That's a big assumption. There is a well known effect called 'winner's curse' relating to auction based pricing. Wikipedia summaries:
In a common value auction, the auctioned item is of roughly equal value to all bidders, but the bidders don't know the item's market value when they bid. Each player independently estimates the value of the item before bidding.
The winner of an auction is, of course, the bidder who submits the highest bid. Since the auctioned item is worth roughly the same to all bidders, they are distinguished only by their respective estimates. The winner, then, is the bidder making the highest estimate. If we assume that the average bid is accurate, then the highest bidder overestimates the item's value. Thus, the auction's winner is likely to overpay.
No. The real problem is that FCC has only made a very small, very expensive allocations to GSM use. The equipment can support many more channels but the frequencies are legally limited in the US. Thus why bandwidth is bad here and much better elsewhere. Ditto for cost concerns. Wireless carriers have paid a lot of more at auction to the US Government than similar allocations cost in other countries.
The FCC has approved a threefold increase in available spectrum in recent years, but projections for data traffic show a 30-fold increase in demand, Mr. Genachowski said. "That's a 10-to-one gap," he said. "It's a very serious challenge."
...
Wireless industry lobbyists have spent months trying to persuade lawmakers to pass legislation that would require the government to do an inventory of the U.S.'s airwaves and how they are being used. The U.S. government controls much of the available airwaves, which are set aside for military and other official uses. Rights to airwaves are auctioned off to companies to use exclusively.
Mr. Genachowski said the FCC would look at ways to promote secondary markets for airwaves, which would give people who hold licenses for airwave usage the right to lease those licenses to others. He said the agency would also try to clear obstacles for wireless companies trying to install new networks, including speeding up approvals for new cellphone tower construction, which often are met with community resistance.
"Captain" Bligh of the Bounty was a lieutenant. Young and still a bit green as a commander.
Bligh and _2/3rds_ of the crew were placed into a small dingy and set adrift. Having only a compass and sextant he went 6700km and nailed the nearest British outpost Timor. Only one man died on route.
Further wikipedia concisely notes: "The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged. He was an educated man, deeply interested in science, convinced that good diet and sanitation were necessary for the welfare of his crew. He took a great interest in his crew's exercise, was very careful about the quality of their food, and insisted upon the Bounty being kept very clean."
Many "european" countries lack a minimum wage which is widely (but as you have shown us, not universally) recognized as a confused and unfortunately effective barrier to entry for inexperienced workers. A barrier that blocks them from securing the basic work experience to reach long term employment.
Unfortunately there is a large cadre of people in the US stuck in a 150 year intellectual time warp, spouting the same discredited ideas.
The rest of your list makes no sense as its connection to work wages is tenuous at best.
The data is a good deal more complicated than you or the article suggest. In particular the US has substantially better neonatal and premature birth care. Those babies are much more likely to die outright in the RoW and those deaths are excluded from the statistics. Conversely, those 'saved' babies in US have lower than average life expectancies and weigh-down the numbers.
This is an area where 'science' and 'facts' have been highly politicized--a war on science so to speak--to advance a political agenda. Witness your own pivot into a lack of 'health-care'.
If you have populations who forgo abortion despite adverse fetal genetic testing, you're also going to have populations with lower life expectancies too.
Its a sad that you got mod-points for your ad hominem drivel.
Christy and Spencer have stated repeatedly in the scientific literature that they their analysis of radiosonde data agrees CLOSELY WITH THOSE OF OTHER SCIENTISTS
This is a red herring. UAH and RSS agree very closely, so what? That is not the issue raised by any of the four comments I linked to. There is no reason to doubt the UAH/RSS temperature series.
Christy is one of the authors of NOAA's Climate Change Science Program report that clearly states that global warming is real and man-made. Yet, he is more than happy to take money from the ExxonMobil funded Heartland institute and say global warming doesn't exist
His comment submission to the EPA particularly discusses how the CCSP report was politicized--that its conclusions were not supported by the available science.
McIntyre cann't even use someone elses data and programs correctly. He tried to replicate Mann's hockey stick, but made so many mistakes that the National Research Council had to publish it's own analysis that demonstrated McIntyres errors and reaffirmed Mann's work. ten other independent groups have been able to duplicate Mann's work and show that Mann was too conservative in his findings.
Although the obscurity of the MBH methodology (as applied) lead to some inconsistencies, McIntyre did not fail to use "someone elses programs and data correctly." Rather Mann failed to document and describe his scientific procedure in a thorough and appropriate fashion.
The NRCs work was subsequently reviewed by congressional committee and an independent statistician which led to the 'Wegman report'. The latter analysis supersedes the NRC and validates McIntyre's work and discredits the line of MBH papers.
I've personally looked at Mann's method and McIntyre's criticisms. Coming from a machine-learning background, Mann's methodology is clearly prone to 'overfit' and data-mining. To wit, the simple explanation is that he used 100 years (points) of calibration against ~120 time-series. Now any arbitrary linear weighting of those time-series is likely to produce a flat, trendless signal. During the calibration period--which uses 20th century temperature data that is basically trendless until 1980 followed by an increase in temperature, he fitted the time-series in linear combination to reproduce this curve (minimize rms error). This is basically just a question of having adequate free-variables to adjust the data to fit, but outside of the calibration interval the weightings are essentially arbitrary.
Thus his result: several hundred years of trendless temperature followed a curve that looks like the 20th century. From this he concluded that the 20th century temperature change was unprecedented. This conclusion using this method is patently fatuous.
Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.
Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.
I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:
I agree about the industry part, although I find it ironic since VHDL arose from DARPA funded work whereas Verilog is a proprietary innovation turned international standard. At school I learned VHDL though. This wasn't a problem when it came time to use Verilog at work.
My advice: cut against trend. If you're a North American school, use VHDL. If you're in Europe, use Verilog. It may be the only chance for your students to taste the other side.
The insanity of VHDL is attaching two things that you know are 'just wires'. In my experience you spend quite a lot of time writing type-conversion adapters.
Right. Most people are sitting on unaddressable addresses. The ANT census is pretty explicit on this point. Roughly 4% of the IPv4 address space is in use, 30% is not allocated at all, and the remainder (66%) is trapped due to inefficient allocations.
Put another way: If everyone used 100% of the electrical capacity in their house, the plant would likely fall over. So what you do is, you charge for the amount used -- then people will at least make some effort to cut back. If they don't, and they still pay the bill, you invest that money in building infrastructure.
Except that the marginal price of bytes transferred is incredibly small, which means that any pricing scheme short of gouging will not deter usage.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation
That's a well known talking point, but unfortunately its wrong. The regions of accumulation are cooling, not warming.
See this spatial distribution plot
The jury isn't the trier of law, that's the judge's job. The jury is the trier of fact. Any application of case law independently by a juror, wherever they derived the knowledge and however correct it is, would be misconduct.
Arrogant poppycock. Trial-by-jury is a constitutionally protected right, which means that we need to look to the common-law to determine what that means. In so much as legislatures and judges have arrogated the common-law meaning, they've breached their legal authority.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... [jurors] have a right to take it upon [themselves] to be the judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794)
"It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams
The Earth is getting warmer and our ice is melting, and that's not in dispute. If the warming trend continues, all of the ice will melt eventually, this is dictated by physics.
Wrong about the physics: Whether all the ice melts is not dictated by the derivative of temperature. Wrong about the facts: polar ice-extent is neutral despite the warming. Southern Extent is increasing.
Your implication of overwhelming political bias in climate science is simply contrary to the facts. The fact that these researchers seem to have been biased is not relevant to the science as a whole.
GP did not mention political bias. He said "bias". This "bias" has been well documented by MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado.
The "think tanks" who criticize climate science don't do any actual science. They cherry pick data from scientific papers, and attempt to refute CO2 vs warming trends with typical logical fallacies, but they do no research, make no predictions, and advance no falsifiable claims.
Huh? Lindzen and his students have put forward the IR-Iris theory that suggests negative-feedbacks dominate. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama wrote a paper
explaining the systemic error in the climate models used to predict the IPCC's 2C/century.
HP/Intel would have done better, technically, to work on Alpha, but they couldn't sufficiently dominate the market for their tastes in that case. half the point was to have something that they controlled, and Alpha, while technically great, was already too widespread for that.
Did you just make that conspiracy theory up?
The Alpha and its instruction set was covered under intellectual properly laws. First Compaq bought DEC, then Compaq sold most of the good parts of the Alpha technology to AMD. The smash hit "Opteron" was based on Alpha technology, and most of the old Alpha engineers were hired by AMD. One reason AMD has struggled to repeat their surprise leap-forward is that it was not based on home-grown technology but rather a onetime boost from the legacy of DEC R&D.
Now that HP owns Compaq, and they may hold some critical IP (such as the ISA). So a derivative is possible, but the timeline does not work. The "Itanic" was then, this is now.
The other big determinate in gamut is the center frequencies and Q of the red, green, and blue filters. This allows the W700 to have a wider gamut despite its matte screen. Why not use similar filters for other panels? The W700 has an 8b per-color panel rather than the 6b per-color used in the others. For the same reasons I gave above, more-bits per color allows for better shade gradation. You can't calibration software will fail on a screen when the steps between shades are too large.
Actually glossy is a superior technology for imaging hobbled by having only 8bits per color channel. Similar problems have arisen with wide-gamut displays. 8bit precision means fairly coarse steps between shades as the range of reproducible colors (gamut) increases. Glossy screens have better color gamut because environmental light contributes less "white pollution" because most sources are reflected away, not toward the viewer. Using a matte screen is more like looking through a layer of milk. Your mind's eye sees around the matte effect because of its uniformity across the screen, whereas residual reflections are distinctly localized in the glossy case.
Now people doing press work actually cannot use the expanded gamut of the glossy screen--because paper is a limited medium. Therefore, given the bit-depths available, they prefer the more limited reproduction of a matte screen.
To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
While I believe your claim as stated, I wonder: where is the evidence that suggests highly integrated computers are the best use of limited funds to enhance learning outcomes?
I'm not a Luddite, schools should have computers, but I've seen plenty of evidence that computer assisted learning doesn't work well.
So.. I'd say your theory about boron diffusion destroying computers in 5-10 years doesn't stand up to the evidence. There's a LOT of people with rather old everyday machines that run just fine after 10 years.
Its called stochastic process and margin. It also depends on operating temperature. I'm certain that you cannot overclock the chip as much as you could when it left the factory. You just don't realize it.
boron magically electromigrates or keeps on diffusing? Um, I have been doing ultra high reliability electronics for over 25 years and this is total news to me. Don't think so. I know of electronics in geostationary satellites still humming along over 20 years and still going strong. There probably is even older out there, but I wasn't involved, so I cant say.
You apparently have no knowledge of deep-submicron VLSI. Regardless I did not say that the device magically fails at year 10, I said that it might need to be clocked more slowly. If you are conservative with your operating frequency to begin with, you are going to see many more years of life. Consumer electronics are not conservative.
There is nothing magical about "diffusion", an concentration gradient will result in diffusion, only a question of how fast.
Last, joining "electromigration" with "boron" is just nonsense. Electromigration effects the metalization, not the dopant atoms.
Quite so, one effect you did not mention is that the microprocessor is unlikely to work after 10 years. During manufacturing Boron is diffused into selected regions of purified silicon (doping) to create the transistors. This is done at high temperature, but even at room-temperature the diffusion process continues. Most CMOS process technologies have anticipated lifespans of 5-10yrs.
10yrs from now, this may just mean you have to clock the processor more slowly. In 50 yrs? Who knows.
There is another reason: suppose an application suddenly starts mallocing and/or touching overcommitted memory. Do you want to take a performance hit then and there? No. The right strategy is to page to disk BEFORE you have pressure to reuse the RAM in the idle times. If you never get a malloc or such, no big deal: the old data is in BOTH places. But if do get a malloc, then the OS just scrubs the memory already paged and allocates it.
Windows performs badly because of its no-'overcommit' policy. Evictions are done when another program mallocs the memory, rather than merely when another program touches a page of memory for the first time. As a consequence, Windows tends to evict perfectly good-data in favor of uninitialized data.
And this is exactly the problem. Using 128b addresses was a big mistake. It just does not mesh well with hardware accelerated routing. The capacity of a router declines by 1/4 using IPv6. That makes IPv6 unsuitable for deployment.
Sure in 4 years, technology will scale, but so will demand.
"Pros" hate them because of poor information spread around arts schools and forums. Lets take a point-by-point:
Extreme brightness on glossy displays = extreme contrast. It's harder to believe you're looking at a calibrated 2.2 gamma when your "superbrite" glossy LCD display has such a massive contrast ratio.
Contrast has nothing what so ever do with gamma. A CRT has a contrast ratio in the 10000-100000:1 range.
Working in neutrally-painted, darkened rooms is optimal. When you turn these superbright LCDs down to achieve a reasonable brightness for a darkened room, the glare and reflections from the glossy panel are distracting. Turn it back up, and it takes you several seconds to a minute to see where you're going.
Glossy LCDs use coatings which originated with CRTs. Its the same technology evolved. A CRT and a glossy LCD have similar glare properties. If you clients are having glare problems, they need to be using a hood.
The higher brightness leads to colors looking more saturated, which sells with consumers.
Glossy screens are not any brighter than matte. Their contrast comes from having a better black-level, i.e., less diffuse glare from the environment. "Color saturation" is how much "white" is mixed into color. Matte screens have worse saturation because they mix in (diffuse) more environmental "white" light.
Photographers who rely on a muted palette and who work in color managed workflows can't tell what's going to roll out of their printer with displays like the iMac's glossy LED display - the colors seem too contrasty and saturated, so everything gets dialled down too far.
This point is the closest to being right. Glossy screens have a more different color-space relative to CYMK ink processes than matte screens. But any good software, such as photoshop, has the ability to highlight gamut errors. The remaining trouble is that the in gmaut color-space is compressed because the display's color-space is larger.
The real problem is that 8b/color channel is not enough for modern wide-gamut displays such those you can make using LED backlights and glossy anti-glare coatings. Photographers near universal failure to understand the technical situation and speak-up means that their needs are wholly under-represented, and many of the new color-professional wide-gamut products are unusable due the colorimetric distances being too far given 8b/color channel.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The real problem is that FCC has only made a very small, very expensive allocations to GSM use. The equipment can support many more channels but the frequencies are legally limited in the US. Thus why bandwidth is bad here and much better elsewhere. Ditto for cost concerns. Wireless carriers have paid a lot of more at auction to the US Government than similar allocations cost in other countries.
See for instance this recent article at the wsj
"Captain" Bligh of the Bounty was a lieutenant. Young and still a bit green as a commander.
Bligh and _2/3rds_ of the crew were placed into a small dingy and set adrift. Having only a compass and sextant he went 6700km and nailed the nearest British outpost Timor. Only one man died on route.
Further wikipedia concisely notes:
"The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged. He was an educated man, deeply interested in science, convinced that good diet and sanitation were necessary for the welfare of his crew. He took a great interest in his crew's exercise, was very careful about the quality of their food, and insisted upon the Bounty being kept very clean."
Many "european" countries lack a minimum wage which is widely (but as you have shown us, not universally) recognized as a confused and unfortunately effective barrier to entry for inexperienced workers. A barrier that blocks them from securing the basic work experience to reach long term employment.
Unfortunately there is a large cadre of people in the US stuck in a 150 year intellectual time warp, spouting the same discredited ideas.
The rest of your list makes no sense as its connection to work wages is tenuous at best.
The data is a good deal more complicated than you or the article suggest. In particular the US has substantially better neonatal and premature birth care. Those babies are much more likely to die outright in the RoW and those deaths are excluded from the statistics. Conversely, those 'saved' babies in US have lower than average life expectancies and weigh-down the numbers.
This is an area where 'science' and 'facts' have been highly politicized--a war on science so to speak--to advance a political agenda. Witness your own pivot into a lack of 'health-care'.
If you have populations who forgo abortion despite adverse fetal genetic testing, you're also going to have populations with lower life expectancies too.
This is a red herring. UAH and RSS agree very closely, so what? That is not the issue raised by any of the four comments I linked to. There is no reason to doubt the UAH/RSS temperature series.
His comment submission to the EPA particularly discusses how the CCSP report was politicized--that its conclusions were not supported by the available science.
Although the obscurity of the MBH methodology (as applied) lead to some inconsistencies, McIntyre did not fail to use "someone elses programs and data correctly." Rather Mann failed to document and describe his scientific procedure in a thorough and appropriate fashion.
The NRCs work was subsequently reviewed by congressional committee and an independent statistician which led to the 'Wegman report'. The latter analysis supersedes the NRC and validates McIntyre's work and discredits the line of MBH papers.
I've personally looked at Mann's method and McIntyre's criticisms. Coming from a machine-learning background, Mann's methodology is clearly prone to 'overfit' and data-mining. To wit, the simple explanation is that he used 100 years (points) of calibration against ~120 time-series. Now any arbitrary linear weighting of those time-series is likely to produce a flat, trendless signal. During the calibration period--which uses 20th century temperature data that is basically trendless until 1980 followed by an increase in temperature, he fitted the time-series in linear combination to reproduce this curve (minimize rms error). This is basically just a question of having adequate free-variables to adjust the data to fit, but outside of the calibration interval the weightings are essentially arbitrary.
Thus his result: several hundred years of trendless temperature followed a curve that looks like the 20th century. From this he concluded that the 20th century temperature change was unprecedented. This conclusion using this method is patently fatuous.
Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.
I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:
These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.
I agree about the industry part, although I find it ironic since VHDL arose from DARPA funded work whereas Verilog is a proprietary innovation turned international standard. At school I learned VHDL though. This wasn't a problem when it came time to use Verilog at work.
My advice: cut against trend. If you're a North American school, use VHDL. If you're in Europe, use Verilog. It may be the only chance for your students to taste the other side.
The insanity of VHDL is attaching two things that you know are 'just wires'. In my experience you spend quite a lot of time writing type-conversion adapters.
Right. Most people are sitting on unaddressable addresses. The ANT census is pretty explicit on this point. Roughly 4% of the IPv4 address space is in use, 30% is not allocated at all, and the remainder (66%) is trapped due to inefficient allocations.
Except that the marginal price of bytes transferred is incredibly small, which means that any pricing scheme short of gouging will not deter usage.
That's a well known talking point, but unfortunately its wrong. The regions of accumulation are cooling, not warming. See this spatial distribution plot
That's not a fair comparison. You're paying for a five-9 reliability factor. Each '9' carries an exponential cost increase.
Second, the proposed incremental transfer costs are disproportionate to the wholesale costs.
Huh? I think parent was mentioning that the CFCsOzone hole link has been fairly discredited in the past several years.
Arrogant poppycock. Trial-by-jury is a constitutionally protected right, which means that we need to look to the common-law to determine what that means. In so much as legislatures and judges have arrogated the common-law meaning, they've breached their legal authority.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... [jurors] have a right to take it upon [themselves] to be the judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794)
"It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams
Wrong about the physics: Whether all the ice melts is not dictated by the derivative of temperature. Wrong about the facts: polar ice-extent is neutral despite the warming. Southern Extent is increasing.
GP did not mention political bias. He said "bias". This "bias" has been well documented by MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado.
Huh? Lindzen and his students have put forward the IR-Iris theory that suggests negative-feedbacks dominate. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama wrote a paper explaining the systemic error in the climate models used to predict the IPCC's 2C/century.
There are many more.
Did you just make that conspiracy theory up?
The Alpha and its instruction set was covered under intellectual properly laws. First Compaq bought DEC, then Compaq sold most of the good parts of the Alpha technology to AMD. The smash hit "Opteron" was based on Alpha technology, and most of the old Alpha engineers were hired by AMD. One reason AMD has struggled to repeat their surprise leap-forward is that it was not based on home-grown technology but rather a onetime boost from the legacy of DEC R&D.
Now that HP owns Compaq, and they may hold some critical IP (such as the ISA). So a derivative is possible, but the timeline does not work. The "Itanic" was then, this is now.
The other big determinate in gamut is the center frequencies and Q of the red, green, and blue filters. This allows the W700 to have a wider gamut despite its matte screen. Why not use similar filters for other panels? The W700 has an 8b per-color panel rather than the 6b per-color used in the others. For the same reasons I gave above, more-bits per color allows for better shade gradation. You can't calibration software will fail on a screen when the steps between shades are too large.
Actually glossy is a superior technology for imaging hobbled by having only 8bits per color channel. Similar problems have arisen with wide-gamut displays. 8bit precision means fairly coarse steps between shades as the range of reproducible colors (gamut) increases. Glossy screens have better color gamut because environmental light contributes less "white pollution" because most sources are reflected away, not toward the viewer. Using a matte screen is more like looking through a layer of milk. Your mind's eye sees around the matte effect because of its uniformity across the screen, whereas residual reflections are distinctly localized in the glossy case.
Now people doing press work actually cannot use the expanded gamut of the glossy screen--because paper is a limited medium. Therefore, given the bit-depths available, they prefer the more limited reproduction of a matte screen.
To put this in perspective: The gold-standard for imaging is historically CRT technology which shares similar glossy properties.
While I believe your claim as stated, I wonder: where is the evidence that suggests highly integrated computers are the best use of limited funds to enhance learning outcomes?
I'm not a Luddite, schools should have computers, but I've seen plenty of evidence that computer assisted learning doesn't work well.
Its called stochastic process and margin. It also depends on operating temperature. I'm certain that you cannot overclock the chip as much as you could when it left the factory. You just don't realize it.
You apparently have no knowledge of deep-submicron VLSI. Regardless I did not say that the device magically fails at year 10, I said that it might need to be clocked more slowly. If you are conservative with your operating frequency to begin with, you are going to see many more years of life. Consumer electronics are not conservative.
There is nothing magical about "diffusion", an concentration gradient will result in diffusion, only a question of how fast.
Last, joining "electromigration" with "boron" is just nonsense. Electromigration effects the metalization, not the dopant atoms.
Quite so, one effect you did not mention is that the microprocessor is unlikely to work after 10 years. During manufacturing Boron is diffused into selected regions of purified silicon (doping) to create the transistors. This is done at high temperature, but even at room-temperature the diffusion process continues. Most CMOS process technologies have anticipated lifespans of 5-10yrs.
10yrs from now, this may just mean you have to clock the processor more slowly. In 50 yrs? Who knows.
There is another reason: suppose an application suddenly starts mallocing and/or touching overcommitted memory. Do you want to take a performance hit then and there? No. The right strategy is to page to disk BEFORE you have pressure to reuse the RAM in the idle times. If you never get a malloc or such, no big deal: the old data is in BOTH places. But if do get a malloc, then the OS just scrubs the memory already paged and allocates it.
Windows performs badly because of its no-'overcommit' policy. Evictions are done when another program mallocs the memory, rather than merely when another program touches a page of memory for the first time. As a consequence, Windows tends to evict perfectly good-data in favor of uninitialized data.
And this is exactly the problem. Using 128b addresses was a big mistake. It just does not mesh well with hardware accelerated routing. The capacity of a router declines by 1/4 using IPv6. That makes IPv6 unsuitable for deployment.
Sure in 4 years, technology will scale, but so will demand.
Contrast has nothing what so ever do with gamma. A CRT has a contrast ratio in the 10000-100000:1 range.
Glossy LCDs use coatings which originated with CRTs. Its the same technology evolved. A CRT and a glossy LCD have similar glare properties. If you clients are having glare problems, they need to be using a hood.
Glossy screens are not any brighter than matte. Their contrast comes from having a better black-level, i.e., less diffuse glare from the environment. "Color saturation" is how much "white" is mixed into color. Matte screens have worse saturation because they mix in (diffuse) more environmental "white" light.
This point is the closest to being right. Glossy screens have a more different color-space relative to CYMK ink processes than matte screens. But any good software, such as photoshop, has the ability to highlight gamut errors. The remaining trouble is that the in gmaut color-space is compressed because the display's color-space is larger.
The real problem is that 8b/color channel is not enough for modern wide-gamut displays such those you can make using LED backlights and glossy anti-glare coatings. Photographers near universal failure to understand the technical situation and speak-up means that their needs are wholly under-represented, and many of the new color-professional wide-gamut products are unusable due the colorimetric distances being too far given 8b/color channel.