A 40Gbps IP-over-HDMI link sounds nice at consumer AV equipment prices.
You mean like how I can get IP-over-Thunderbolt at 40Gbps now? I don't have to wait 2 years for HDMI 2.1 to do what I've been doing for months already.
The only thing still missing from HDMI is power to drive HDMI attached media dongles. Maybe with HDMI 3.0...
It looks like MHL solved this problem by borrowing the HDMI connector, using the MHL protocol, and upping the current on some pins for power. The power isn't much, 5 watts is all, but enough to run a ChromeCast or something like it.
A *consumer* 48Gbps cable is a pretty damn amazing creation, especially being backward / forward compatible with old ports / old cables.
You mean like how USB-C can do 40Gbps, provide 100W for power, and is backward/forward compatible with USB-2.0, MHL, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and (funnily enough) HDMI?
I'm not impressed. 48Gbps may be larger bandwidth than Thunderbolt, SuperMHL, or DisplayPort but not hugely so. I can get Thunderbolt and DisplayPort now. SuperMHL is coming soon I expect, being announced a year or two ago. Sooner than HDMI 2.1 I expect as well. While I'm waiting for HDMI to catch up I can use the competition. By the time HDMI 2.1 products come to market I expect the competition to advance a step as well, bringing it's forward and backward compatibility with it.
As it turns out DisplayPort and MHL have some backward and forward compatibility with HDMI, so even if I choose them I'm not leaving all my existing HDMI stuff behind.
I have a few guesses. First is that Ethernet is bi-directional, video doesn't need that. Sure there is some up link data, for things like telling the source device the supported resolutions, key exchange for DRM, remote control signals, and so on, but those are all very low data compared to the video, it doesn't take 100Gbps for that to work. Second is overhead. Ethernet packets have data in the frames telling the destination device things it does not need to know to do video. Ethernet is a bus but this is a simple device to device use, it doesn't need things like source and destination addresses. I don't know if error correction is used in HDMI but if it is I imagine it's much less robust than Ethernet.
It may be true that if used more widely the connectors and cables would get cheaper but HDMI already has customers for their own connector, the cost for this is sunk. It might mean updating the manufacturing to get the higher data rates but this would not require a complete redo of the manufacturing. It also means little redesign of the devices that use the old HDMI standard to use the new, for example the cutout hole for the connector is identical, the circuit board might be new but the plastic case is unchanged.
Backward compatibility. People buying a new HDMI 2.1 device has reasonable assurance it will still work with their HDMI 1.3 devices with no new cables, no new setup, it "just works".
Here is the biggest reason in my opinion, branding. HDMI owns the connectors, the protocol, and all the other IP involved. They can charge manufacturers for the benefit of using their brand and collect all the royalties. If they use an Ethernet connector, packet structure, or whatever, then they'd have to share some of that money with the Ethernet people, or not be able to charge for it at all.
This branding also benefits the consumer too, which is an extension of my earlier point on backward compatibility. With HDMI controlling the connector, protocol, etc. they can assure the customer that if the HDMI symbol is on their device then it's been tested to meet the standards of that specification, things just work. This may actually prove cheaper for the consumer, at least in the short run. It means less of an economy of scale on 100G Ethernet though, so future tech might be more expensive than if it was adopted for HDMI.
I'm with you though on the connector part, the HDMI connector isn't all that great and just about anything would be an improvement.
That may be true but one thing bothers me, how much material would we have to mine so that we have enough electricity storage so that we only need to rely on solar power? I've seen the calculations and it's a lot, as in not enough in the Earth crust kind of "a lot". Even with distributed storage, as in each business and household needs to only store their own energy, the materials needed is huge. In fact the materials needed might be more than what utility storage would be due to a lack of economy of scale.
There is also the matter of cost. If every house in the world needed a multi-ton battery then what does that do to battery prices? We can make the batteries on an assembly line to make them cheap but there is still the matter of mining up enough material, which again is not trivial.
Then there's their share of building the grid itself: Plant construction (and mining and processing raw materials for it), transformers, wires, insulators, meters, and so on. Cutting trees for poles. Cutting trees for clearance for the wires. Fuel for the machinery that did it, and for taking workers to/from the sites. Using up land for grid right-of-ways.
Stop the train right there. Every time solar power is brought up on Slashdot some genius will point out that the sun never sets on Earth, it just moves around. For solar to work then all we need to do is run some high voltage DC lines and spread that solar power goodness world wide. This then means cutting down trees for utility poles and clearing right of way.
If you are going to pull this nonsense in defense of solar power then you are opposing so many others that defend solar power. It's either we need this huge grid or we don't, make up your mind.
All of that is replaced by the panels and their supporting storage and inverter/control electronics.
So, if we're not cutting down trees and burning fuel to put up power lines then we're cutting down trees and burning fuel to dig up the minerals needed to make these batteries and electronics.
In case you think I'm just opposing solar power to defend continued fossil fuels I'll point out that I believe nuclear power to be a better option. Nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, runs day or night (which includes charging up those batteries you like so much for load balancing), is already cheaper than solar, and kills fewer people per energy produced. If you don't believe me then look it up, you got internet just like I do.
Nuclear power saves lives, saves on carbon, and saves us money. Solar is a bad idea for so many reasons.
Utility level electricity storage is not going to use the same kind of batteries as an electric car. Not even close. Utilities are not bound by weight and volume like an electric car would be. To the utility all it comes down to is cost. Utilities won't use lithium batteries. They probably won't use even lead-acid. They'll use some thing really cheap, and therefore really heavy because light costs money. I don't know what these batteries would look like but I'm quite certain they'll be shipped to the site by rail.
A bad car analogy... This is like saying a Caterpillar D10 dozer will get cheaper because prices dropped on on the Nissan Versa. Both can move clay, only the Nissan moves it in the form of 30 pound bags of kitty litter while the D10 moves it in the form of 70 ton mounds.
Perhaps you should. Selling below cost initially is how monopolies are created. A company can sell at a loss for a while if they know this means driving off the competition. They don't need to drive everyone off, just diminish the ability for any competition to arise to the point that they can charge a premium for a substandard product. They would be betting on the ability for them to undercut any future competition later with greater volume (lower margins) and/or some reserves in resources to outlast the competition in a price war. This might not apply to electric cars exactly since this is not the kind of fight that a small company like Tesla can win against the likes of Ford and GM.
What is another tactic, and more likely one that Tesla could employ, is the ability to sell at a loss now knowing that the customer will likely return to them for services in the future. If this means selling another car in the future then perhaps there is nothing wrong with that. If this means selling critical parts like a battery then this might be a problem. Tesla would be in a position to overcharge for the battery to make up for a loss on the initial sale. If customers somehow feel compelled to continue using an electric car then Tesla would be in a position to also overcharge for the next vehicle too.
If Tesla is able to sell below costs because of government incentives, like subsidies or lowered taxes, then you are paying for this below cost pricing even if you are never a Tesla customer.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to bear the costs in some way.
What bothers me most is when the below cost pricing is due to government interference. In that case I'm paying for some rich guy to buy a new car when I can't afford my own. This is a subsidy that takes from the poor and gives to the wealthy. All energy subsidies do this really, take from the poor to further enrich the wealthy. I'd rather I be able to keep my money, perhaps then I can afford some new windows on my house. If you want to see people saving the environment then we need to stop these subsidies so people like me can buy some new windows, attic insulation, or even just a new pair of wool socks, and not have to spend so much on heating.
... there was actually content that actually needed 8K resolution.
Sports.
Watching sports doesn't "need" 8K video. People have been listening to sports broadcasts on the radio for a very long time now, so they don't "need" any video at all. In fact there are numerous profitable sports only radio channels right now. I suspect that this is largely due to a captive audience that drive, but I also suspect these same people would like to enjoy their sports in 8K when they are not on the road. With sports there can be a lot happening on a large area. People watching might appreciate a larger view of the action and still being able to recognize the athletes by their face or number they wear.
I've heard that Star Trek and Bonanza sold a lot of color televisions. I've heard that porn sold a lot of VCRs. I believe that sports will sell a lot of 8K televisions.
IMO, having the HDMI spec support 8K is a good move to standardize video transfer.
In my experience the HDMI standard is already dead or dying. I'd much rather see a more common connector be used if backward compatibility is required. I'd also rather see a better designed connector used than HDMI. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning the connector can work itself loose under its own weight. DVI doesn't have this problem (screws), USB-C doesn't have this problem (small and light), and neither does DisplayPort (locking tab).
I've seen SuperMHL announced a year ago, not that you'll find any products with it yet but it does have a head start. It offers 8K/120 resolution, reversible connector, and power over the cable. It's also backward compatible with the existing HDMI connector, limited to 1080p right now but that can change too just like this announcement from HDMI.
I see why they made this update, they want to compete with MHL and DisplayPort, but I'd rather it just die off. If HDMI wants to stay relevant then they need more than just updating the data rate, they need to offer more than the competition. It's possible they can stay afloat for a very long time based on inertia and backward compatibility but this seems to me to be a shrinking market. MHL and DisplayPort pretty much already own the computer and portable electronics markets. They hang on with support from backward compatibility but if that is the reason to stay then I can counter that with a pile of electronics in my house that have HDMI and some other input or output with it like component video, VGA, or DisplayPort. If people have old electronics then it's quite possible they can just skip over HDMI and move on to something that will come out sooner and work just as well.
In short, I think this is too little and too late to save HDMI. I won't miss it if it disappears since I've pretty much skipped over it already. It's not that I don't have any HDMI devices, I have several in fact, I just don't have any devices where the HDMI ports are connected to anything.
Ever since HDMI came out I've heard people complain about the connector. It's too big for most any portable device, has only friction to hold it in place, leading to a common problem of the connection coming loose from just the weight of the cable. I recall it being described by someone as how a computer scientist would solve an electrical engineering problem. Not to call computer scientists stupid or anything it's just that the basic level of electronic theory required by a computer science degree is insufficient to make a quality transmission line and connector. This is from someone that studied electrical and computer engineering but is now back in school to study computer science.
DVI and VGA have screws to hold them in place. DisplayPort has a locking tab. USB-C is friction fit but it's a much smaller connector. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning it tends to make a poor connection. The USB-C connector already has an alternate mode for DVI/HDMI which means that they already have access to a port/connector which is capable of 40GBps. Is it possible to extend this to the 48Gbps they needed to get the quality they desired without needing a new connector? If they can take the HDMI 2.0 connector at 18GBps and get 48Gbps speeds for HDMI 2.1 then I suspect it is conceivable to squeeze 48Gbps from the USB-C connector that is already rated for 40Gbps for Thunderbolt. Seems to me that all they'd need to do is extend the USB-C HDMI alternate mode to cover the new 2.1 protocol. Which brings up the question, will HDMI 2.1 come to the USB-C alternate mode? Even if that means limiting it to only those resolutions allowed by a 40Gbps link?
Designing a new connector would be expensive, no doubt. Qualifying any other existing connector for the higher data rates should be no more expensive than doing the same for the existing HDMI connector. USB-C and DisplayPort are both already backward compatible with HDMI, they could have used either or both of those connectors. They have some deal with the MHL where MHL signals can use HDMI connections, perhaps they could do the reverse and have HDMI signals on the new SuperMHL connector.
This gets down to HDMI either going through the expense of extending their own connector specs, extending the specs of some other existing connector to include the new HDMI signal, or designing a new connector. Well, we already have enough connectors out there, so I'm at least glad they didn't make a new one.
So, why stick with this crappy connector? I've concluded it's about branding. The brand is the connector. If they abandon the existing HDMI connector then the HDMI brand effectively disappears. I would not miss HDMI if it does go away since the market is already full of a number of many suitable replacements, from the old DVI and VGA to the newer DisplayPort and MHL. I'd rather it did go away so I wouldn't have to keep so many adapters around.
If the government were to "stay out of it", the oil, gas and nuclear industries would close up shop tomorrow.
Not likely. The government simply cannot "stay out of it".
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, consumer of fossil fuels in the USA is governments. The governments (and I do mean plural, as this is a federation) need fuel for services. What is likely the most obvious is the military, all those ships, tanks, trucks, planes, trains, and automobiles, need fuel. Given the need for them to work on a fuel that is easily stored for times of war, natural disaster, and other emergencies this means hydrocarbons.
Add on top of the military the other emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, and there is another big consumer of fossil fuels. Then there are the backup generators that run on fuel oil, propane, natural gas, or whatever, for hospitals, prisons, command/communication centers, etc. Then there are trash truck, snow plows, road repair crews, and on and on.
That's the small stuff, where hydrocarbons rule. For big stuff, like airports, military bases, government complexes of many kinds, we'd want nuclear power. Even big Navy vessels use nuclear power, and I think more of them should in the future. To feed this necessary beast of government it needs energy. Energy that is fickle and difficult to store and transport like wind and solar will simply not do.
>> natural gas burning plants could handle 10x their normal load to cover for idle solar panels.
>Yep, natural gas and nuclear can provide power when solar isn't providing enough at the moment, for whatever reason. >That's a great mix. The cheapest, cleanest energy when it's available, reliable energy that's still clean and reasonably cheap >when the more preferred energy isn't sufficient at the moment.
Are you including solar in your mix with nuclear and natural gas? I hope not, because nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, lower cost, and fewer deaths per energy produced than even solar. I'm finding it real hard for a utility/nation/whatever to use solar power when nuclear power is available. If new air cooled nuclear reactors meet their claim of being able to load follow then those natural gas generators would be used only in the highest peaks and for emergency on-site power for the nuclear reactors.
I don't see the USA getting away from natural gas anytime soon. We have so much of it, it's great for heating and cooking, with a bit of effort it works for transportation, it's cheap, clean (as in little to no soot, sulfur, etc.), relatively safe (which isn't saying much compared to coal but still safe), great for peak and base power, and did I mention we have a lot of it?
About the only thing that I see replacing natural gas anytime soon is an artificial gas, synthetic methane. The US Navy has been experimenting with this process, a nuclear powered "seawater to jet fuel" process to create synthetic hydrocarbons. Making methane from this is not only nearly trivial now, it is also a very good way to transport and store energy through an existing national (international?) infrastructure.
It turns out that planes can fly at mach 1.3, but the range between mach 0.7 and mach 1.2 is a bitch.
Passenger jets regularly cruise at about 0.8 mach and have max safe speeds near 0.9 mach. I don't dispute your claim generally just the margins you give.
Exactly, this has been common practice for a long time now. 3D printing is not as "magical" as it used to be. It's pretty mundane now, especially with small plastic objects. What would be news is larger objects, more durable objects, and/or a much cheaper process.
What is perhaps more interesting than 3D printing are advancements in CNC milling. People can buy the Ghost Gunner now and create their own firearms from aluminum scrap. This has the potential for considerable effects on gun control laws and anything else the government might not want people to own without their knowledge. What might the government want to keep their citizens from owning? How about a record player and recordings of "unapproved" music and spoken word.
I welcome news articles on advancements in the technology that can make the things we need to raise our standard of living. This is not one of them.
What good does it do the country for Tom Cruise to make tons of money if it doesn't get taxed heavily?
Because 10% of $10,000,000 is $1,000,000 while 90% of $10,000,000 is not 9,000,000, it's zero. It's zero because anyone taxed at 90% is going to leave the country.
My philosophy professor was from one of these high tax European nations. On the first day of class he told us why he was teaching in the USA at a 5 figure salary, because anyone intelligent and educated enough to see how the taxes were raping them in Europe left for the USA.
All the critics of low taxes I've seen do not discuss the potential of a low tax nation/state/city to attract people from the outside or to keep the wealthy people inside. The USA is not an island, it is one of many nations on Earth. If we impose such taxes in the USA then we'll not only see movie stars leave but also philosophy professors. It's not near as hard as it used to be to make $2,000,000/year. If that's the dividing line between a sane tax rate and an insane one then not only will the millionaires leave but also those with the talents to become one.
Then you are in great company with those many who vote against their own self-interests.
The people that vote against high taxes are the people that make money. The people that vote for high taxes are the people that benefit from the work of others. I'm not saying that there should be no taxes, far from it. Only that if taxes are too high that it is trading a short turn gain for a long term loss. If you believe that people that make $2,000,000/year need to have a tax rate of 90% then you just told me that you lack the intelligence, skills, motivation, and education to ever make that much money. People vote for their self interests, and those that work for their money will vote to keep it while people that don't work for their money will vote to take it from others.
Did these wealthy people break any laws to get their wealth? Is Tom Cruise a criminal for making over 10 million dollars on each of his last ten movies? Is his wealth what leads people to the guillotines? He made that money because he puts asses in seats. He made that money because people gave it to him willingly. Does that make him "greedy"? Did he not work for this money?
Now, tell me, who is greedier, Tom Cruise or the people that think his money should be taken from him at gunpoint and given to them? Remember that it's these same middle class working folks that gave Tom Cruise his wealth $15 at a time for making a movie so they can enjoy themselves for an hour or two. So, Tom Cruise is supposed to work for free now?
I didn't have to pick Tom Cruise, he just popped into my head for some reason. I could have named any of a number of NFL players, popular music artists, or movie stars. It comes down to some people are more valuable in the industry, so they can demand a higher compensation for their efforts. This comes from talent, hard word, and of course just dumb luck.
The reason so many of these uber-wealthy are in the USA is because in just about any other nation they'd see a "holy fuck" level of taxation. So they leave, take their talent to make money with them, and make money here. If we impose a heavy tax on these people we get to do it once and only once, because after that they will disappear. They will leave for a place that does not punish them for their wealth because these people are wealthy enough to live a comfortable life anywhere in the world. Those that can't or won't leave will quit, just retire and live off of whatever they can shelter as corporate assets, gifts to family, ship to off shore banks, or otherwise hide from the tax man. The life in the USA will start to be less than what it was before.
so you are arguing for the right of the obscenely wealthy to become fuck-all obscenely wealthy?
Yes, yes I am. Because if they can keep their wealth then that means I can keep mine, as modest as it is. If the government can take what is theirs just because the government "feels" it is too much then my own wealth is not safe from the greed of the government. It's this kind of greed that turned Venezuela and Cuba from modern and wealthy nations to people standing in bread lines waiting for bread to eat. In a nation of the wealthy the bread is stacked in lines waiting for people to come to eat.
Bad example. People with a genetic condition like that are unhealthy. Perhaps a better example would be people that were the victims of war, crime, or accident that they were not at fault. This could leave them blinded, maimed, etc. and in need of a tissue or organ transplant to restore their health fully.
I don't support people dying from traffic accidents either. If one were to take the route of "for the benefit of the many" morality one could argue a dead teen in a traffic accident can save more lives and improve the lives of many. Death by head injury can leave two kidneys, two lungs, liver, heart, and other tissues and organs. If no serious injuries to appendages, and transplant technology advances a bit, then we'd have two arms, and two legs for veterans injured in war, as an example.
This "benefit for the many" is the path to evil, IMHO. It's too easy to justify murdering someone if it means donor organs for "more equal" people. Just like how using/selling tissues from abortions is considered wrong, it's too easy to justify the abortion if it benefits others.
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we ban or discourage safer cars so that the donor organ supply is not diminished, only that this is an unintended consequence of the technology.
A further note on the "benefit of the many" argument... This argument of making a government imposition on the few to benefit the many is something that really bothers me. People will often talk about how we could help so many poor people if we'd only tax the rich a little bit more. This is the thin edge of the wedge that if taken to the extreme is what brought us death marches and gas chambers. If we can legislate away people's property, like their money, for the "greater good" then why not legislate away their organs? People have rights, and we should respect them. That includes the right of property, and the right to seek happiness. If someone wants to go on an ocean cruise instead of pay for some stranger's college education then that's their choice.
I wish I had mod points right now. Science is not based on how many people you can convince, although that can help in making a case on the merits of your interpretation of the observations. Claiming that 97% of scientists agree on something is not an argument. All it can mean is a lot of people got it wrong.
Unfortunately doing so would reduce nuclear powers capacity factor significantly making nuclear power pointless.
No, it would increase capacity factor because right now the standard response is a shutdown. If the power is reduced, instead of eliminated, the reactor itself can provide the power needed for cooling. Also, if kept running the fission will "eat" some of the fission products which means that if a shutdown is called for later then there is less cooling required due to there being less fission products in the core.
I believe it is INSANE to point at those two reactor facilities and claim nuclear power is safe.
Sure, if you look at only those two then nuclear power does not look very safe. If you compare this to the hundreds of nuclear reactors that didn't fail then it does look very safe.
Maybe we need to step back from nuclear, not permanently, look at the industry as a whole and redesign it.
Stepping away from nuclear power means using energy sources that are demonstrably dirtier, less safe, and with a larger carbon footprint. We got into this mess precisely because we "stepped away" from it. Had we kept building them then those failed reactors in Japan would have been decommissioned years before the tsunami hit.
Alternatively we don't understand the full consequences of the nuclear industry yet.
We do know what happens if we abandon nuclear power. Just look around at what happens. People turn to burning oil and brown coal. The issues of nuclear waste have been solved but politics prevent addressing them responsibly.
Why does that matter? If they are uneconomic, they are uneconomic. The reasons are irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Nuclear power is uneconomic only because the government deemed it so. This is violation of a very basic freedom, the freedom to choose how we spend our money. This is not how a free nation or strong economy is built.
Do you really believe that we should squander money subsidizing nukes because that is the "fair" thing to do? Fair to whom?
I don't want anything subsidized. I just want nuclear power allowed.
Tell me something, is it fair that the government is talking about how we need to reduce our carbon footprint but denies us access to an energy source we know of that has a lower footprint to any other energy source we know of? Not only is the government telling us we need to lower our carbon footprint but is spending our tax money to give us CFL lighting, attic insulation, and other energy saving measures. We would not need this government subsidy for CFLs, insulation, electric cars, or solar panels if the government would allow nuclear power plants to be built. Just a handful of selling licenses would mean lower carbon output, lower energy prices, and no subsidies.
This makes me wonder if the federal government is really all that interested in lowering carbon output. It makes me wonder if they really aren't just buying votes. Well, I *know* that they are buying votes, but to what end?
Slashdot Mirror
You underestimate the bandwidth of envelopes filled with Blu-ray discs sent by post.
As I recall Netflix still rents out discs by post. If 4K and 8K become popular then services like this might become popular as well.
A 40Gbps IP-over-HDMI link sounds nice at consumer AV equipment prices.
You mean like how I can get IP-over-Thunderbolt at 40Gbps now? I don't have to wait 2 years for HDMI 2.1 to do what I've been doing for months already.
I'm not impressed.
The only thing still missing from HDMI is power to drive HDMI attached media dongles. Maybe with HDMI 3.0 ...
It looks like MHL solved this problem by borrowing the HDMI connector, using the MHL protocol, and upping the current on some pins for power. The power isn't much, 5 watts is all, but enough to run a ChromeCast or something like it.
A *consumer* 48Gbps cable is a pretty damn amazing creation, especially being backward / forward compatible with old ports / old cables.
You mean like how USB-C can do 40Gbps, provide 100W for power, and is backward/forward compatible with USB-2.0, MHL, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and (funnily enough) HDMI?
I'm not impressed. 48Gbps may be larger bandwidth than Thunderbolt, SuperMHL, or DisplayPort but not hugely so. I can get Thunderbolt and DisplayPort now. SuperMHL is coming soon I expect, being announced a year or two ago. Sooner than HDMI 2.1 I expect as well. While I'm waiting for HDMI to catch up I can use the competition. By the time HDMI 2.1 products come to market I expect the competition to advance a step as well, bringing it's forward and backward compatibility with it.
As it turns out DisplayPort and MHL have some backward and forward compatibility with HDMI, so even if I choose them I'm not leaving all my existing HDMI stuff behind.
Again, not impressed.
I have a few guesses. First is that Ethernet is bi-directional, video doesn't need that. Sure there is some up link data, for things like telling the source device the supported resolutions, key exchange for DRM, remote control signals, and so on, but those are all very low data compared to the video, it doesn't take 100Gbps for that to work. Second is overhead. Ethernet packets have data in the frames telling the destination device things it does not need to know to do video. Ethernet is a bus but this is a simple device to device use, it doesn't need things like source and destination addresses. I don't know if error correction is used in HDMI but if it is I imagine it's much less robust than Ethernet.
It may be true that if used more widely the connectors and cables would get cheaper but HDMI already has customers for their own connector, the cost for this is sunk. It might mean updating the manufacturing to get the higher data rates but this would not require a complete redo of the manufacturing. It also means little redesign of the devices that use the old HDMI standard to use the new, for example the cutout hole for the connector is identical, the circuit board might be new but the plastic case is unchanged.
Backward compatibility. People buying a new HDMI 2.1 device has reasonable assurance it will still work with their HDMI 1.3 devices with no new cables, no new setup, it "just works".
Here is the biggest reason in my opinion, branding. HDMI owns the connectors, the protocol, and all the other IP involved. They can charge manufacturers for the benefit of using their brand and collect all the royalties. If they use an Ethernet connector, packet structure, or whatever, then they'd have to share some of that money with the Ethernet people, or not be able to charge for it at all.
This branding also benefits the consumer too, which is an extension of my earlier point on backward compatibility. With HDMI controlling the connector, protocol, etc. they can assure the customer that if the HDMI symbol is on their device then it's been tested to meet the standards of that specification, things just work. This may actually prove cheaper for the consumer, at least in the short run. It means less of an economy of scale on 100G Ethernet though, so future tech might be more expensive than if it was adopted for HDMI.
I'm with you though on the connector part, the HDMI connector isn't all that great and just about anything would be an improvement.
Yes I am, and I benefit from that directly. I see little benefit from someone else driving a new car while I don't.
You simply have no clue about the topic.
That may be true but one thing bothers me, how much material would we have to mine so that we have enough electricity storage so that we only need to rely on solar power? I've seen the calculations and it's a lot, as in not enough in the Earth crust kind of "a lot". Even with distributed storage, as in each business and household needs to only store their own energy, the materials needed is huge. In fact the materials needed might be more than what utility storage would be due to a lack of economy of scale.
There is also the matter of cost. If every house in the world needed a multi-ton battery then what does that do to battery prices? We can make the batteries on an assembly line to make them cheap but there is still the matter of mining up enough material, which again is not trivial.
Then there's their share of building the grid itself: Plant construction (and mining and processing raw materials for it), transformers, wires, insulators, meters, and so on. Cutting trees for poles. Cutting trees for clearance for the wires. Fuel for the machinery that did it, and for taking workers to/from the sites. Using up land for grid right-of-ways.
Stop the train right there. Every time solar power is brought up on Slashdot some genius will point out that the sun never sets on Earth, it just moves around. For solar to work then all we need to do is run some high voltage DC lines and spread that solar power goodness world wide. This then means cutting down trees for utility poles and clearing right of way.
If you are going to pull this nonsense in defense of solar power then you are opposing so many others that defend solar power. It's either we need this huge grid or we don't, make up your mind.
All of that is replaced by the panels and their supporting storage and inverter/control electronics.
So, if we're not cutting down trees and burning fuel to put up power lines then we're cutting down trees and burning fuel to dig up the minerals needed to make these batteries and electronics.
In case you think I'm just opposing solar power to defend continued fossil fuels I'll point out that I believe nuclear power to be a better option. Nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, runs day or night (which includes charging up those batteries you like so much for load balancing), is already cheaper than solar, and kills fewer people per energy produced. If you don't believe me then look it up, you got internet just like I do.
Nuclear power saves lives, saves on carbon, and saves us money. Solar is a bad idea for so many reasons.
Utility level electricity storage is not going to use the same kind of batteries as an electric car. Not even close. Utilities are not bound by weight and volume like an electric car would be. To the utility all it comes down to is cost. Utilities won't use lithium batteries. They probably won't use even lead-acid. They'll use some thing really cheap, and therefore really heavy because light costs money. I don't know what these batteries would look like but I'm quite certain they'll be shipped to the site by rail.
A bad car analogy...
This is like saying a Caterpillar D10 dozer will get cheaper because prices dropped on on the Nissan Versa. Both can move clay, only the Nissan moves it in the form of 30 pound bags of kitty litter while the D10 moves it in the form of 70 ton mounds.
You mean like all those wind farms built 25 years ago and now abandoned?
I don't care how they stay in business
Perhaps you should. Selling below cost initially is how monopolies are created. A company can sell at a loss for a while if they know this means driving off the competition. They don't need to drive everyone off, just diminish the ability for any competition to arise to the point that they can charge a premium for a substandard product. They would be betting on the ability for them to undercut any future competition later with greater volume (lower margins) and/or some reserves in resources to outlast the competition in a price war. This might not apply to electric cars exactly since this is not the kind of fight that a small company like Tesla can win against the likes of Ford and GM.
What is another tactic, and more likely one that Tesla could employ, is the ability to sell at a loss now knowing that the customer will likely return to them for services in the future. If this means selling another car in the future then perhaps there is nothing wrong with that. If this means selling critical parts like a battery then this might be a problem. Tesla would be in a position to overcharge for the battery to make up for a loss on the initial sale. If customers somehow feel compelled to continue using an electric car then Tesla would be in a position to also overcharge for the next vehicle too.
If Tesla is able to sell below costs because of government incentives, like subsidies or lowered taxes, then you are paying for this below cost pricing even if you are never a Tesla customer.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to bear the costs in some way.
What bothers me most is when the below cost pricing is due to government interference. In that case I'm paying for some rich guy to buy a new car when I can't afford my own. This is a subsidy that takes from the poor and gives to the wealthy. All energy subsidies do this really, take from the poor to further enrich the wealthy. I'd rather I be able to keep my money, perhaps then I can afford some new windows on my house. If you want to see people saving the environment then we need to stop these subsidies so people like me can buy some new windows, attic insulation, or even just a new pair of wool socks, and not have to spend so much on heating.
... there was actually content that actually needed 8K resolution.
Sports.
Watching sports doesn't "need" 8K video. People have been listening to sports broadcasts on the radio for a very long time now, so they don't "need" any video at all. In fact there are numerous profitable sports only radio channels right now. I suspect that this is largely due to a captive audience that drive, but I also suspect these same people would like to enjoy their sports in 8K when they are not on the road. With sports there can be a lot happening on a large area. People watching might appreciate a larger view of the action and still being able to recognize the athletes by their face or number they wear.
I've heard that Star Trek and Bonanza sold a lot of color televisions. I've heard that porn sold a lot of VCRs. I believe that sports will sell a lot of 8K televisions.
IMO, having the HDMI spec support 8K is a good move to standardize video transfer.
In my experience the HDMI standard is already dead or dying. I'd much rather see a more common connector be used if backward compatibility is required. I'd also rather see a better designed connector used than HDMI. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning the connector can work itself loose under its own weight. DVI doesn't have this problem (screws), USB-C doesn't have this problem (small and light), and neither does DisplayPort (locking tab).
I've seen SuperMHL announced a year ago, not that you'll find any products with it yet but it does have a head start. It offers 8K/120 resolution, reversible connector, and power over the cable. It's also backward compatible with the existing HDMI connector, limited to 1080p right now but that can change too just like this announcement from HDMI.
I see why they made this update, they want to compete with MHL and DisplayPort, but I'd rather it just die off. If HDMI wants to stay relevant then they need more than just updating the data rate, they need to offer more than the competition. It's possible they can stay afloat for a very long time based on inertia and backward compatibility but this seems to me to be a shrinking market. MHL and DisplayPort pretty much already own the computer and portable electronics markets. They hang on with support from backward compatibility but if that is the reason to stay then I can counter that with a pile of electronics in my house that have HDMI and some other input or output with it like component video, VGA, or DisplayPort. If people have old electronics then it's quite possible they can just skip over HDMI and move on to something that will come out sooner and work just as well.
In short, I think this is too little and too late to save HDMI. I won't miss it if it disappears since I've pretty much skipped over it already. It's not that I don't have any HDMI devices, I have several in fact, I just don't have any devices where the HDMI ports are connected to anything.
Ever since HDMI came out I've heard people complain about the connector. It's too big for most any portable device, has only friction to hold it in place, leading to a common problem of the connection coming loose from just the weight of the cable. I recall it being described by someone as how a computer scientist would solve an electrical engineering problem. Not to call computer scientists stupid or anything it's just that the basic level of electronic theory required by a computer science degree is insufficient to make a quality transmission line and connector. This is from someone that studied electrical and computer engineering but is now back in school to study computer science.
DVI and VGA have screws to hold them in place. DisplayPort has a locking tab. USB-C is friction fit but it's a much smaller connector. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning it tends to make a poor connection. The USB-C connector already has an alternate mode for DVI/HDMI which means that they already have access to a port/connector which is capable of 40GBps. Is it possible to extend this to the 48Gbps they needed to get the quality they desired without needing a new connector? If they can take the HDMI 2.0 connector at 18GBps and get 48Gbps speeds for HDMI 2.1 then I suspect it is conceivable to squeeze 48Gbps from the USB-C connector that is already rated for 40Gbps for Thunderbolt. Seems to me that all they'd need to do is extend the USB-C HDMI alternate mode to cover the new 2.1 protocol. Which brings up the question, will HDMI 2.1 come to the USB-C alternate mode? Even if that means limiting it to only those resolutions allowed by a 40Gbps link?
Designing a new connector would be expensive, no doubt. Qualifying any other existing connector for the higher data rates should be no more expensive than doing the same for the existing HDMI connector. USB-C and DisplayPort are both already backward compatible with HDMI, they could have used either or both of those connectors. They have some deal with the MHL where MHL signals can use HDMI connections, perhaps they could do the reverse and have HDMI signals on the new SuperMHL connector.
This gets down to HDMI either going through the expense of extending their own connector specs, extending the specs of some other existing connector to include the new HDMI signal, or designing a new connector. Well, we already have enough connectors out there, so I'm at least glad they didn't make a new one.
So, why stick with this crappy connector? I've concluded it's about branding. The brand is the connector. If they abandon the existing HDMI connector then the HDMI brand effectively disappears. I would not miss HDMI if it does go away since the market is already full of a number of many suitable replacements, from the old DVI and VGA to the newer DisplayPort and MHL. I'd rather it did go away so I wouldn't have to keep so many adapters around.
If the government were to "stay out of it", the oil, gas and nuclear industries would close up shop tomorrow.
Not likely. The government simply cannot "stay out of it".
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, consumer of fossil fuels in the USA is governments. The governments (and I do mean plural, as this is a federation) need fuel for services. What is likely the most obvious is the military, all those ships, tanks, trucks, planes, trains, and automobiles, need fuel. Given the need for them to work on a fuel that is easily stored for times of war, natural disaster, and other emergencies this means hydrocarbons.
Add on top of the military the other emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, and there is another big consumer of fossil fuels. Then there are the backup generators that run on fuel oil, propane, natural gas, or whatever, for hospitals, prisons, command/communication centers, etc. Then there are trash truck, snow plows, road repair crews, and on and on.
That's the small stuff, where hydrocarbons rule. For big stuff, like airports, military bases, government complexes of many kinds, we'd want nuclear power. Even big Navy vessels use nuclear power, and I think more of them should in the future. To feed this necessary beast of government it needs energy. Energy that is fickle and difficult to store and transport like wind and solar will simply not do.
>> natural gas burning plants could handle 10x their normal load to cover for idle solar panels.
>Yep, natural gas and nuclear can provide power when solar isn't providing enough at the moment, for whatever reason.
>That's a great mix. The cheapest, cleanest energy when it's available, reliable energy that's still clean and reasonably cheap
>when the more preferred energy isn't sufficient at the moment.
Are you including solar in your mix with nuclear and natural gas? I hope not, because nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, lower cost, and fewer deaths per energy produced than even solar. I'm finding it real hard for a utility/nation/whatever to use solar power when nuclear power is available. If new air cooled nuclear reactors meet their claim of being able to load follow then those natural gas generators would be used only in the highest peaks and for emergency on-site power for the nuclear reactors.
I don't see the USA getting away from natural gas anytime soon. We have so much of it, it's great for heating and cooking, with a bit of effort it works for transportation, it's cheap, clean (as in little to no soot, sulfur, etc.), relatively safe (which isn't saying much compared to coal but still safe), great for peak and base power, and did I mention we have a lot of it?
About the only thing that I see replacing natural gas anytime soon is an artificial gas, synthetic methane. The US Navy has been experimenting with this process, a nuclear powered "seawater to jet fuel" process to create synthetic hydrocarbons. Making methane from this is not only nearly trivial now, it is also a very good way to transport and store energy through an existing national (international?) infrastructure.
It turns out that planes can fly at mach 1.3, but the range between mach 0.7 and mach 1.2 is a bitch.
Passenger jets regularly cruise at about 0.8 mach and have max safe speeds near 0.9 mach. I don't dispute your claim generally just the margins you give.
Exactly, this has been common practice for a long time now. 3D printing is not as "magical" as it used to be. It's pretty mundane now, especially with small plastic objects. What would be news is larger objects, more durable objects, and/or a much cheaper process.
What is perhaps more interesting than 3D printing are advancements in CNC milling. People can buy the Ghost Gunner now and create their own firearms from aluminum scrap. This has the potential for considerable effects on gun control laws and anything else the government might not want people to own without their knowledge. What might the government want to keep their citizens from owning? How about a record player and recordings of "unapproved" music and spoken word.
I welcome news articles on advancements in the technology that can make the things we need to raise our standard of living. This is not one of them.
What good does it do the country for Tom Cruise to make tons of money if it doesn't get taxed heavily?
Because 10% of $10,000,000 is $1,000,000 while 90% of $10,000,000 is not 9,000,000, it's zero. It's zero because anyone taxed at 90% is going to leave the country.
My philosophy professor was from one of these high tax European nations. On the first day of class he told us why he was teaching in the USA at a 5 figure salary, because anyone intelligent and educated enough to see how the taxes were raping them in Europe left for the USA.
All the critics of low taxes I've seen do not discuss the potential of a low tax nation/state/city to attract people from the outside or to keep the wealthy people inside. The USA is not an island, it is one of many nations on Earth. If we impose such taxes in the USA then we'll not only see movie stars leave but also philosophy professors. It's not near as hard as it used to be to make $2,000,000/year. If that's the dividing line between a sane tax rate and an insane one then not only will the millionaires leave but also those with the talents to become one.
Then you are in great company with those many who vote against their own self-interests.
The people that vote against high taxes are the people that make money. The people that vote for high taxes are the people that benefit from the work of others. I'm not saying that there should be no taxes, far from it. Only that if taxes are too high that it is trading a short turn gain for a long term loss. If you believe that people that make $2,000,000/year need to have a tax rate of 90% then you just told me that you lack the intelligence, skills, motivation, and education to ever make that much money. People vote for their self interests, and those that work for their money will vote to keep it while people that don't work for their money will vote to take it from others.
Did these wealthy people break any laws to get their wealth? Is Tom Cruise a criminal for making over 10 million dollars on each of his last ten movies? Is his wealth what leads people to the guillotines? He made that money because he puts asses in seats. He made that money because people gave it to him willingly. Does that make him "greedy"? Did he not work for this money?
Now, tell me, who is greedier, Tom Cruise or the people that think his money should be taken from him at gunpoint and given to them? Remember that it's these same middle class working folks that gave Tom Cruise his wealth $15 at a time for making a movie so they can enjoy themselves for an hour or two. So, Tom Cruise is supposed to work for free now?
I didn't have to pick Tom Cruise, he just popped into my head for some reason. I could have named any of a number of NFL players, popular music artists, or movie stars. It comes down to some people are more valuable in the industry, so they can demand a higher compensation for their efforts. This comes from talent, hard word, and of course just dumb luck.
The reason so many of these uber-wealthy are in the USA is because in just about any other nation they'd see a "holy fuck" level of taxation. So they leave, take their talent to make money with them, and make money here. If we impose a heavy tax on these people we get to do it once and only once, because after that they will disappear. They will leave for a place that does not punish them for their wealth because these people are wealthy enough to live a comfortable life anywhere in the world. Those that can't or won't leave will quit, just retire and live off of whatever they can shelter as corporate assets, gifts to family, ship to off shore banks, or otherwise hide from the tax man. The life in the USA will start to be less than what it was before.
so you are arguing for the right of the obscenely wealthy to become fuck-all obscenely wealthy?
Yes, yes I am. Because if they can keep their wealth then that means I can keep mine, as modest as it is. If the government can take what is theirs just because the government "feels" it is too much then my own wealth is not safe from the greed of the government. It's this kind of greed that turned Venezuela and Cuba from modern and wealthy nations to people standing in bread lines waiting for bread to eat. In a nation of the wealthy the bread is stacked in lines waiting for people to come to eat.
Bad example. People with a genetic condition like that are unhealthy. Perhaps a better example would be people that were the victims of war, crime, or accident that they were not at fault. This could leave them blinded, maimed, etc. and in need of a tissue or organ transplant to restore their health fully.
I don't support people dying from traffic accidents either. If one were to take the route of "for the benefit of the many" morality one could argue a dead teen in a traffic accident can save more lives and improve the lives of many. Death by head injury can leave two kidneys, two lungs, liver, heart, and other tissues and organs. If no serious injuries to appendages, and transplant technology advances a bit, then we'd have two arms, and two legs for veterans injured in war, as an example.
This "benefit for the many" is the path to evil, IMHO. It's too easy to justify murdering someone if it means donor organs for "more equal" people. Just like how using/selling tissues from abortions is considered wrong, it's too easy to justify the abortion if it benefits others.
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we ban or discourage safer cars so that the donor organ supply is not diminished, only that this is an unintended consequence of the technology.
A further note on the "benefit of the many" argument...
This argument of making a government imposition on the few to benefit the many is something that really bothers me. People will often talk about how we could help so many poor people if we'd only tax the rich a little bit more. This is the thin edge of the wedge that if taken to the extreme is what brought us death marches and gas chambers. If we can legislate away people's property, like their money, for the "greater good" then why not legislate away their organs? People have rights, and we should respect them. That includes the right of property, and the right to seek happiness. If someone wants to go on an ocean cruise instead of pay for some stranger's college education then that's their choice.
I wish I had mod points right now. Science is not based on how many people you can convince, although that can help in making a case on the merits of your interpretation of the observations. Claiming that 97% of scientists agree on something is not an argument. All it can mean is a lot of people got it wrong.
EPA changes fracking report after Trump win.
http://www.therebel.media/epa_...
This CAGW scare has been political from the start.
Unfortunately doing so would reduce nuclear powers capacity factor significantly making nuclear power pointless.
No, it would increase capacity factor because right now the standard response is a shutdown. If the power is reduced, instead of eliminated, the reactor itself can provide the power needed for cooling. Also, if kept running the fission will "eat" some of the fission products which means that if a shutdown is called for later then there is less cooling required due to there being less fission products in the core.
I believe it is INSANE to point at those two reactor facilities and claim nuclear power is safe.
Sure, if you look at only those two then nuclear power does not look very safe. If you compare this to the hundreds of nuclear reactors that didn't fail then it does look very safe.
Maybe we need to step back from nuclear, not permanently, look at the industry as a whole and redesign it.
Stepping away from nuclear power means using energy sources that are demonstrably dirtier, less safe, and with a larger carbon footprint. We got into this mess precisely because we "stepped away" from it. Had we kept building them then those failed reactors in Japan would have been decommissioned years before the tsunami hit.
Alternatively we don't understand the full consequences of the nuclear industry yet.
We do know what happens if we abandon nuclear power. Just look around at what happens. People turn to burning oil and brown coal. The issues of nuclear waste have been solved but politics prevent addressing them responsibly.
Why does that matter? If they are uneconomic, they are uneconomic. The reasons are irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Nuclear power is uneconomic only because the government deemed it so. This is violation of a very basic freedom, the freedom to choose how we spend our money. This is not how a free nation or strong economy is built.
Do you really believe that we should squander money subsidizing nukes because that is the "fair" thing to do? Fair to whom?
I don't want anything subsidized. I just want nuclear power allowed.
Tell me something, is it fair that the government is talking about how we need to reduce our carbon footprint but denies us access to an energy source we know of that has a lower footprint to any other energy source we know of? Not only is the government telling us we need to lower our carbon footprint but is spending our tax money to give us CFL lighting, attic insulation, and other energy saving measures. We would not need this government subsidy for CFLs, insulation, electric cars, or solar panels if the government would allow nuclear power plants to be built. Just a handful of selling licenses would mean lower carbon output, lower energy prices, and no subsidies.
This makes me wonder if the federal government is really all that interested in lowering carbon output. It makes me wonder if they really aren't just buying votes. Well, I *know* that they are buying votes, but to what end?