compromise: First 5 years, RIAA can do what ever they want. After 5 years, the ARTIST owns the music and do what ever THEY want. I'll tell you right now, I would buy many more CDs if they were $5 than $18. Or, I would pay $0.25 for an MP3 than $0.99 for an iTunes format I can't use when my iPod dies (won mine at work and wouldn't buy such a restricted devices).
I believe the key thing people overlook is the absolute value of black. I have an LCD projector with a decent contrast ratio. However, the black just is not black enough for me. A contrast ration of 1200:1 or 100,000:1 tells you nothing about how black a dark scene can get. There is no way properly spec a device if you do not have a measurement from a fixed reference. Contrast ratio is a delta measurement.
This is similar to Chevy releasing 60MPH accerlation speeds. Not 0-60 but more like 10-70. It would make you think 60MPH increase is pretty quick.
I don't know of any hardware that can encode 1.5Gbps on the fly... I would bet TV stuidos and movie companies have 2 pass encoding and it is not done in real time.
I think you missed the entire point of my comment. It is a dumb idea to add copy protection on the uncompressed video output. The bandwidth and hardware requirements make implementaton rather difficult and expensive. As you pointed out, who cares about the decompressed video. I would agree but I do care when my LCD monitor can't play HDTV because I didn't pay for a useless HDCP chip. Hence, it is stupid to do the copy proection at that point.
1) DVI/HDMI capture would require 190MB/s hard drives. It is rather secure simply by being too expensive to deal with (item 2 below makes this crack a waste of money anyway)
2) DRM'd video would not be protected by HDCP if the video file no longer required it (i.e, the file was hacked).
3) By implementing it on this link, you lose backwards compatibility (LCD montiors as LCDTVs)
Finally, I agree with your JPEG/MPEG approximations of pixel info as a COMPRESSED image/video. My comment was based on the hardware control of your display - UNcompressed per pixel information (think bitmap) - the DVI/HDMI data protocol. I clearly understand the quantized color information and the fact that the color output is not in the analog spectrum. By the way I have my B.S. in EE. I did assume 24 bit color - 8 bit per color or about 256 different color intensities per primary color. I do believe HDTV does not use all 8-bits, but I'm not sure of the exact number.
If I'm not right about DVI, how come the spec calls for such extreme data rates? Or are you implying my monitor can play back DIVX, MPEG, MPEG2, WMV, MOV, etc. natively?
DVD is about 1/6th that of 720p HDTV (1080i is 2x 720). I think that is a big difference. Most HDD can write at 32MB/s or a simple RAID can take care of that.
My point with HDTV fixed resolutions is that that the data rate is independent of content or quality after it is decompressed.
Video formats may store the data however they want, fixed pixel displays need to have color info for every pixel. How else would you display something? You don't think every 4 pixels are the same right?
Big mistake!
Yes, after decompression the quality is no where near the original. However, you over looked one key thing: HDTV has fixed resolutions. 1280x720 is a specified format (same with 1080i, 480p etc). You need to specify color info for each and every pixel. I used 24 bits of color, maybe it is less, but I would be surprised. Just because you decode a MPEG-looking video doesn't mean the decompressed data rate is any lower.
This is why a friend of mine and I really believe we have to move the decoders into TVs and only ever deal with compressed video. Therefore, we can finally get rid of stupid wires to begin with!
I don't see DVI/HDMI or any other HD digital input on the specs.
A quick calculation shows 1280x720 60fps at 24 bit color is 1.5Gbps. I don't know about you, but my computer cannot possibly capture that. I don't know of a single hard drive or RAID system that can write 190MB/s that does not cost as much as my Nissan 350z. To buy hardware to copy this stuff is just as dumb as buying a Toyota Hybrid to save money on Gas. (10 years at 15k miles per year to make up the cost difference from a civic).
The wires are not the cause of heat problems. Transistors switching require charging and discharging of capacitors. The formula is approx:
P=1/2cv^2*f
Therefore, lowering the voltage does a lot for power consumuption. However, this usually conincides with an increase in frequency. Since Vcore does not decrease as fast as the frequency is increasing we see net power increase.
This is all dynamic power loss (useful I guess). Since transistors have been shrinking, the leakage currents have been growing exponentially. One of the recent Intel chips leaked about 25A of current as soon as you applied Vcore. That means you were using over 35W of power and got no benefit.
The wires/interconnects are not the major problem for power loss
Bullshit!
Not profitable? You must be kidding. How about the airline industry? Other than some clouds and air, what's in the sky? Takes like 90 min for the shuttle to go around Earth right? NYC to LA in an hour? Maybe expensive, but then again, look at the things bought by people with a TON of money.
What you are saying, is we should only do stuff we know is profitable right? Ask any major company to comment on that question. OBVIOUSLY we would rather just fund stuff we know will have a high ROI. Picking those things is exactly the difference between success and failure. EDUCATED decision must be made. I'll bet on space travel rather than your argument.
Last I checked, the little transistors didn't care which type of document format we were using...
How is this hardware?
Good idea. I'm going to trademark the word "trademark" and "TM". I may go for "copyright", "c", and other commonly used words.
As mentioned, trademarking single words is just plain dumb.
I would love to switch to OS X, but I'm not changing hardware.
If they released an Intel/x86 version of OS X I would immediately give it a try. Otherwise I'm sticking with WinXP SP2 because it works nicely. Linux is missing too many drivers and the "easy" factor. My computer is a tool not a project.
Is it possible that a big reason behind the delay is all the copy protection in the digital signals? Given the volume of TVs that would need digital boxes, I cannot imagine the hardware would cost much at all. However, cable companies have a monopoly on their digital cable signals and therefore outside vendors cannot offer cheap digital boxes.
Maybe congress should delay the force switch over until the fully featured cable card is ready. I believe the first featured-limited card is out now, but I doubt I can get it from my company. Plus, companies haven't started offering a ton of hardware yet....almost sounds like a chicken and the egg problem.
Given that a ton of non-geek relatives of mine along with numerous non-geek friends have all been buying large HDTVs, your comment is definitely not true.
HDTV does not help you with 27" TVs. However, I would say it is almost required for 40" and above. Even grandma could see the difference at that point. Large TVs is also a driving force behind HDTV, along with the consipiracy theorist's idea of content control via DRM (actually I do think that is partial true).
....and I have been screaming at my PVR cable box because the software was written by people who do not understand the application or they were just plain stupid.
That being said, I do agree with the rest of your post. Although I'm an EE, one comment I heard from a CE professor seems all to true: The difference between a computer engineer and a computer science major is that the engineer knows the meaning be hind the numbers/bits in product.
I'm not bashing CS majors in general, but I do feel a lot of them are grossly undereducated on the basics behind their software. Can you imagine trying to apply a patch to an Intel chip? Hmmm...they had to with the original pentium chip and we know how bad that was...
Although I doubt it sounds this way, but I do mean this as a motivational point. I need to write software inorder to do my hardware designs. I really thinks programmers need to know more hardware to better write their software.