My point was that the listed movies aren't in Netflix's catalogue. Many many other movies in my personal collection aren't there either. What is there? Stuff I don't want to watch, even once.
Streaming quality may suck on pocket sized screens. It's not so horrible on a living room screen.
Sorry - hit submit by accident - streaming quality is actually "better" the smaller the screen. Your eyes are only good for so much detail, the smaller the screen, the less you notice that things are bad. Where PQ defects really start showing up are in the larger TV screens, usually over 60".
Music is entirely different, and I agree with you on that: I really don't understand the current phenomenon where so many people want to pay for streaming music access, and my best guess is that it's mostly people who don't care that much about music and just want some crappy filler playing in the background all the time.
We'll start here. My theory is that most people that "like" the current manufactured commercial crap really don't want to own it - after all, how many times would you listen to most of the top 100? Once might be too many. Very little of the top 100 has actually stuck around more than a year or two, in many cases even the "artists" disappear. (Perhaps they started getting big-headed and demanding more than $0.02 / song?)
Personally I have very specific music I want to listen to, so I keep it in Ogg form on all my devices
I have found that any lossless format is fine, including Apple's. I've actually transformed my entire library twice now, deciding on a core base that happens to match the systems that use it most. I have backups in a second format. As long as it's lossless and there are conversion tools available, I'm really not wedded to any format.
I don't watch movies that often, and it just isn't very often that I re-watch a movie.
I'm at the stage where I wind up watching quite a few movies twice. Fortunately, the amount of movies I get exposed to multiple times has dropped significantly. There are some that make for an entertaining backdrop while exercising though.
Right, and how much did all those cost you?
A while back I picked up a couple of hundred HD movies during a clearance for about $1 each. I also took advantage of a special sale and got about 100 recent movies for $20 total. I don't expect that deal to repeat itself (getting 4-6 recent BD movies for a little over $1 is insane, thanks MC!!!). Needless to say, these stock my HTPC and I've yet to watch them all. Oh, I also picked up almost 50 3D titles averaging about $7 each. If I were to sell off the DVD/BD portions of those, I'd make money. Then there's the friend sharing network. Once done with a movie, we trade. Considering a trip to the theater with family for a new movie will set you back at least $10 / person these days, it's pretty easy to justify buying a few movies a month and watching them at home. It also side steps the crappy seating, sticky floors, and loud talkers.
How many dozens of movies do you have to make a decent collection so you aren't watching the same 3 movies over and over? The total cost there is significant. With Netflix, you pay a cheap monthly fee (less than $10) and can watch all you want at any time, out of a truly enormous catalog. If you really like a particular movie a lot and want the higher quality (and lack of worries about problems with access) that a physical disc offers, you can certainly buy that too; it's not either-or.
My HTPC currently has a stock of about 400 unwatched movies in the library plus several hundred TV episodes. With unlimited space, you can collect an entire series, and then binge watch it with automatic commercial skipping (OTA DVRs can be great) Makes exercise time a little more entertaining. And unlimited space is key here, reliable 4TB disks are about $90. I have about 10, several being leftovers from when I used to edit HD video. Just stay away from seagate drives.
Most movies after I've watched it once I CBA to watch it again unless it was really good and there was a commentary track in which case I will watch each commentary track once.
I haven't heard a commentary track in several years though the digital copies don't have that type of fun stuff.
Usually anymore I just do digital rentals.
My biggest problem is quality. For movies with great soundtracks, streaming just outright sucks. Anything darker, picture wise, streaming sucks. Anything with lots of detail and/or motion and... you guessed it, streaming sucks. No, the ISP has nothing to do with it, as my connection is far more than 15Mbps, the minimum Netflix requires for 4K streaming.
No, I will not purchase a dvd when a HD is available.
Nor will I.
No, I will not purchase a blu-ray...Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
I, OTOH, will not do a streaming service except as a last resort. So far that has not been necessary.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
It is clearly a generational thing. Many younger individuals can't seem to get the concept that paying over and over for "borrowing" something is a bad deal. Wait until you have to pay per play (the end goal of the MPAA/RIAA) and you have to pay for your yet to be born kids to watch tomorrow's Barney equivalent 10 times a day for a year, at $0.99 a view. The physical media would have only put you back $10, max. Oh, and what if you wish to watch something that's older than last year? (Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Pacific Rim) or even within the last year (Star Wars 7) These are all available to me, to watch any time. Even if I don't have an internet connection. Simply shocking, I know. No internet!
4K video is hardly the future, its right up there with 3D TV, Curved Screens, Smart TV.
The reason 4K will succeed is HDR. That actually adds value that people can see. Otherwise, the only thing 4K helps with is addressing some of the shortcomings of those cheap LED/LCD based TVs (smaller pixels means less noticeable artifacts, but they're still there)
as you insult Android which can play the videos that Apple users are unable to play.
I think it's funny that no one's mentioned that Google now serves a 4K video codec developed by Google that purposefully doesn't have a universal fallback into a standard format, and people complain that Apple Safari can't play it. Not that it matters to me, all streaming quality sucks regardless, I prefer better sources.
Nice trolling. I am currently suffering with one of those MacBooks. I hate myself for throwing that money down the drain. I might as well burned it. It would have been more fun than the pain my MacBook is causing me. I can't even plug it into an external monitor or a wired network.
2 dongles take care of both of thoseissues, and both are sold relatively inexpensively by Apple, today. You can find other solutions that may be cheaper if you'd only use that browser wisely.
I can't find a definitive answer as to whether the physical RAM is limited in macOS to less than 18 exabytes; but at least 128 GB of physical RAM seems to be well-documented.
You won't find the limit on physical RAM because that limit is directly related to Intel CPUs RAM limitations, which for most OSes is going to be below what they can support. It will likely be a while before RAM speed, size, and memory controllers get to a point that most current OSes will need to be concerned about whether they support all physical memory on a machine.
Number one reason would be to be able to run several virtual machines, to try different OSes and environments at the same time.
I regularly run 2-3 VMs, no issues with 16GB. I test on those, I don't run production applications in them. For anything more than mere functional testing, I run a full external server configured to deal with production type loads to validate the scaling approaches and performance as it would be in production.
Number two would be that some of us code really memory intensive algorithms (robotics and machine vision in my case).
I have coded memory intensive algorithms, even back when you were charged by the KB used. You learn to use optimized memory algorithms that also have been tuned for CPU cycles (we also got charged by the thousand CPU clicks, IIRC) Fortunately I don't have to spend that much time optimizing my code anymore, since CPU time and memory are cheap, today, but if you're exceeding 16GB for an app in development, you need to revisit your approach. (I'll grant you that I haven't dealt with machine vision, but I can't imagine that the memory requirements are really that large. The CPU requirements are a different story, at least with what image/video processing I have dealt with)
I run multiple VMs, IDEs, and a couple of DBs. All in 24GB. I could upgrade to 48GB, but haven't seen the need as I normally don't swap. Browsers in VMs generally don't require all that much memory, provided you have specific VMs for browsers only, and don't have a jack of all trades VM that happens to also work as your browser VM. I also run a similar configuration on my MBP, in 16GB. It also rarely swaps. However, 32GB would be a nice bump, as I am hitting 14+GB on a regular basis, and a bit more headroom is always welcome.
Your local government influences road and building safety, you can take steps not to be caught in a precarious place during a thunderstorm, you can take good care of your body and build up solid preventative health habits...........
I don't understand the point of your post. Do you disbelieve in shelter or something?
All of those incidents were taken from various stories about bad things happening to people that merely had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. FYI, lightning can strike more than 10 miles from the front. As such, your outside time would be seriously reduced, much like being on the road - do you avoid all overpasses? That fully loaded dump truck fell off an overpass and literally flattened a vehicle with 3 people in it. There's also the cases of people running stop signs, so I guess you'd avoid all intersections, because you can't stop and look both ways in a car, because if you do, some vehicle will plough you from behind. If you do advocate that, then you also avoid entering any ocean, sea, or body of fresh water, or really do anything that involves any risk whatsoever.
All of these things you have some semblance of influence over, unlike foreign persons, such as terrorists, who are not beholden to the laws of your country.
Your statement is worthless as all the above listed occurrences are far more likely than being the victim of a terrorist attack. You also make it sound like all your fellow citizens are little angels. Note that you are much much more likely in being harmed by the actions of another citizen than from a terrorist (drunk/distracted/negligent drivers are a big one). But hey, don't let reality intrude on your world view.
California politicians since then not so much, except for Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, if you ignore that period of unbounded deficit spending, fake STEM shortages, and lots of puffery masquerading as real scientific projects that were yanked as soon as the USSR went bankrupt leading directly to that wonderful period from 87-94.
Do they have the same need? If several do, than perhaps they need to raise the offered salary to a point that the position will be filled. Short of some very very very specific skill sets held by a handful of people, all jobs can be filled out of the 100M or so potential employees in the US, even if you have the wonderful work place reputation of Amazon.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that the listed movies aren't in Netflix's catalogue. Many many other movies in my personal collection aren't there either. What is there? Stuff I don't want to watch, even once.
Streaming quality may suck on pocket sized screens. It's not so horrible on a living room screen.
Sorry - hit submit by accident - streaming quality is actually "better" the smaller the screen. Your eyes are only good for so much detail, the smaller the screen, the less you notice that things are bad. Where PQ defects really start showing up are in the larger TV screens, usually over 60".
I think that's the answer right there.
Music is entirely different, and I agree with you on that: I really don't understand the current phenomenon where so many people want to pay for streaming music access, and my best guess is that it's mostly people who don't care that much about music and just want some crappy filler playing in the background all the time.
We'll start here. My theory is that most people that "like" the current manufactured commercial crap really don't want to own it - after all, how many times would you listen to most of the top 100? Once might be too many. Very little of the top 100 has actually stuck around more than a year or two, in many cases even the "artists" disappear. (Perhaps they started getting big-headed and demanding more than $0.02 / song?)
Personally I have very specific music I want to listen to, so I keep it in Ogg form on all my devices
I have found that any lossless format is fine, including Apple's. I've actually transformed my entire library twice now, deciding on a core base that happens to match the systems that use it most. I have backups in a second format. As long as it's lossless and there are conversion tools available, I'm really not wedded to any format.
I don't watch movies that often, and it just isn't very often that I re-watch a movie.
I'm at the stage where I wind up watching quite a few movies twice. Fortunately, the amount of movies I get exposed to multiple times has dropped significantly. There are some that make for an entertaining backdrop while exercising though.
Right, and how much did all those cost you?
A while back I picked up a couple of hundred HD movies during a clearance for about $1 each. I also took advantage of a special sale and got about 100 recent movies for $20 total. I don't expect that deal to repeat itself (getting 4-6 recent BD movies for a little over $1 is insane, thanks MC!!!). Needless to say, these stock my HTPC and I've yet to watch them all. Oh, I also picked up almost 50 3D titles averaging about $7 each. If I were to sell off the DVD/BD portions of those, I'd make money. Then there's the friend sharing network. Once done with a movie, we trade. Considering a trip to the theater with family for a new movie will set you back at least $10 / person these days, it's pretty easy to justify buying a few movies a month and watching them at home. It also side steps the crappy seating, sticky floors, and loud talkers.
How many dozens of movies do you have to make a decent collection so you aren't watching the same 3 movies over and over? The total cost there is significant. With Netflix, you pay a cheap monthly fee (less than $10) and can watch all you want at any time, out of a truly enormous catalog. If you really like a particular movie a lot and want the higher quality (and lack of worries about problems with access) that a physical disc offers, you can certainly buy that too; it's not either-or.
My HTPC currently has a stock of about 400 unwatched movies in the library plus several hundred TV episodes. With unlimited space, you can collect an entire series, and then binge watch it with automatic commercial skipping (OTA DVRs can be great) Makes exercise time a little more entertaining. And unlimited space is key here, reliable 4TB disks are about $90. I have about 10, several being leftovers from when I used to edit HD video. Just stay away from seagate drives.
Most movies after I've watched it once I CBA to watch it again unless it was really good and there was a commentary track in which case I will watch each commentary track once.
I haven't heard a commentary track in several years though the digital copies don't have that type of fun stuff.
Usually anymore I just do digital rentals.
My biggest problem is quality. For movies with great soundtracks, streaming just outright sucks. Anything darker, picture wise, streaming sucks. Anything with lots of detail and/or motion and... you guessed it, streaming sucks. No, the ISP has nothing to do with it, as my connection is far more than 15Mbps, the minimum Netflix requires for 4K streaming.
No, I will not purchase a dvd when a HD is available.
Nor will I.
No, I will not purchase a blu-ray...Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
I, OTOH, will not do a streaming service except as a last resort. So far that has not been necessary.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
It is clearly a generational thing. Many younger individuals can't seem to get the concept that paying over and over for "borrowing" something is a bad deal. Wait until you have to pay per play (the end goal of the MPAA/RIAA) and you have to pay for your yet to be born kids to watch tomorrow's Barney equivalent 10 times a day for a year, at $0.99 a view. The physical media would have only put you back $10, max. Oh, and what if you wish to watch something that's older than last year? (Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Pacific Rim) or even within the last year (Star Wars 7) These are all available to me, to watch any time. Even if I don't have an internet connection. Simply shocking, I know. No internet!
4K video is hardly the future, its right up there with 3D TV, Curved Screens, Smart TV.
The reason 4K will succeed is HDR. That actually adds value that people can see. Otherwise, the only thing 4K helps with is addressing some of the shortcomings of those cheap LED/LCD based TVs (smaller pixels means less noticeable artifacts, but they're still there)
Plenty of Android phones support VP9.
I'd hope so. Google owns them both.
a codec whose intellectual property is not well understood, and might infringe on some submarine patents waiting to surface...
Exactly how are you sure that there's not some submarine patent waiting to surprise everyone on VP-9 or Theora?
as you insult Android which can play the videos that Apple users are unable to play.
I think it's funny that no one's mentioned that Google now serves a 4K video codec developed by Google that purposefully doesn't have a universal fallback into a standard format, and people complain that Apple Safari can't play it. Not that it matters to me, all streaming quality sucks regardless, I prefer better sources.
it is 1080p without HDR.
Only select 4K sets support HDR. It may be the only reason to get 4K before OLEDs become reasonably priced.
Sadly, I'm not sure you can create a tasty beer out of those ingredients.
Nice trolling. I am currently suffering with one of those MacBooks. I hate myself for throwing that money down the drain. I might as well burned it. It would have been more fun than the pain my MacBook is causing me. I can't even plug it into an external monitor or a wired network.
2 dongles take care of both of those issues, and both are sold relatively inexpensively by Apple, today. You can find other solutions that may be cheaper if you'd only use that browser wisely.
I can't find a definitive answer as to whether the physical RAM is limited in macOS to less than 18 exabytes; but at least 128 GB of physical RAM seems to be well-documented.
You won't find the limit on physical RAM because that limit is directly related to Intel CPUs RAM limitations, which for most OSes is going to be below what they can support. It will likely be a while before RAM speed, size, and memory controllers get to a point that most current OSes will need to be concerned about whether they support all physical memory on a machine.
Number one reason would be to be able to run several virtual machines, to try different OSes and environments at the same time.
I regularly run 2-3 VMs, no issues with 16GB. I test on those, I don't run production applications in them. For anything more than mere functional testing, I run a full external server configured to deal with production type loads to validate the scaling approaches and performance as it would be in production.
Number two would be that some of us code really memory intensive algorithms (robotics and machine vision in my case).
I have coded memory intensive algorithms, even back when you were charged by the KB used. You learn to use optimized memory algorithms that also have been tuned for CPU cycles (we also got charged by the thousand CPU clicks, IIRC) Fortunately I don't have to spend that much time optimizing my code anymore, since CPU time and memory are cheap, today, but if you're exceeding 16GB for an app in development, you need to revisit your approach. (I'll grant you that I haven't dealt with machine vision, but I can't imagine that the memory requirements are really that large. The CPU requirements are a different story, at least with what image/video processing I have dealt with)
I run multiple VMs, IDEs, and a couple of DBs. All in 24GB. I could upgrade to 48GB, but haven't seen the need as I normally don't swap. Browsers in VMs generally don't require all that much memory, provided you have specific VMs for browsers only, and don't have a jack of all trades VM that happens to also work as your browser VM. I also run a similar configuration on my MBP, in 16GB. It also rarely swaps. However, 32GB would be a nice bump, as I am hitting 14+GB on a regular basis, and a bit more headroom is always welcome.
OSX is 1999 tech so it doesn't work with that much memory so they refuse to support it because it exposes their horrific shit.
That's why Mac Pros since at least 2009 work with up to 128GB?
To be immortal, you have to drink coffee and tea, eat dark chocolate and hot chili peppers and drink red wine in moderation.
We still have folks around, like Buzz Aldrin, who walked on the moon. The guy that was the last to walk on the moon is no longer with us.
Remember, Buzz Aldrin is still around. It's not the last person who had walked on the Moon, it's the person to last have done so.
FTFY
Your local government influences road and building safety, you can take steps not to be caught in a precarious place during a thunderstorm, you can take good care of your body and build up solid preventative health habits...........
I don't understand the point of your post. Do you disbelieve in shelter or something?
All of those incidents were taken from various stories about bad things happening to people that merely had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. FYI, lightning can strike more than 10 miles from the front. As such, your outside time would be seriously reduced, much like being on the road - do you avoid all overpasses? That fully loaded dump truck fell off an overpass and literally flattened a vehicle with 3 people in it. There's also the cases of people running stop signs, so I guess you'd avoid all intersections, because you can't stop and look both ways in a car, because if you do, some vehicle will plough you from behind. If you do advocate that, then you also avoid entering any ocean, sea, or body of fresh water, or really do anything that involves any risk whatsoever.
All of these things you have some semblance of influence over, unlike foreign persons, such as terrorists, who are not beholden to the laws of your country.
Your statement is worthless as all the above listed occurrences are far more likely than being the victim of a terrorist attack. You also make it sound like all your fellow citizens are little angels. Note that you are much much more likely in being harmed by the actions of another citizen than from a terrorist (drunk/distracted/negligent drivers are a big one). But hey, don't let reality intrude on your world view.
California politicians since then not so much, except for Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, if you ignore that period of unbounded deficit spending, fake STEM shortages, and lots of puffery masquerading as real scientific projects that were yanked as soon as the USSR went bankrupt leading directly to that wonderful period from 87-94.
And why would they be free to find other work?
Do they have the same need? If several do, than perhaps they need to raise the offered salary to a point that the position will be filled. Short of some very very very specific skill sets held by a handful of people, all jobs can be filled out of the 100M or so potential employees in the US, even if you have the wonderful work place reputation of Amazon.
They can always go home, which is the point of H1-Bs. It's a temporary work visa.