> I'll wake you up for the next round of marketing 3D in 4K.
At least 3D is *meaningful*. One can argue how useful it is or how much it is abused with "fake" or invented 3D instead of being shot natively. But most people can easily tell the difference 2D and 3D , and 3D can very much add to an experience (when done right). But yeah, I am sure it will be resurrected again when they run out of 4K hype.
There is a hugely diminishing return. I guarantee if you double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance. And remember, we are not talking about text and stills on monitors... we are talking about Netflix video.
Sure, there are some small cases where it will be useful, but generally it is just a marketing gimmick. If they focused on things that actually matter, like HDR or color space, it would be different.
You mean from crappy analog like VHS to digital DVD? That was 480i to 480i, so that is not a valid comparison.
If you mean from 480 to 720/1080 that was a HUGE difference and one that probably 50% of the public could see immediately.
I *guarantee* if I double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance.
Wake me up when more than even a fraction of 1% of the population can even tell the difference between 1080P and 4K (much less UPSCALED 1080P and 4K). At any reasonable size or distance it really doesn't matter much.
I have yet to use an LED display of any type. Have they improved over the last few years? Last I checked, the colors always looked way off when compared to an LCD and they seemed a bit more "pixely". Also, LED displays always seemed "brighter", but only until you go outside and then LCD seems much better.
I am guessing LED is the future and will eventually replace LCD TV's and monitors as well as phones, it is just that the displays are starting small so phones get to be first.
Obviously I made a typo on that and meant 400. But apparently everyone got my meaning.
In any case, lots of good replies about how although this isn't a cure, it can help to focus research and effort on the remaining 2% and help lots of people in the meanwhile.
>"Identifying broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV has been difficult because the virus rapidly changes"... "since proven to potentially neutralize 98 percent of HIV isolates"
So the remaining 2% quickly change to be resistant and in a few years we are back where we started again? 98% sounds great for some things. But if you had 200 fleas and got rid of 396, those remaining 4 can potentially become 200 again pretty quickly.
I generally don't need the government, ESPECIALLY the Fed, telling me what I can or can't buy. But it is certainly reasonable to place warnings on things like this to inform the public.
Of course, in California, EVERYTHING seems to cause cancer if you believe the countless thousands of warnings they require on everything. Even the Christmas lights I bought last year have that warning for some unknown reason (I joke not.... and of course I don't live in CA). So there is a balance.
I love how just two days ago how some people were posting here: https://linux.slashdot.org/sto... how much better and open Microsoft is than it used to be. How they are such a better company.
Sorry, this is the same old news- using their near monopolistic powers to put up messages about their competition. I guess this just follows after making sure dual boot is a disaster, locking out competing OS's on certain hardware, giving away near free licenses of their products to governments trying to break free of MS lockin by using Linux....
>"announced it is bringing "fully encrypted" video calling feature. "
Fully encrypted? So it is end-to-end/user-to-user without any server interception? With a closed-source app, how do we know it has no backdoors, no logging, no intentionally weakened keys, no overrides, no stored keys, etc? Just asking....
Apple has a reputation for releasing "revolutionary" products that carry higher price tags than competing products.
Revolutionary? You mean by removing stuff people want? Let me fix that for you...
"Apple has a reputation for releasing proprietary products that prioritize looks and simplicity over functionality and flexibility and also carry significantly higher price tags than competing products."
> Its not like there were any other candidates on the ballot or anything...
Correct, there really never are. Since we have a first-past-the-post system, it is almost impossible for a candidate in any major election to win that is not one of the two-party system. Anyone that thinks that those others are actual choices are deluding themselves. All it usually does when voting for those is to just take a vote away from the major candidate most close to what you wanted, helping to ensure who gets elected is even LESS likely to be who you want.
>"The majority of Americans did not vote from Trump, he does not have legitimacy. "
The clear majority didn't vote for Clinton either. It is essentially a tie. But it doesn't matter. Our system uses the electoral college, and Trump is the OVERWHELMING winner.
>"The magic swing states were the ones who refused help securing electronic voting, and Trump is well connected to hackers."
Sorry, but it is FAR more likely the DNC would be involved in voter fraud. And electronic voting does NOT reduce fraud, it probably greatly hurts it.
>"Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about."
By "people", you mean Hillary? Yep, that is what candidates do. And yeah, it is called justice in her case, if it happens. She probably should be in jail. Of course, he probably should be too, but that is a different story.
This is why so many of us are upset about the process. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHOICE. We end up having to elect people based on conflicting single issues. But when both candidates share the same negatives, and surveillance is just one, you lose, regardless.
There is ZERO doubt that Hilary Clinton would bring more surveillance. Same with Trump. She would have been all sneaky about it and probably lie about it too. He will more likely be loud and annoying about it.
>"I am sorry, but this statement is a bunch of rubbish."
You must live in some other country. The Fed is many thousands of times larger and more powerful than it was at the founding and than was ever intended. It has it hands in thousands of areas it was specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Education, healthcare, housing, firearms, food stamps. The EC does almost nothing for States' power.
And yet the States are made up of people- people who should be represented. The electoral college doesn't represent the States, because in modern times it is just a number that is awarded by/from each State's popular vote. So what it does is skew results in a less representative way, that is about all.
The States are represented in the Legislature, they don't have any say in the Federal Judiciary and don't need it in the Executive branch. If you think the states should have more voice and power, then the Fed should get out of 90% of what it does that was all reserved for the States in the Constitution.... that document that is more and more ignored.
The original idea of a very limited Federal government that was created by the States and works for the States died a long time ago, unfortunately.
Yes, the electoral college should be abolished, but not because of this election (get over it). It needs to go because it is stupid and really serves no purpose. But more importantly, what we need is to abolish this ridiculous system that creates just two possible candidates (especially two candidates like we just ended up with). We need instant runoff voting just as badly- if fact, even worse. Right now other parties can pretty much NEVER get elected in any important campaigns; votes for them simply split the vote of whichever major party/parties they most resemble. People are TOO AFRAID to vote for who they want, they are forced to vote against who they most fear. IRV will fix that once and for all- and for all levels of government. People would be able to RANK candidates how they like, knowing their vote is never wasted or thrown away.
It is impossible to represent what the people might want with just two views and the primaries don't fix it either because they have the exact same problem with the lack of IRV.
Nothing is as simple as "left" or "right". Many, many, many millions of voters have views that simply can't be described in two dimensions... it is like trying to describe airplane motion as "left or right" while ignoring up, down, forward, backward, speed, and roll.
No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.
ALL autodialing systems should be illegal and a criminal offense. A system should be developed to prevent all ID spoofing and a target should be able to press a simple code number to have it reported directly to an agency who is required to research and prosecute. Such calls are beyond annoying, stupid, and an invasion of privacy. ANY system taken down is a plus, regardless of what type, source, or target.
Man-made diamonds ARE diamonds. They look the same, act the same, have the same structure, and it is impossible to even tell them apart from mined diamonds without very expensive and specialized equipment. They are not "fake" they are just not mined.
I don't understand people's obsession with this crystallized carbon, but pretending that mined ones are somehow superior or worth more seems just completely irrational.
I will admit I am yelling "fire" without seeing the flames. My bad, and I should probably tone it down.
Here is an example of what can happen: http://arstechnica.com/securit... It shows just how easy it can be for them to insert something that can be abused.
The real danger is that with a binary-only, closed-source browser like Chrome, there is really no easy way know what it is doing behind-the-scenes or what backdoors it might have for them or governments. It is probably harder to prove it is not spying on users than proving it is. And Google has far more incentive to track everything you do compared to, say, Mozilla. Of course, if you also use Google search and/or sign-in with a Google account while using Chrome/Chromium, you are turning it into a type of approved super spyware on the spot.
I am amazed at how cavalier people are about their privacy, especially when it involves Google. The scariest thing is that most people have no idea just how much data is being collected about them (and yes it happens with all browsers and all services, but it is stepped up to overdrive with Google).
And if you are curious, no, I don't use Google's search engine directly, I always use http://startpage.org/ I also install Firefox browser on my Android devices and use that and startpage for searching.
Is there much of a difference? I am certainly not alone. In fact, what I am saying mirrors the complaints of many thousands of people that post on Slashdot and in many other places.
"Turning into Chrome" means different things to different people, but in general it means:
1) Removing user control of the UI, less user choice and preference. 2) Minimizing the UI, making it harder to use and customize. 3) Ignoring or resisting what the user base wants.
Chrome is a fast, multiplatform browser. And I am glad it exists. But its popularity is based far more on VERY aggressive marketing by Google and less by any faults in Firefox. Especially over the last year, since Firefox's speed and memory footprint is not that much different from Chrome.
If you are referring to Firefox, it is apparent you haven't really used it/compared in years, then. Most benchmarks show that the current versions of Firefox are close to Chrome in performance for most metrics, beating it in some.
As much damage as Chrome has done to Firefox (in user base and in causing Mozilla to start mimicking the UI), the best thing it did do was to put pressure on Mozilla to improve Firefox's performance. For that, we are all grateful:)
I knew the tide was turning last year when I started seeing articles complaining about the extremely high memory usage of Chrome and that Firefox had trimmed back so much it was using less than Chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
> I'll wake you up for the next round of marketing 3D in 4K.
At least 3D is *meaningful*. One can argue how useful it is or how much it is abused with "fake" or invented 3D instead of being shot natively. But most people can easily tell the difference 2D and 3D , and 3D can very much add to an experience (when done right). But yeah, I am sure it will be resurrected again when they run out of 4K hype.
There is a hugely diminishing return. I guarantee if you double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance. And remember, we are not talking about text and stills on monitors... we are talking about Netflix video.
Sure, there are some small cases where it will be useful, but generally it is just a marketing gimmick. If they focused on things that actually matter, like HDR or color space, it would be different.
>...during the switch to 480i...decades ago!!!!
You mean from crappy analog like VHS to digital DVD? That was 480i to 480i, so that is not a valid comparison.
If you mean from 480 to 720/1080 that was a HUGE difference and one that probably 50% of the public could see immediately.
I *guarantee* if I double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance.
Yawn.
Wake me up when more than even a fraction of 1% of the population can even tell the difference between 1080P and 4K (much less UPSCALED 1080P and 4K). At any reasonable size or distance it really doesn't matter much.
Moral: Don't go whining about how you were wronged while you were doing something wrong yourself!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have yet to use an LED display of any type. Have they improved over the last few years? Last I checked, the colors always looked way off when compared to an LCD and they seemed a bit more "pixely". Also, LED displays always seemed "brighter", but only until you go outside and then LCD seems much better.
I am guessing LED is the future and will eventually replace LCD TV's and monitors as well as phones, it is just that the displays are starting small so phones get to be first.
>But if you had 200 fleas and got rid of 396
Obviously I made a typo on that and meant 400. But apparently everyone got my meaning.
In any case, lots of good replies about how although this isn't a cure, it can help to focus research and effort on the remaining 2% and help lots of people in the meanwhile.
>"Identifying broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV has been difficult because the virus rapidly changes" ... "since proven to potentially neutralize 98 percent of HIV isolates"
So the remaining 2% quickly change to be resistant and in a few years we are back where we started again? 98% sounds great for some things. But if you had 200 fleas and got rid of 396, those remaining 4 can potentially become 200 again pretty quickly.
It's about time!
I generally don't need the government, ESPECIALLY the Fed, telling me what I can or can't buy. But it is certainly reasonable to place warnings on things like this to inform the public.
Of course, in California, EVERYTHING seems to cause cancer if you believe the countless thousands of warnings they require on everything. Even the Christmas lights I bought last year have that warning for some unknown reason (I joke not.... and of course I don't live in CA). So there is a balance.
I love how just two days ago how some people were posting here: https://linux.slashdot.org/sto... how much better and open Microsoft is than it used to be. How they are such a better company.
Sorry, this is the same old news- using their near monopolistic powers to put up messages about their competition. I guess this just follows after making sure dual boot is a disaster, locking out competing OS's on certain hardware, giving away near free licenses of their products to governments trying to break free of MS lockin by using Linux....
>"announced it is bringing "fully encrypted" video calling feature. "
Fully encrypted? So it is end-to-end/user-to-user without any server interception? With a closed-source app, how do we know it has no backdoors, no logging, no intentionally weakened keys, no overrides, no stored keys, etc? Just asking....
Apple has a reputation for releasing "revolutionary" products that carry higher price tags than competing products.
Revolutionary? You mean by removing stuff people want? Let me fix that for you...
"Apple has a reputation for releasing proprietary products that prioritize looks and simplicity over functionality and flexibility and also carry significantly higher price tags than competing products."
> Its not like there were any other candidates on the ballot or anything...
Correct, there really never are. Since we have a first-past-the-post system, it is almost impossible for a candidate in any major election to win that is not one of the two-party system. Anyone that thinks that those others are actual choices are deluding themselves. All it usually does when voting for those is to just take a vote away from the major candidate most close to what you wanted, helping to ensure who gets elected is even LESS likely to be who you want.
http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"The majority of Americans did not vote from Trump, he does not have legitimacy. "
The clear majority didn't vote for Clinton either. It is essentially a tie. But it doesn't matter. Our system uses the electoral college, and Trump is the OVERWHELMING winner.
>"The magic swing states were the ones who refused help securing electronic voting, and Trump is well connected to hackers."
Sorry, but it is FAR more likely the DNC would be involved in voter fraud. And electronic voting does NOT reduce fraud, it probably greatly hurts it.
>"Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about."
By "people", you mean Hillary? Yep, that is what candidates do. And yeah, it is called justice in her case, if it happens. She probably should be in jail. Of course, he probably should be too, but that is a different story.
+1 exactly.
This is why so many of us are upset about the process. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHOICE. We end up having to elect people based on conflicting single issues. But when both candidates share the same negatives, and surveillance is just one, you lose, regardless.
There is ZERO doubt that Hilary Clinton would bring more surveillance. Same with Trump. She would have been all sneaky about it and probably lie about it too. He will more likely be loud and annoying about it.
>"I am sorry, but this statement is a bunch of rubbish."
You must live in some other country. The Fed is many thousands of times larger and more powerful than it was at the founding and than was ever intended. It has it hands in thousands of areas it was specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Education, healthcare, housing, firearms, food stamps. The EC does almost nothing for States' power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And yet the States are made up of people- people who should be represented. The electoral college doesn't represent the States, because in modern times it is just a number that is awarded by/from each State's popular vote. So what it does is skew results in a less representative way, that is about all.
The States are represented in the Legislature, they don't have any say in the Federal Judiciary and don't need it in the Executive branch. If you think the states should have more voice and power, then the Fed should get out of 90% of what it does that was all reserved for the States in the Constitution.... that document that is more and more ignored.
The original idea of a very limited Federal government that was created by the States and works for the States died a long time ago, unfortunately.
Yes, the electoral college should be abolished, but not because of this election (get over it). It needs to go because it is stupid and really serves no purpose. But more importantly, what we need is to abolish this ridiculous system that creates just two possible candidates (especially two candidates like we just ended up with). We need instant runoff voting just as badly- if fact, even worse. Right now other parties can pretty much NEVER get elected in any important campaigns; votes for them simply split the vote of whichever major party/parties they most resemble. People are TOO AFRAID to vote for who they want, they are forced to vote against who they most fear. IRV will fix that once and for all- and for all levels of government. People would be able to RANK candidates how they like, knowing their vote is never wasted or thrown away.
It is impossible to represent what the people might want with just two views and the primaries don't fix it either because they have the exact same problem with the lack of IRV.
Nothing is as simple as "left" or "right". Many, many, many millions of voters have views that simply can't be described in two dimensions... it is like trying to describe airplane motion as "left or right" while ignoring up, down, forward, backward, speed, and roll.
No system is perfect. But just about ANY "alternative voting" system is better than what we have now.
http://fairvote.org/
I am not conflicted at all.
ALL autodialing systems should be illegal and a criminal offense. A system should be developed to prevent all ID spoofing and a target should be able to press a simple code number to have it reported directly to an agency who is required to research and prosecute. Such calls are beyond annoying, stupid, and an invasion of privacy. ANY system taken down is a plus, regardless of what type, source, or target.
DIE!
>"And then if Trump wins, how about free rides to Canada?"
That would be perfect, since you can throw away your Constitutional rights by going there just like you wanted to here!
+1 !!!
Man-made diamonds ARE diamonds. They look the same, act the same, have the same structure, and it is impossible to even tell them apart from mined diamonds without very expensive and specialized equipment. They are not "fake" they are just not mined.
I don't understand people's obsession with this crystallized carbon, but pretending that mined ones are somehow superior or worth more seems just completely irrational.
>"Any reference?"
I will admit I am yelling "fire" without seeing the flames. My bad, and I should probably tone it down.
Here is an example of what can happen: http://arstechnica.com/securit... It shows just how easy it can be for them to insert something that can be abused.
The real danger is that with a binary-only, closed-source browser like Chrome, there is really no easy way know what it is doing behind-the-scenes or what backdoors it might have for them or governments. It is probably harder to prove it is not spying on users than proving it is. And Google has far more incentive to track everything you do compared to, say, Mozilla. Of course, if you also use Google search and/or sign-in with a Google account while using Chrome/Chromium, you are turning it into a type of approved super spyware on the spot.
http://betanews.com/2012/03/01...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
I am amazed at how cavalier people are about their privacy, especially when it involves Google. The scariest thing is that most people have no idea just how much data is being collected about them (and yes it happens with all browsers and all services, but it is stepped up to overdrive with Google).
And if you are curious, no, I don't use Google's search engine directly, I always use http://startpage.org/ I also install Firefox browser on my Android devices and use that and startpage for searching.
Is there much of a difference? I am certainly not alone. In fact, what I am saying mirrors the complaints of many thousands of people that post on Slashdot and in many other places.
"Turning into Chrome" means different things to different people, but in general it means:
1) Removing user control of the UI, less user choice and preference.
2) Minimizing the UI, making it harder to use and customize.
3) Ignoring or resisting what the user base wants.
Chrome is a fast, multiplatform browser. And I am glad it exists. But its popularity is based far more on VERY aggressive marketing by Google and less by any faults in Firefox. Especially over the last year, since Firefox's speed and memory footprint is not that much different from Chrome.
If you are referring to Firefox, it is apparent you haven't really used it/compared in years, then. Most benchmarks show that the current versions of Firefox are close to Chrome in performance for most metrics, beating it in some.
As much damage as Chrome has done to Firefox (in user base and in causing Mozilla to start mimicking the UI), the best thing it did do was to put pressure on Mozilla to improve Firefox's performance. For that, we are all grateful :)
I knew the tide was turning last year when I started seeing articles complaining about the extremely high memory usage of Chrome and that Firefox had trimmed back so much it was using less than Chrome.