Contrary to MS in the 90ies, Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS. Everyone can use it, everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform.
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? The claim is Google deliberately fucked with their own sites in very specific ways to advantage their browser over competing products.
Googles tactics were probably neccessary to prevent MS from doing their MS-threestep. Given, Google, like no other, profits from a strong web, especially because they own it with their key product, Google Search, but no one is preventing MS from building their own video streaming site that competes with youtube.
Ends justify means. If Google does it then it's ok. Microsoft did it first.
Most stores don't have the luxury of selling only items that make them the most money. They have enough sense to understand if they did that the buyer will just go somewhere else where they can get everything they want and end up buying NOTHING at the store giving the customer a hard time.
But this is Amazon we're talking about. The same company that intentionally slows down shipping to uncompetitive levels (2-day is Free @ Walmart, most eBay purchases arrive before Amazon even ships) imposes minimum purchase requirements, prevents non-members from purchasing certain items commonly available elsewhere (e.g. Star Wars DVDs). Perhaps the rules don't apply to Amazon today but eventually they will.
But the quantum key doesn't need a quantum secret. Both parties generate online an OTP, using a public classic channel, and a quantum one.
The static test on the resulting bit sequence can be used to certify that no third party has intercepted the OTP.
The point of quantum cryptography is to provide secure communications.
There is no such thing as secure communications without a means of authenticating communicating peers. There can be no security if you don't know who you are talking to in the first place.
If you pass out entangled particles to a set of people, all you gain is the ability to know the state of their particle as soon as you look at yours. (And you could have done that at the time you distributed the particles - there's no FTL transfer of information, and no breaking of causality.)
If you are able to securely pass out entangled particles, you are able to securely pass out convention particles describing a conventional key. If you are not able to securely pass out entangled particles, you're not gonna do much, are you?
The point of quantum crypto is disconnecting future keys from observable reality.
Assume an adversary was able to record all communications and they kept them forever.
With the information collected they may eventually find a way to derive initial encryption keys either by stealing, brute force or leveraging cryptographic weaknesses and in-turn use that information to help facilitate future breakage of key rotation/management schemes designed to reinforce initial encryption keys.
What quantum crypto does is provably break the link between initial key and future keys so even if an adversary is recording everything and manage to break the initial key they are fundamentally denied the ability to break follow on keying by leveraging any data classically communicated based on previous knowledge of existing keys.
The only advantage quantum provides vs. normal cryptography is it guards against unknown cryptographic weaknesses. In the absence of such weaknesses quantum crypto is totally worthless.
I don't think this is accurate. The question is always how do you KNOW that the particle wasn't intercepted somewhere along the line?
Quantum doesn't tell you this in a vacuum. Only when combined with cryptographic operations involving guarded secrets can the integrity of the channel be established.
With quantum key exchange, you know if your key was compromised along the path. If it was, don't use that key. With conventional key exchange, you have zero way of knowing if someone put a splitter in the line somewhere, and intercepted your key.
No. There is nothing that can't be done using conventional cryptography that quantum brings to the table. Numerous keep agreement protocols based on symmetric keys exist which perform the exact same function with no known weaknesses.
The only advantage of quantum are certain immunities from future compromise of cryptographic algorithms but even that isn't absolute.
So all that's possible with quantum key exchange is for the attacker to prevent you from exchanging keys
It can also reveal information about the nature of the guarded secrets used to authenticate the quantum channel.
Right. You could fill a 10-TB HDD with your OTP and physically give it to someone and be assured of secure communications with them effectively forever,
Honestly gigabytes would be more than enough for text and voice communication. 128 GB sd cards are like $20.
but classical one-time pad exchange still has all of the same flaws that it's been known to have for the last eighty-odd years, namely the lack of transport security of the OTP itself
No it's the same exact problem either way. Whether you are guarding OTP or an initial secret for quantum keying the total security of the system hinges upon that secret information in whatever form it happens to reside in being successfully guarded. Quantum in no way changes that.
itself and the difficulty of scaling to many people.
I don't understand the basis for such schemes being limited to quantum and all the relevant details are pay walled. There are numerous schemes that can be employed to enable via centrally trusted agents to facilitate communications amongst peers.
At the end of the day this is all still rooted in symmetric encryption. Given todays cost and capability of storage it's just as easy to pre-fill a lifetime supply of "messaging" or voice communications in an OTP pool as it would be to initially provision secret keys in quantum modem doodads to support quantum encryption.
Only OTP pools are way cheaper and easier.
Where quantum crypto would be useful is in securing high bandwidth (multi-gigabit) data links.
You realize the FCC didn't vote on, nor participate in, nor announce any of this, right?
It's there in the summary, this is a suggestion to the States from the BDAC, an industry recommendation board.
I don't know how to parse the above in a way that can be made self-consistent. BDAC is committee created by the head of the FCC in his official capacity as such.
Specifically I don't understand:
Why don't the fruits of an FCC committee constitute FCC participation?
False. Right there in the write-up, don't even need to RTFA (emphasis mine):
USF is a shining example of how not to implement a tax.
1. Regressive taxation of a (once) essential service. About as ridiculous as taxing food to subsidize food for the poor.
2. Tax rate is ambiguous and incalculable subject to unnecessary amounts of complexity where larger providers have inherent advantage to leverage their ability to do the necessary paperwork to pay a lower rate. Only the interstate component of telephone service is taxable so providers either have to use default "safe harbor" rate or conduct a "study" using a methodology the FCC has to sign off on to determine the effective tax rate given portion of service that is interstate.
To pour salt on the wound safe harbor rate for certain categories of telephone service is astronomical. Wireless safe harbor for example is half that of Internet OTT voice service for no reason other to fuck over small providers because they can.
the model code says that states "shall determine the appropriate State Universal Service assessment methodology and rate consistent with federal law and FCC policy."
Calculation methodology is irrelevant... AT&T and crew still controls who gets the money (themselves) and what rate will be subject to factors and criteria's set by states.
Those who backed Oculus got way more than what they initially paid for.
Do you believe Oculus kickstarter campaign would have worked had they mentioned up front intent to sell the company to Facebook?
Not only did they get the RC2 version of the headset, which is what was promised, but they also got the final version. So backers got a really good deal.
The final version establishes a persistent connection to Facebook 24x7x365 and sports a predatory privacy policy asserting Facebook has the right to rummage through your system for ANY reason. The reality is they got screwed.
Who would buy a 17" laptop while also being obsessed with weight to the point of spending way more money than they need to on an inferior product simply because it is marginally lighter? Seems like a VERY niche audience.
Also nice use of 15" keyboard on a 17" laptop. No wasted space there.
Part of the problem has to do with the "white" LEDs used for backlighting the LCD -- the exact nature of their "white" varies slightly from batch to batch.
The problem is use of white LEDs in the first place.
I agree with parent. There is no excuse for TV vendors to skimp out on HDMI ports. The product you linked to does not even support 4k properly.. no 60hz which is kind of a big deal for 4k going forward.
That's the first place I'd look for an explanation. When you actually run a display in HDR mode it drives backlighting to the max and sucks power like crazy. They have to trade flux for colors at least partially to work around the atrocious starting spectrum of backlighting. The only way to do that without eroding contrast is cranking up the volume.
Personally I would much prefer color space not become a selling point unless the metric used explicitly considers power consumption. HDR isn't worth it.
The cumulative transmission losses required to supply it. In financial terms any feed-in billing credit is always also worth less than a user saves by using that same energy locally without loss in reported current for credit.
Are you seriously arguing 5% transmission loss justifies added cost of local generation vs commercial scale?
You get more benefit than that just keeping panels free of dust. Are homeowners or organized professionals more likely to regularly clean their panels?
I'm generally against adding PV panels to existing homes (only makes economic sense with government subsidies). I am for requiring them on new homes.
Requiring means that government is ordering others by threat of violence to do something. Are you sure it's the best use of the states legitimacy and available resources to REQUIRE this? Why do you support forcing others to do something they may not want to do?
Are you sure there are not other approaches that would be more optimal such as taxing the customer and or hydrocarbon based generation and using the proceeds to support industrial scale solar farms that would benefit the tax payer?
Unlike other power sources whose costs are spread out over the useful lifetime due to the need to buy fuel, PV solar's costs are incredibly front-loaded. You pay for everything up front
To the extent this is true is it justification for supporting the state FORCING individuals to take a particular action? Personally I suspect there are ongoing maintenance costs.. inverters in particular have a tendency to be high maintenance items and they don't grow on trees.
make back the purchase price and interest expenses after a decade or two of power savings. That front-loading of cost is what's discouraged people from adding solar panels to their homes. States have tried to entice people over that hump by subsidizing PV panels, but that amounts to a straight money giveaway. It artificially lowers the price of PV panels, screwing up their market.
What is really screwy is that most grids can't even support a substantial mix of residential PV. The solar subsidies are nice and all but it's just a form of tree hugging. Why don't people spend their time and energy doing the work that is necessary to bring about change they want like supporting commercial scale build out of solar generation rather than proverbially buying "green" shit off the shelves at their local WalMart and declaring mission accomplished?
you require them on new homes, that incorporates the price into another big front-loaded purchase - paying to buy a new home. It also avoids subsidizing the price so the full cost is passed through to the homebuyer (who can vote against legislators who voted for this requirement if they're upset by the additional cost).
Is there a justification for FORCING people to do something they may not want to do in this? Should the government also force me to buy bulk cereal at WalMart because it is cheaper in the long run?
It also makes for a better match between home longevity and panel longevity. Most PV panels are good for 25-35 years. The median age of houses is about 36 years. So by adding the panels when the house is constructed, you decrease the chances of panels with usable life being thrown away when a house is torn down to build a new house on the lot.
Again where is the justification for the state forcing people by threat of violence to do something they may not want to do? You are making a business case for an investment. Should everyone be required to follow your business advice under threat of violence?
My main concern would actually be technical. The inverter and circuitry combining panel power and grid power needs to be maintained and functional. Otherwise maintenance personnel repairing a downed power line can be electrocuted because even though they cut off power coming from "upstream" (the power plant), the line could still be live because of power coming from downstream (homes whose PV panel circuitry is malfunctioning). Everyone seems to rave about the advantages of distributing your power source, but never consider the disadvantages. In general, maintenance costs are lower and accidents fewer when you can combine all of something into a few or one big production facility.
Just so I understand you agree piecemeal residential generation sucks worse than commercial solar plants run by professionals but you are still for requiring people to invest their limited resources into the thing that provides worse outcomes anyway?
What specifically is wrong? Do you think residential neighborhoods can compete with a commercial solar farm in any dimension? Cost, capability, efficiency, reliability? If so please explain.
The benefits of local generation are huge.
Local generation is nice and in some areas and situations coupled with local storage off-grid it's totally awesome.
My assertion is simply benefits of centralized generation are hugeeeer.
but it reduces the homeâ(TM)s dependence on the grid.
When the power goes out grid tied homes go dark the same as the rest of the neighborhood. The grid must be engineered with assumption nothing will be coming from the panels anyway so the word dependence is probably not the best one to describe the situation.
If residential solar is to contribute anything non-trivial to the grid a massive outlay of energy storage will be required. Currently storage can't be decentralized because technology to do so at a tractable price point does not exist.
For wind, scale is huge. For retrofit, scale has a place, but maximum benefit is grid-connected homes that can take advantage of diversity in generation and demand.
The maximum benefit is solar farms operated by professionals. It is not the state trying to force residential homeowners to become solar gardeners.
Perhaps Californians should all be required under state threat of violence to grow their own crops in their yards, catch their own water, operate their own telecom networks, process their own waste and operate mining and manufacturing facilities to produce their own goods as well? The real world doesn't work like this for good reason.
Here we are a century and change later. People are apparently still confused about efficiency and economies of scale. Apparently way too hard to grasp increased efficiency and less environmental impact is achieved when done at scale rather than thru piecemeal generation.
But this is California the land of bureaucratically imposed artificial scarcity whether energy or housing the state does its level best to fuck over its citizens for no reason.
By today's standards a non-interlaced frame is more or less the same. The whole sensor is sampled, but then reduced to alternating fields. Either way, there are 60 temporal frames in the video, and only the quality of their vertical resolution varies between interlaced and progressive
Modality seems irrelevant. I see nothing above that invalidates parents point.
Very little is captured at 60 fields per second and 60 fps interlaced is NOT the temporal equivalent of capturing 60 fields per second for the simple fact a direct conversion at the same temporal resolution is physically impossible to implement.
What's your point? I was talking about the source. And 720p60 is just 720i where the fields are split into separate frames and then interpolated to fit the full frame. It doesn't reduce the temporal quality unless you're going down to 720p30.
It is not physically possible to maintain temporal quality unless the viewer is happy seeing only half an image per field. Since they would never accept that you MUST eat into time domain in order to display a coherent image. The algorithms to do this are vast and varied. The one commonality they ALL share every last one of them are tradeoffs. You never ever get 60 fps out of interlaced to an actual persistent display.
Original CRTs used phosphor persistence you couldn't physically display arbitrary content at 60hz on them. If you tried all you would get out is a smeared mess.
Which has nothing to do with Comcast - there are no 24p broadcast standards in use.
The standard most certainly exists. Failure to use it is all Comcast.
If your TV actually can display 24p, then your TV can reverse the pulldown and get the original framerate back.
This is true. Some displays have filters to de-fuck what Comcast screwed up.
Capabilities in this realm continue to expand. Now we have upscalers on higher end displays able to determine the original resolution of something upscaled by other means and reprocess it in order to improve quality while upscaling further or re-processing upscale using higher complexity algorithms to displays native resolution. All because someone somewhere just had to mess with the formatting. Comcast's Xfiniti boxes for example don't even provide a native resolution pass-thru for 720p.. they are THAT lazy.
And this of course in addition to the ridiculously low bandwidth allocations to remaining subscribers of their TV service.
The de-interlace step is being done by COMCAST before the signal is even decoded by cable box. This itself is a trade-off that necessarily reduces temporal and or visual quality.
That 24fps is converted via 3:2 pulldown to 59.94,
3:2 is not an integer multiple. This disparity introduces noticeable artifacts.
60fps is just a convenient rounding that ignores the complexity and legacy of the original analog signal.
This is why fruits of what Comcast is doing is shit. They don't pass thru the complexity to the display where it is best able to be leveraged. Instead they eat it all and make everyone eat the resulting shit... 720p 60fps for everything regardless of outcome because they want a lowest common denominator shit signal to be viewable everywhere on everything.
I am able to explain an IPv4 address to a nine year old. However I don't understand Ipv6 addressing fully myself as it's just too damn complicated and cryptic with all colons and hex.
I don't understand IPv4 either. It's so damn hard. At least if I want to go to sprints website via IPv6 I can browse to 2600::
Via IPv4 it's this jumbled mass of meaningless seemingly random numbers with all of these dots all over the place. 65.173.211.241 ? ? ?? ?
::::ff::00::::323::f0::c7::::00::e1::27
These are invalid. Zero compression can only be used once.
I still don't understand what would be hard in adding two octals to the current IPv4 scheme. 10.1.192.168.1.7 would be a valid, understandable address.
Most people have control over at the very least last 64-bits of their address. My public IPv6 address has only 5 sets of numbers in it and is actually easier to remember than your example.
The IPv6 scheme is crap and will NEVER be embraced by users.
IPv6 addresses don't have to be much harder than IPv4 to handle manually. You control at least the last 64 bits...leverage that... don't let SLAAC's auto assigned gibberish make you an IPv6 hater.
Slashdot Mirror
Because why? Because they inserted a HIDDEN empty div in a webpage, which any non-poop browser would just totally ignore in it's rendering layouts?
There is no such thing as an empty div. It still exists in the dom and is still addressable. You can't just "totally ignore it".
Contrary to MS in the 90ies, Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS. Everyone can use it, everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform.
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? The claim is Google deliberately fucked with their own sites in very specific ways to advantage their browser over competing products.
Googles tactics were probably neccessary to prevent MS from doing their MS-threestep. Given, Google, like no other, profits from a strong web, especially because they own it with their key product, Google Search, but no one is preventing MS from building their own video streaming site that competes with youtube.
Ends justify means.
If Google does it then it's ok.
Microsoft did it first.
Most stores don't have the luxury of selling only items that make them the most money. They have enough sense to understand if they did that the buyer will just go somewhere else where they can get everything they want and end up buying NOTHING at the store giving the customer a hard time.
But this is Amazon we're talking about. The same company that intentionally slows down shipping to uncompetitive levels (2-day is Free @ Walmart, most eBay purchases arrive before Amazon even ships) imposes minimum purchase requirements, prevents non-members from purchasing certain items commonly available elsewhere (e.g. Star Wars DVDs). Perhaps the rules don't apply to Amazon today but eventually they will.
But the quantum key doesn't need a quantum secret. Both parties generate online an OTP, using a public classic channel, and a quantum one.
The static test on the resulting bit sequence can be used to certify that no
third party has intercepted the OTP.
The point of quantum cryptography is to provide secure communications.
There is no such thing as secure communications without a means of authenticating communicating peers. There can be no security if you don't know who you are talking to in the first place.
If you pass out entangled particles to a set of people, all you gain is the ability to know the state of their particle as soon as you look at yours. (And you could have done that at the time you distributed the particles - there's no FTL transfer of information, and no breaking of causality.)
If you are able to securely pass out entangled particles, you are able to securely pass out convention particles describing a conventional key.
If you are not able to securely pass out entangled particles, you're not gonna do much, are you?
The point of quantum crypto is disconnecting future keys from observable reality.
Assume an adversary was able to record all communications and they kept them forever.
With the information collected they may eventually find a way to derive initial encryption keys either by stealing, brute force or leveraging cryptographic weaknesses and in-turn use that information to help facilitate future breakage of key rotation/management schemes designed to reinforce initial encryption keys.
What quantum crypto does is provably break the link between initial key and future keys so even if an adversary is recording everything and manage to break the initial key they are fundamentally denied the ability to break follow on keying by leveraging any data classically communicated based on previous knowledge of existing keys.
The only advantage quantum provides vs. normal cryptography is it guards against unknown cryptographic weaknesses. In the absence of such weaknesses quantum crypto is totally worthless.
Quantum encryption doesn't need any provisioning. The measurement basis can be sent unencrypted on a classical channel.
Some sort of authentication on that classical channel is still a good idea to make sure that the encrypted connection isn't with a man-in-the-middle.
I think I understand now:
1. You don't need to provision.
2. If you don't provision it won't be secure.
3. Security is the whole point of quantum key distribution.
I don't think this is accurate. The question is always how do you KNOW that the particle wasn't intercepted somewhere along the line?
Quantum doesn't tell you this in a vacuum. Only when combined with cryptographic operations involving guarded secrets can the integrity of the channel be established.
With quantum key exchange, you know if your key was compromised along the path. If it was, don't use that key. With conventional key exchange, you have zero way of knowing if someone put a splitter in the line somewhere, and intercepted your key.
No. There is nothing that can't be done using conventional cryptography that quantum brings to the table. Numerous keep agreement protocols based on symmetric keys exist which perform the exact same function with no known weaknesses.
The only advantage of quantum are certain immunities from future compromise of cryptographic algorithms but even that isn't absolute.
So all that's possible with quantum key exchange is for the attacker to prevent you from exchanging keys
It can also reveal information about the nature of the guarded secrets used to authenticate the quantum channel.
Right. You could fill a 10-TB HDD with your OTP and physically give it to someone and be assured of secure communications with them effectively forever,
Honestly gigabytes would be more than enough for text and voice communication. 128 GB sd cards are like $20.
but classical one-time pad exchange still has all of the same flaws that it's been known to have for the last eighty-odd years, namely the lack of transport security of the OTP itself
No it's the same exact problem either way. Whether you are guarding OTP or an initial secret for quantum keying the total security of the system hinges upon that secret information in whatever form it happens to reside in being successfully guarded. Quantum in no way changes that.
itself and the difficulty of scaling to many people.
I don't understand the basis for such schemes being limited to quantum and all the relevant details are pay walled. There are numerous schemes that can be employed to enable via centrally trusted agents to facilitate communications amongst peers.
At the end of the day this is all still rooted in symmetric encryption. Given todays cost and capability of storage it's just as easy to pre-fill a lifetime supply of "messaging" or voice communications in an OTP pool as it would be to initially provision secret keys in quantum modem doodads to support quantum encryption.
Only OTP pools are way cheaper and easier.
Where quantum crypto would be useful is in securing high bandwidth (multi-gigabit) data links.
You realize the FCC didn't vote on, nor participate in, nor announce any of this, right?
It's there in the summary, this is a suggestion to the States from the BDAC, an industry recommendation board.
I don't know how to parse the above in a way that can be made self-consistent. BDAC is committee created by the head of the FCC in his official capacity as such.
Specifically I don't understand:
Why don't the fruits of an FCC committee constitute FCC participation?
Why are public notices not announcements?
False. Right there in the write-up, don't even need to RTFA (emphasis mine):
USF is a shining example of how not to implement a tax.
1. Regressive taxation of a (once) essential service. About as ridiculous as taxing food to subsidize food for the poor.
2. Tax rate is ambiguous and incalculable subject to unnecessary amounts of complexity where larger providers have inherent advantage to leverage their ability to do the necessary paperwork to pay a lower rate. Only the interstate component of telephone service is taxable so providers either have to use default "safe harbor" rate or conduct a "study" using a methodology the FCC has to sign off on to determine the effective tax rate given portion of service that is interstate.
To pour salt on the wound safe harbor rate for certain categories of telephone service is astronomical. Wireless safe harbor for example is half that of Internet OTT voice service for no reason other to fuck over small providers because they can.
the model code says that states "shall determine the appropriate State Universal Service assessment methodology and rate consistent with federal law and FCC policy."
Calculation methodology is irrelevant... AT&T and crew still controls who gets the money (themselves) and what rate will be subject to factors and criteria's set by states.
They can't tax Internet use. It's literally against the law.
But don't let that stand in the way of FCC announcing to the country how totally, utterly and completely corrupt they are.
Those who backed Oculus got way more than what they initially paid for.
Do you believe Oculus kickstarter campaign would have worked had they mentioned up front intent to sell the company to Facebook?
Not only did they get the RC2 version of the headset, which is what was promised, but they also got the final version. So backers got a really good deal.
The final version establishes a persistent connection to Facebook 24x7x365 and sports a predatory privacy policy asserting Facebook has the right to rummage through your system for ANY reason. The reality is they got screwed.
What can possibly be more logically coherent than regressive taxes to help the poor?
After massive fraud magnet that USF has proven to be states just can't help themselves to more of the same.
Who would buy a 17" laptop while also being obsessed with weight to the point of spending way more money than they need to on an inferior product simply because it is marginally lighter? Seems like a VERY niche audience.
Also nice use of 15" keyboard on a 17" laptop. No wasted space there.
Part of the problem has to do with the "white" LEDs used for backlighting the LCD -- the exact nature of their "white" varies slightly from batch to batch.
The problem is use of white LEDs in the first place.
That's what these are for.
I agree with parent. There is no excuse for TV vendors to skimp out on HDMI ports. The product you linked to does not even support 4k properly.. no 60hz which is kind of a big deal for 4k going forward.
That's the first place I'd look for an explanation. When you actually run a display in HDR mode it drives backlighting to the max and sucks power like crazy. They have to trade flux for colors at least partially to work around the atrocious starting spectrum of backlighting. The only way to do that without eroding contrast is cranking up the volume.
Personally I would much prefer color space not become a selling point unless the metric used explicitly considers power consumption. HDR isn't worth it.
The cumulative transmission losses required to supply it. In financial terms any feed-in billing credit is always also worth less than a user saves by using that same energy locally without loss in reported current for credit.
Are you seriously arguing 5% transmission loss justifies added cost of local generation vs commercial scale?
You get more benefit than that just keeping panels free of dust. Are homeowners or organized professionals more likely to regularly clean their panels?
I'm generally against adding PV panels to existing homes (only makes economic sense with government subsidies). I am for requiring them on new homes.
Requiring means that government is ordering others by threat of violence to do something. Are you sure it's the best use of the states legitimacy and available resources to REQUIRE this? Why do you support forcing others to do something they may not want to do?
Are you sure there are not other approaches that would be more optimal such as taxing the customer and or hydrocarbon based generation and using the proceeds to support industrial scale solar farms that would benefit the tax payer?
Unlike other power sources whose costs are spread out over the useful lifetime due to the need to buy fuel, PV solar's costs are incredibly front-loaded. You pay for everything up front
To the extent this is true is it justification for supporting the state FORCING individuals to take a particular action? Personally I suspect there are ongoing maintenance costs.. inverters in particular have a tendency to be high maintenance items and they don't grow on trees.
make back the purchase price and interest expenses after a decade or two of power savings. That front-loading of cost is what's discouraged people from adding solar panels to their homes. States have tried to entice people over that hump by subsidizing PV panels, but that amounts to a straight money giveaway. It artificially lowers the price of PV panels, screwing up their market.
What is really screwy is that most grids can't even support a substantial mix of residential PV. The solar subsidies are nice and all but it's just a form of tree hugging. Why don't people spend their time and energy doing the work that is necessary to bring about change they want like supporting commercial scale build out of solar generation rather than proverbially buying "green" shit off the shelves at their local WalMart and declaring mission accomplished?
you require them on new homes, that incorporates the price into another big front-loaded purchase - paying to buy a new home. It also avoids subsidizing the price so the full cost is passed through to the homebuyer (who can vote against legislators who voted for this requirement if they're upset by the additional cost).
Is there a justification for FORCING people to do something they may not want to do in this? Should the government also force me to buy bulk cereal at WalMart because it is cheaper in the long run?
It also makes for a better match between home longevity and panel longevity. Most PV panels are good for 25-35 years. The median age of houses is about 36 years. So by adding the panels when the house is constructed, you decrease the chances of panels with usable life being thrown away when a house is torn down to build a new house on the lot.
Again where is the justification for the state forcing people by threat of violence to do something they may not want to do? You are making a business case for an investment. Should everyone be required to follow your business advice under threat of violence?
My main concern would actually be technical. The inverter and circuitry combining panel power and grid power needs to be maintained and functional. Otherwise maintenance personnel repairing a downed power line can be electrocuted because even though they cut off power coming from "upstream" (the power plant), the line could still be live because of power coming from downstream (homes whose PV panel circuitry is malfunctioning). Everyone seems to rave about the advantages of distributing your power source, but never consider the disadvantages. In general, maintenance costs are lower and accidents fewer when you can combine all of something into a few or one big production facility.
Just so I understand you agree piecemeal residential generation sucks worse than commercial solar plants run by professionals but you are still for requiring people to invest their limited resources into the thing that provides worse outcomes anyway?
You are very wrong relative to rooftop solar.
What specifically is wrong? Do you think residential neighborhoods can compete with a commercial solar farm in any dimension? Cost, capability, efficiency, reliability? If so please explain.
The benefits of local generation are huge.
Local generation is nice and in some areas and situations coupled with local storage off-grid it's totally awesome.
My assertion is simply benefits of centralized generation are hugeeeer.
but it reduces the homeâ(TM)s dependence on the grid.
When the power goes out grid tied homes go dark the same as the rest of the neighborhood. The grid must be engineered with assumption nothing will be coming from the panels anyway so the word dependence is probably not the best one to describe the situation.
If residential solar is to contribute anything non-trivial to the grid a massive outlay of energy storage will be required. Currently storage can't be decentralized because technology to do so at a tractable price point does not exist.
For wind, scale is huge. For retrofit, scale has a place, but maximum benefit is grid-connected homes that can take advantage of diversity in generation and demand.
The maximum benefit is solar farms operated by professionals. It is not the state trying to force residential homeowners to become solar gardeners.
Perhaps Californians should all be required under state threat of violence to grow their own crops in their yards, catch their own water, operate their own telecom networks, process their own waste and operate mining and manufacturing facilities to produce their own goods as well? The real world doesn't work like this for good reason.
Here we are a century and change later. People are apparently still confused about efficiency and economies of scale. Apparently way too hard to grasp increased efficiency and less environmental impact is achieved when done at scale rather than thru piecemeal generation.
But this is California the land of bureaucratically imposed artificial scarcity whether energy or housing the state does its level best to fuck over its citizens for no reason.
By today's standards a non-interlaced frame is more or less the same. The whole sensor is sampled, but then reduced to alternating fields. Either way, there are 60 temporal frames in the video, and only the quality of their vertical resolution varies between interlaced and progressive
Modality seems irrelevant. I see nothing above that invalidates parents point.
Very little is captured at 60 fields per second and 60 fps interlaced is NOT the temporal equivalent of capturing 60 fields per second for the simple fact a direct conversion at the same temporal resolution is physically impossible to implement.
What's your point? I was talking about the source. And 720p60 is just 720i where the fields are split into separate frames and then interpolated to fit the full frame. It doesn't reduce the temporal quality unless you're going down to 720p30.
It is not physically possible to maintain temporal quality unless the viewer is happy seeing only half an image per field. Since they would never accept that you MUST eat into time domain in order to display a coherent image. The algorithms to do this are vast and varied. The one commonality they ALL share every last one of them are tradeoffs. You never ever get 60 fps out of interlaced to an actual persistent display.
Original CRTs used phosphor persistence you couldn't physically display arbitrary content at 60hz on them. If you tried all you would get out is a smeared mess.
Which has nothing to do with Comcast - there are no 24p broadcast standards in use.
The standard most certainly exists. Failure to use it is all Comcast.
If your TV actually can display 24p, then your TV can reverse the pulldown and get the original framerate back.
This is true. Some displays have filters to de-fuck what Comcast screwed up.
Capabilities in this realm continue to expand. Now we have upscalers on higher end displays able to determine the original resolution of something upscaled by other means and reprocess it in order to improve quality while upscaling further or re-processing upscale using higher complexity algorithms to displays native resolution. All because someone somewhere just had to mess with the formatting. Comcast's Xfiniti boxes for example don't even provide a native resolution pass-thru for 720p.. they are THAT lazy.
And this of course in addition to the ridiculously low bandwidth allocations to remaining subscribers of their TV service.
Given little to no content is captured at 60fps or even an integer multiple of it there is more than just compression going on.
Wrong...Most content is captured at either 59.94fps interlaced or 24fps.
A non-interlaced frame is not the same as an interlaced frame.
60 fps progressive = 60 fields, 60 fps interlaced = 30 fields.
All mpeg4 streams from Comcast are 720p not 720i.
The de-interlace step is being done by COMCAST before the signal is even decoded by cable box. This itself is a trade-off that necessarily reduces temporal and or visual quality.
That 24fps is converted via 3:2 pulldown to 59.94,
3:2 is not an integer multiple. This disparity introduces noticeable artifacts.
60fps is just a convenient rounding that ignores the complexity and legacy of the original analog signal.
This is why fruits of what Comcast is doing is shit. They don't pass thru the complexity to the display where it is best able to be leveraged. Instead they eat it all and make everyone eat the resulting shit... 720p 60fps for everything regardless of outcome because they want a lowest common denominator shit signal to be viewable everywhere on everything.
I am able to explain an IPv4 address to a nine year old. However I don't understand Ipv6 addressing fully myself as it's just too damn complicated and cryptic with all colons and hex.
I don't understand IPv4 either. It's so damn hard. At least if I want to go to sprints website via IPv6 I can browse to 2600::
Via IPv4 it's this jumbled mass of meaningless seemingly random numbers with all of these dots all over the place. 65.173.211.241 ? ? ?? ?
::::ff::00 ::::323::f0::c7 ::::00::e1::27
These are invalid. Zero compression can only be used once.
I still don't understand what would be hard in adding two octals to the current IPv4 scheme. 10.1.192.168.1.7 would be a valid, understandable address.
Most people have control over at the very least last 64-bits of their address. My public IPv6 address has only 5 sets of numbers in it and is actually easier to remember than your example.
The IPv6 scheme is crap and will NEVER be embraced by users.
IPv6 addresses don't have to be much harder than IPv4 to handle manually. You control at least the last 64 bits...leverage that... don't let SLAAC's auto assigned gibberish make you an IPv6 hater.