My SHIELD is a real powerhouse. It also acts as a Chromecast endpoint, can use any Android store apps, and best of all supports audio passthrough with PLEX for DTS goodness!
Lost me at mandatory Google signin. Shield hardware is dated.
That assumes that the heat pump is running at full capacity all the time.
It assumes no such thing. Capacity of a heat pump is relative to temperature differential.
When a stat sees a significant differential in commanded temp vs actual temp or when it takes too long it will command next stage/aux heat even if the heat pump is capable of eventually "catching up".
Even with a heat pump you can save energy by turning it off when you aren't at home as long as you turn it back on early enough for it to bring the home back to the temperature you want when you get home without having to resort to resistive heating.
This is a best case fantasy unmoored from reality.
The difference is not between heat pump and heater. The difference is between well-insulated and not, unless it's so cold that a heat pump won't actually work.
The difference is whenever a heat pump reaches balance point it turns into a paper weight. When you turn up the stat after lowering it to "save energy" what ends up happening the heat pump spends more time burning expensive electricity not just to heat the air but to heat all of the solid things in the building which were allowed to cool off and are now absorbing heat.
If you just set a temp and leave it be the heat pump stands a better chance of spending more of it's time doing it's job as a heat pump rather than an electric heater. The few percentage points of thermal energy saved does not hold a candle to the amount of energy wasted by switching on aux heat to satisfy stat.
Wait, what? It's a pretty well-known fact that the rate of thermal transfer is based on the difference in temperatures between the hot and cold objects. If you permit your house to cool down while you're gone, and then warm it up in time for you to get there, you will definitely save energy as compared to keeping it hot the whole time.
Depends on technology. If heat is from electricity or combustion then yes there will be a slight reduction in consumption by turning down stat for a significant percentage of a day.
If on the other hand you have a heat pump the most energy efficient configuration is to set a temperature and leave it be for multiple reasons. The most salient being resistive heating is much less efficient than any possible gains from temporarily reducing temperature.
And now I can't turn on my furnace from my mobile phone... itttt'ssss cccooolllddd in here. I can't get up to turn it on because the floor is covered with ice after pipes froze and burst after the power company also shut off my power for non-payment. I fall down every time I try to stand.
To make matters worse my phone will only let me dial 911 and the Internet does not work. I tried calling 911 and explained to them not having Internet access is an emergency but the rude person on the other end says I'll be arrested if I call back.
Bear in mind that there are two vulnerabilities, Meltdown and Spectre. Meltdown is currently Intel-only, but Spectre is Intel, ARM and AMD. Both use similar techniques to access kernel memory (Meltdown) and local process memory (Spectre).
This description is very misleading because it makes it sound like the two issues are similar when they very much are not.
Meltdown provides processes with access to memory contents they have no right to access.
Spectre is merely a side-channel timing attack. Similar issues have been known about for years exploiting static caches, hyper threading, branch prediction, DPA...etc. Spectre is little more than a PR smoke screen for Meltdown. The two are not in the same league and they don't deserve to be described as if they are close relatives.
These attacks are a sort of new category of security analysis--realizing that out of order execution can have side effects, and that programs can check for those side effects to leak program state and system memory.
There seems to be a concerted PR effort to shine spotlight on everything rather than just Intel where it belongs.
Meltdown is basically heartbleed. This is NOT a side-channel attack. It allows an attacker to trick the processor to flat out be handed the value of memory address the attacker should never be able to access. The only linkage between it and spectre is incidental exploitation of speculative execution.
Spectre is exclusively a "side-channel" attack. To continue TLS analogy it's like using an AES cipher suite without AES blinding. Numerous side channels have existed in Intel and other processors. The use of branch predictors as a side channel specifically as a vector for compromising security has been known publically for at least a dozen years.
NN means ISPs don't get to pick winners and losers based on packet header and payload "subject to reasonable network management"
and specify how a municipal network replaces the protections lost with the repeal of the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations...
Muni networks restore competition by removing barriers for last mile access. You don't like your ISP blocking your traffic? Do they charge too much? Don't appreciate per gigabyte overage fees? Your in luck because there are now many providers for you as the customer to select from. With a functioning local market for access the monopolistic bullshit tends to evaporate on it's own without any stinking government regulation designed to make crappy monopolies tolerable.
It's a serious question - I'm looking for the impact Net Neutrality has on the last-mile provider
NN is really only an issue for markets with no competition and massive national providers. Whether legislation exists or not is a moot point in a competitive market.
and curious how Ft. Collins will become a peer on the internet, ensuring, for example, Netflix (or a startup competitor) isn't throttled or blocked "upstream."
They are building out a last mile "pipe". To be useful you as a customer still need to select someone to fill your individual pipe with "water". It isn't Ft Collins acting as an ISP or peering with anyone. Any number of third parties will be plugging into Ft Collins pipework to arrange for water to be delivered to specific customers on an equal basis. Those third parties will manage their own peering/CDN relationships if they are acting as ISPs.
have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed
Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete data.
This is a false statement.
When you steal "sensitive data" from said "computing devices" that are "operating as designed". You obviously have "potential" to obtain the means to "corrupt, modify or delete data".
Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a âoebugâ or a âoeflawâ and are unique to Intel products are incorrect....
are susceptible to these exploits
So the problem with Intel hardware is not a "bug" or "flaw" but rather an "exploit"? Exploits by definition are "exploiting" "flaws". Either flaws in implementation or design unless of course Intel is asserting speculative execution machinery in its hardware was supposed to enable leaking contents of memory which would of course be much worse for Intel than admitting to an innocent mistake or oversight.
Intel is committed to product and customer security and is working closely with many other technology companies, including AMD
Wording is an obvious attempt to create a linkage between this issue and AMD processors while AMD is publically saying NONE of Intel's problems apply to them.
Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time.
Meaningless drivel. One could disable processor static ram caches and make the same nebulous characterizations. The "average computer user"'s processor sits mostly idle while actively using their systems.
However, Intel is making this statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports.
Intel is making false statements.
Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that, with the support of its partners, the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers
Intel is delusional.
The most secure products in the world come with a management engine insecure by design while harboring known exploits and yet Intel over numerous years has consistently refused it's customers simple request to provide a means of turning the blasted thing off. Creating unnecessary and unwelcomed vectors for compromise is not something the vendor who produces the most secure products in the world would even contemplate much less make good on. Intel's approach to security is a joke.
That means we have to bar scientists from speaking on a subject if their fact based statements contradict or offend someones political views.
I advocate no such thing. I only assert all would be better served if scientists demonstrated some professional discipline. Similar to the discipline expected of serving military and supreme court justices (haha) to stay out of or at least appear to stay out of certain politics. We don't expect judges or jurors to waltz in front of the cameras and give their honest heart felt political opinions about a case before them.
So the President of the US is allowed to celebrate his ignorance and reach an audience of millions with his factually incorrect take on climate, but someone with a scientific discovery and the evidence to prove it can't speak to it, because political opinion is sacrosanct.
There are two distinct aspects of this people often have trouble keeping separate. The facts... what is objectively known or reasonably believed to be true and the politics a subjective ideology based on individual value judgments.
For example consider the following statement:
My model predicts in ten years the world will go into irreversible "moist earth" runaway leading to surface temperatures of thousands of degrees making the world inhospitable to all life. To prevent this every person must flip a coin once a day for a week and kill themselves if the coin lands on tails.
All I'm suggesting it would be better for scientists to stick to "My model predicts in ten years the world will go into irreversible moist earth runaway leading to surface temperatures of thousands of degrees making the world inhospitable to all life"... If some politician wants to criticize the facts by all means stand up for your objective evidence and enlighten them as to the reality of the situation.
However when you start veering into the lane of politics "To prevent this every person must flip a coin once a day for a week and kill themselves if the coin lands on tails..".... and a politician calls you a raving lunatic and starts making fun of you then yes it would be better if you please STFU about it because your a scientist and obviously not a sane or competent politician.
If a scientist makes a political statement, judge it on it's political merit - unless they claim it is science, in which case, judge it on it's scientific merit. It's possible, even essential, to tell good science from bad. A political argument framed as a scientific view does not pass a simple sniff test, and is readily exposed.
We all have to live within the context of our time like it or not. What actually happens in the real world is this:
Politician: This scientist thinks people should flip a coin and kill themselves he is a raving lunatic don't pay any attention to what he has to say.
This scientist could be right on the facts yet that's all now irrelevant because the public thinks he is crazy and is far less likely to spend any time bothering to evaluate his evidence.
People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
All science is motivated by subjectively bias and desires. It is never objective and unbiased even if the methodology used in conducting it can be made to be.
The fact you are interested or not interested in a subject is based on your own subjective whims. The fact you are willing to spend your own time and resources investigating assertions in the first place or not is based on your judgments of not only facts but the assessment of credibility and integrity of those making them. Every day some crank off their meds comes up with an OMG we're all going to die scenario. Should I waste my time and take their warnings seriously on the merits or should I just ignore them? I chose to ignore them because I don't give a fuck. It isn't scientific of me not to give a fuck but that's life.
This line of argument is dangerous to even attempt regardless of actual merit.
We can't have a situation where every time some political hack carries snowballs into congress to make a point it is rightfully dismissed as crackpot antics. Yet when there is a specific incident on the other side of the ledger be a storm or heat wave it becomes acceptable to try and publically link instances of weather to "climate change".
Perusing this will severely undermine any and all attempts to communicate the difference between weather and climate.
Much of the current problems with climate reality in my view can be traced back to scientists going that extra mile to sound alarms and suggest or imply political remedies.
If only scientists and supporting institutions had done a better job to just stay in their own lane... simply boringly run models and offer informed predictions rather than inject activism there would be less propensity for confusion between roles of science and politics.
Instead of current situation of climate deniers we would have more people who at least maintain some level of purchase on reality when they make the political calculation other considerations are more important than pursuing policies intended to mitigate climate change.
In every UN general assembly meeting you will find no shortage of clowns raging about how "climate change" (e.g. other people) are responsible for their own reckless mismanagement of their own lands. Lets not all dress in baggy colorful polka dotted outfits and dare the public to spot the real clown.
If government expects private companies to assume the functions and responsibilities of government (extraordinarily dangerous idea) they should be getting a cut of existing tax dollars as compensation for that work.
Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.
Just because film can be scanned at any resolution completely ignores the underlying issue. What people care about are outcomes not process. They want 8k quality not an 8k process with much lower effective resolution.
As point of reference IMAX uses 70 mm film and it's only 2k. There is no back catalogue of anything ready for 8k.
"Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.
Problem isn't so much customers Internet connection as what is required to serve unicast content to millions of customers concurrently at this level. Given people are currently tolerating 720p with noticeable compression artifacts the assumption content would be willing to expend 36 times the acceptable bandwidth just to provision one customer with a single 8k is inconsistent with reality.
Even these mythical Japanese 8k broadcasts are limited to less than 100mbit meaning outcomes by far are being limited by compression rather than resolution assuming h265 and non-static content.
New movies can be made 8K ready as 8K equipment exists to make a 8K movie.
Storage requirements alone to manage an 8k workflow are astronomical with per-frame costs on the order of hundreds of megabytes. A single second of video captured at @ 60 fps requires at least 6 gigabytes.
Very difficult to justify this kind of expense when no human person is physically capable of benefiting from the result. The only way 8k is rational is with a massive FOV (e.g. VR/wrap display) to keep pixels per degree in line with the limits of human vision.
All that is missing is the new ads to really sell what 8K offers over HD, 4K.
Meanwhile in the real world most 4k UHD releases sold today are little more than upscaled scams praying on user ignorance.
I would rather stick to the issue at hand rather than playing what about x, y and z games.
In this specific instance people have a choice between display technologies. For example QLED vs OLED. QLED does not have the same failure modes and problems as OLED. Simply ignoring the issue by making nonsensical generalizations is unproductive.
When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels.
Still a lot of issues.
How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels?
I certainly hope progress is being made in this area.
Personally noticed this in numerous displays purchased over time. Every vendor has a dead pixel "policy" they try to invoke with regards to returns in order to assert to customer this is "normal" acceptable defect. Such policies are always placed prominently in FAQs and policy statements so they can be referenced by CSRs with ease. They try to assert you can't return a display for this reason as if it's the vendors decision in the first place.
This is why I have a personal policy of always buying displays locally so I can return them easily if there are dead pixels without ever stating it as the cause of return.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember TV sets with CRTs - but you'd go to a store and see a wall of them, all displaying somewhat different colours and brightness (even between the same model). A big reason why they went away was because LCDs provided much better colour management at a lower manufacturing cost.
Gamut of CRTs closely match capabilities of human vision and was the basis of sRGB standard. Something CRTs get without even trying most current displays especially those based on white LCDs *STILL* are unable to fully reproduce. Try lowering the brightness of a standard LCD display with a solid color or white and what you'll always see is a gross blue tinge. I personally use a calibrated CFL display because I was not willing to put up with LED based monitor or shell out the kind of cash for a current model professional display with non-white LED illumination.
Calibrating displays especially if your only talking about white point adjustment as you seem to be referencing is a trivial matter.
Calibration is lost in different ways over time depending on technology. For CRTs its mostly change in phosphors. CFL/LED backlighting is due to degradation illumination element over time. Something easily accounted for by a calibration sensor. OLED is per-pixel degradation which makes it massively more complex and costly to recalibrate vs other available choices of display technologies.
If you think 100 million "light bulbs" or LEDs, which are diodes, is an issue from a failure standpoint what do you think about an i7 processor which has over 700 Million of more complex devices using the basically same technology?
Over time different circuit elements have different failure and degradation modes that must be considered specifically. It is no more correct to assume LEDs have the same characteristics as low current transistors as it would be to assume static ram elements have the same characteristics as a flash element.
they were digital devices - why would you think that the same approach wouldn't be done for OLEDs with the end result being a technology that works when required for years on end and provide (moving) images that are superior (in terms of size, density, colour reproduction, black levels and cost).
The issue is baked in as a fundamental limitation of the approach itself. You can mitigate it with varying degrees of success or
A display comprised of an array of 100 million light bulbs (assuming RGB sub-pixel configuration) does not seem particularly bright idea (pun intended) from a failure standpoint. You'll never be able to manufacture an array with all working pixels they each have a chance of failure and all non-uniformly degrade with use. Anyone who really intends on benefiting from 8k resolution and OLED quality will notice failures of individual elements as sure as they will notice overall steady desynchronization of uniformity resulting in a dirty veneer as light elements degrade at different rates over time.
Technically it is possible to recalibrate displays the same way they were calibrated at the factory by adjusting LUTs for each element yet nobody seems to be offering this capability. I suspect necessary calibration equipment costs at least as much as the display itself.
In the real world you'll take your 88-inch 8K display home and watch highly compressed crap designed to be acceptable to the lowest common denominator like everyone else where the difference between QLED and OLED won't be worth shit.
Personally I would say Kodi is more like a toy in comparison to Plex.
Kodi is a CLIENT that displays content stored on SERVERS.
Saying that Kodi is a toy for misunderstanding its role is like saying SSH sucks because the system your connecting to doesn't have enough ram to compile software.
Plex can transcode videos on the fly (or in the background as media is imported) so that only the server needs to be powerful enough to transcode instead of each player.
Or any PVR/NAS with interface supported by Kodi. (Essentially ALL of them of any consequence)
Plex is definitely supported on more devices. It can also put copies on a phone for mobile off-line viewing.
Kodi can be installed on a phone and access all the same shit as your Kodi client on the sub $50 SBC driving the 4k TV.
You can share libraries with other people (Say vacation photos with my dad, etc). It also has an option to put the server in the cloud. Plex also integrates with Trakt via plugin as well.
"The cloud" means Plex's servers. U need an account to do anything with Plex even if all you want is exclusively local.
It must be wonderful to get a new version of Windows packed with great new features.
When you have some time in your busy schedule waiting for updates to finish installing, interrupting boot loops, reinstalling software Microsoft doesn't want you to use, dodging regressions and restoring all of your settings (again) send me a postcard of all those amazing new features that makes Windows 10 so much better.
So youâ(TM)d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying.
Absolutely false.
The creditor in this case is the restaurant who agreed to extend credit to you in the form of meal you pay for AFTER THE FACT.
The restaurant MAY require payment up front with credit card only yet cannot extend credit and then refuse to accept cash as payment against this debt.
Slashdot Mirror
My SHIELD is a real powerhouse. It also acts as a Chromecast endpoint, can use any Android store apps, and best of all supports audio passthrough with PLEX for DTS goodness!
Lost me at mandatory Google signin. Shield hardware is dated.
Bit old but still my favorite.
That assumes that the heat pump is running at full capacity all the time.
It assumes no such thing. Capacity of a heat pump is relative to temperature differential.
When a stat sees a significant differential in commanded temp vs actual temp or when it takes too long it will command next stage/aux heat even if the heat pump is capable of eventually "catching up".
Even with a heat pump you can save energy by turning it off when you aren't at home as long as you turn it back on early enough for it to bring the home back to the temperature you want when you get home without having to resort to resistive heating.
This is a best case fantasy unmoored from reality.
The difference is not between heat pump and heater. The difference is between well-insulated and not, unless it's so cold that a heat pump won't actually work.
The difference is whenever a heat pump reaches balance point it turns into a paper weight. When you turn up the stat after lowering it to "save energy" what ends up happening the heat pump spends more time burning expensive electricity not just to heat the air but to heat all of the solid things in the building which were allowed to cool off and are now absorbing heat.
If you just set a temp and leave it be the heat pump stands a better chance of spending more of it's time doing it's job as a heat pump rather than an electric heater. The few percentage points of thermal energy saved does not hold a candle to the amount of energy wasted by switching on aux heat to satisfy stat.
Wait, what? It's a pretty well-known fact that the rate of thermal transfer is based on the difference in temperatures between the hot and cold objects. If you permit your house to cool down while you're gone, and then warm it up in time for you to get there, you will definitely save energy as compared to keeping it hot the whole time.
Depends on technology. If heat is from electricity or combustion then yes there will be a slight reduction in consumption by turning down stat for a significant percentage of a day.
If on the other hand you have a heat pump the most energy efficient configuration is to set a temperature and leave it be for multiple reasons. The most salient being resistive heating is much less efficient than any possible gains from temporarily reducing temperature.
And now I can't turn on my furnace from my mobile phone... itttt'ssss cccooolllddd in here. I can't get up to turn it on because the floor is covered with ice after pipes froze and burst after the power company also shut off my power for non-payment. I fall down every time I try to stand.
To make matters worse my phone will only let me dial 911 and the Internet does not work. I tried calling 911 and explained to them not having Internet access is an emergency but the rude person on the other end says I'll be arrested if I call back.
Please help me.
What happens when there is a real story about something important and people dismiss it as more senseless noise by know nothing trolls?
I suspect the answer is probably nothing...
Bear in mind that there are two vulnerabilities, Meltdown and Spectre. Meltdown is currently Intel-only, but Spectre is Intel, ARM and AMD. Both use similar techniques to access kernel memory (Meltdown) and local process memory (Spectre).
This description is very misleading because it makes it sound like the two issues are similar when they very much are not.
Meltdown provides processes with access to memory contents they have no right to access.
Spectre is merely a side-channel timing attack. Similar issues have been known about for years exploiting static caches, hyper threading, branch prediction, DPA...etc. Spectre is little more than a PR smoke screen for Meltdown. The two are not in the same league and they don't deserve to be described as if they are close relatives.
These attacks are a sort of new category of security analysis--realizing that out of order execution can have side effects, and that programs can check for those side effects to leak program state and system memory.
They are not new in any shape or form.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/2...
There seems to be a concerted PR effort to shine spotlight on everything rather than just Intel where it belongs.
Meltdown is basically heartbleed. This is NOT a side-channel attack. It allows an attacker to trick the processor to flat out be handed the value of memory address the attacker should never be able to access. The only linkage between it and spectre is incidental exploitation of speculative execution.
Spectre is exclusively a "side-channel" attack. To continue TLS analogy it's like using an AES cipher suite without AES blinding. Numerous side channels have existed in Intel and other processors. The use of branch predictors as a side channel specifically as a vector for compromising security has been known publically for at least a dozen years.
Please explain "Net Neutrality"
NN means ISPs don't get to pick winners and losers based on packet header and payload "subject to reasonable network management"
and specify how a municipal network replaces the protections lost with the repeal of the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations...
Muni networks restore competition by removing barriers for last mile access. You don't like your ISP blocking your traffic? Do they charge too much? Don't appreciate per gigabyte overage fees? Your in luck because there are now many providers for you as the customer to select from. With a functioning local market for access the monopolistic bullshit tends to evaporate on it's own without any stinking government regulation designed to make crappy monopolies tolerable.
It's a serious question - I'm looking for the impact Net Neutrality has on the last-mile provider
NN is really only an issue for markets with no competition and massive national providers. Whether legislation exists or not is a moot point in a competitive market.
and curious how Ft. Collins will become a peer on the internet, ensuring, for example, Netflix (or a startup competitor) isn't throttled or blocked "upstream."
They are building out a last mile "pipe". To be useful you as a customer still need to select someone to fill your individual pipe with "water". It isn't Ft Collins acting as an ISP or peering with anyone. Any number of third parties will be plugging into Ft Collins pipework to arrange for water to be delivered to specific customers on an equal basis. Those third parties will manage their own peering/CDN relationships if they are acting as ISPs.
have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed
Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete data.
This is a false statement.
When you steal "sensitive data" from said "computing devices" that are "operating as designed". You obviously have "potential" to obtain the means to "corrupt, modify or delete data".
Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a âoebugâ or a âoeflawâ and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. ...
are susceptible to these exploits
So the problem with Intel hardware is not a "bug" or "flaw" but rather an "exploit"? Exploits by definition are "exploiting" "flaws". Either flaws in implementation or design unless of course Intel is asserting speculative execution machinery in its hardware was supposed to enable leaking contents of memory which would of course be much worse for Intel than admitting to an innocent mistake or oversight.
Intel is committed to product and customer security and is working closely with many other technology companies, including AMD
Wording is an obvious attempt to create a linkage between this issue and AMD processors while AMD is publically saying NONE of Intel's problems apply to them.
Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time.
Meaningless drivel. One could disable processor static ram caches and make the same nebulous characterizations. The "average computer user"'s processor sits mostly idle while actively using their systems.
However, Intel is making this statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports.
Intel is making false statements.
Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that, with the support of its partners, the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers
Intel is delusional.
The most secure products in the world come with a management engine insecure by design while harboring known exploits and yet Intel over numerous years has consistently refused it's customers simple request to provide a means of turning the blasted thing off. Creating unnecessary and unwelcomed vectors for compromise is not something the vendor who produces the most secure products in the world would even contemplate much less make good on. Intel's approach to security is a joke.
That means we have to bar scientists from speaking on a subject if their fact based statements contradict or offend someones political views.
I advocate no such thing. I only assert all would be better served if scientists demonstrated some professional discipline. Similar to the discipline expected of serving military and supreme court justices (haha) to stay out of or at least appear to stay out of certain politics. We don't expect judges or jurors to waltz in front of the cameras and give their honest heart felt political opinions about a case before them.
So the President of the US is allowed to celebrate his ignorance and reach an audience of millions with his factually incorrect take on climate, but someone with a scientific discovery and the evidence to prove it can't speak to it, because political opinion is sacrosanct.
There are two distinct aspects of this people often have trouble keeping separate. The facts... what is objectively known or reasonably believed to be true and the politics a subjective ideology based on individual value judgments.
For example consider the following statement:
My model predicts in ten years the world will go into irreversible "moist earth" runaway leading to surface temperatures of thousands of degrees making the world inhospitable to all life. To prevent this every person must flip a coin once a day for a week and kill themselves if the coin lands on tails.
All I'm suggesting it would be better for scientists to stick to "My model predicts in ten years the world will go into irreversible moist earth runaway leading to surface temperatures of thousands of degrees making the world inhospitable to all life" ... If some politician wants to criticize the facts by all means stand up for your objective evidence and enlighten them as to the reality of the situation.
However when you start veering into the lane of politics "To prevent this every person must flip a coin once a day for a week and kill themselves if the coin lands on tails.." .... and a politician calls you a raving lunatic and starts making fun of you then yes it would be better if you please STFU about it because your a scientist and obviously not a sane or competent politician.
If a scientist makes a political statement, judge it on it's political merit - unless they claim it is science, in which case, judge it on it's scientific merit. It's possible, even essential, to tell good science from bad. A political argument framed as a scientific view does not pass a simple sniff test, and is readily exposed.
We all have to live within the context of our time like it or not. What actually happens in the real world is this:
Politician: This scientist thinks people should flip a coin and kill themselves he is a raving lunatic don't pay any attention to what he has to say.
This scientist could be right on the facts yet that's all now irrelevant because the public thinks he is crazy and is far less likely to spend any time bothering to evaluate his evidence.
People who adopt a position on science based on treating political opinions as inviolate are self selecting themselves out of the gene pool. Seriously.
All science is motivated by subjectively bias and desires. It is never objective and unbiased even if the methodology used in conducting it can be made to be.
The fact you are interested or not interested in a subject is based on your own subjective whims. The fact you are willing to spend your own time and resources investigating assertions in the first place or not is based on your judgments of not only facts but the assessment of credibility and integrity of those making them. Every day some crank off their meds comes up with an OMG we're all going to die scenario. Should I waste my time and take their warnings seriously on the merits or should I just ignore them? I chose to ignore them because I don't give a fuck. It isn't scientific of me not to give a fuck but that's life.
This line of argument is dangerous to even attempt regardless of actual merit.
We can't have a situation where every time some political hack carries snowballs into congress to make a point it is rightfully dismissed as crackpot antics. Yet when there is a specific incident on the other side of the ledger be a storm or heat wave it becomes acceptable to try and publically link instances of weather to "climate change".
Perusing this will severely undermine any and all attempts to communicate the difference between weather and climate.
Much of the current problems with climate reality in my view can be traced back to scientists going that extra mile to sound alarms and suggest or imply political remedies.
If only scientists and supporting institutions had done a better job to just stay in their own lane... simply boringly run models and offer informed predictions rather than inject activism there would be less propensity for confusion between roles of science and politics.
Instead of current situation of climate deniers we would have more people who at least maintain some level of purchase on reality when they make the political calculation other considerations are more important than pursuing policies intended to mitigate climate change.
In every UN general assembly meeting you will find no shortage of clowns raging about how "climate change" (e.g. other people) are responsible for their own reckless mismanagement of their own lands. Lets not all dress in baggy colorful polka dotted outfits and dare the public to spot the real clown.
If government expects private companies to assume the functions and responsibilities of government (extraordinarily dangerous idea) they should be getting a cut of existing tax dollars as compensation for that work.
Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.
Just because film can be scanned at any resolution completely ignores the underlying issue. What people care about are outcomes not process. They want 8k quality not an 8k process with much lower effective resolution.
As point of reference IMAX uses 70 mm film and it's only 2k. There is no back catalogue of anything ready for 8k.
"Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.
Problem isn't so much customers Internet connection as what is required to serve unicast content to millions of customers concurrently at this level. Given people are currently tolerating 720p with noticeable compression artifacts the assumption content would be willing to expend 36 times the acceptable bandwidth just to provision one customer with a single 8k is inconsistent with reality.
Even these mythical Japanese 8k broadcasts are limited to less than 100mbit meaning outcomes by far are being limited by compression rather than resolution assuming h265 and non-static content.
New movies can be made 8K ready as 8K equipment exists to make a 8K movie.
Storage requirements alone to manage an 8k workflow are astronomical with per-frame costs on the order of hundreds of megabytes. A single second of video captured at @ 60 fps requires at least 6 gigabytes.
Very difficult to justify this kind of expense when no human person is physically capable of benefiting from the result. The only way 8k is rational is with a massive FOV (e.g. VR/wrap display) to keep pixels per degree in line with the limits of human vision.
All that is missing is the new ads to really sell what 8K offers over HD, 4K.
Meanwhile in the real world most 4k UHD releases sold today are little more than upscaled scams praying on user ignorance.
Modern electronics as a whole is pointless.
I would rather stick to the issue at hand rather than playing what about x, y and z games.
In this specific instance people have a choice between display technologies. For example QLED vs OLED. QLED does not have the same failure modes and problems as OLED. Simply ignoring the issue by making nonsensical generalizations is unproductive.
When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels.
Still a lot of issues.
How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels?
I certainly hope progress is being made in this area.
Personally noticed this in numerous displays purchased over time. Every vendor has a dead pixel "policy" they try to invoke with regards to returns in order to assert to customer this is "normal" acceptable defect. Such policies are always placed prominently in FAQs and policy statements so they can be referenced by CSRs with ease. They try to assert you can't return a display for this reason as if it's the vendors decision in the first place.
This is why I have a personal policy of always buying displays locally so I can return them easily if there are dead pixels without ever stating it as the cause of return.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember TV sets with CRTs - but you'd go to a store and see a wall of them, all displaying somewhat different colours and brightness (even between the same model). A big reason why they went away was because LCDs provided much better colour management at a lower manufacturing cost.
Gamut of CRTs closely match capabilities of human vision and was the basis of sRGB standard. Something CRTs get without even trying most current displays especially those based on white LCDs *STILL* are unable to fully reproduce. Try lowering the brightness of a standard LCD display with a solid color or white and what you'll always see is a gross blue tinge. I personally use a calibrated CFL display because I was not willing to put up with LED based monitor or shell out the kind of cash for a current model professional display with non-white LED illumination.
Calibrating displays especially if your only talking about white point adjustment as you seem to be referencing is a trivial matter.
Calibration is lost in different ways over time depending on technology. For CRTs its mostly change in phosphors. CFL/LED backlighting is due to degradation illumination element over time. Something easily accounted for by a calibration sensor. OLED is per-pixel degradation which makes it massively more complex and costly to recalibrate vs other available choices of display technologies.
If you think 100 million "light bulbs" or LEDs, which are diodes, is an issue from a failure standpoint what do you think about an i7 processor which has over 700 Million of more complex devices using the basically same technology?
There are production failures in everything. It is a very big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Over time different circuit elements have different failure and degradation modes that must be considered specifically. It is no more correct to assume LEDs have the same characteristics as low current transistors as it would be to assume static ram elements have the same characteristics as a flash element.
they were digital devices - why would you think that the same approach wouldn't be done for OLEDs with the end result being a technology that works when required for years on end and provide (moving) images that are superior (in terms of size, density, colour reproduction, black levels and cost).
The issue is baked in as a fundamental limitation of the approach itself. You can mitigate it with varying degrees of success or
A display comprised of an array of 100 million light bulbs (assuming RGB sub-pixel configuration) does not seem particularly bright idea (pun intended) from a failure standpoint. You'll never be able to manufacture an array with all working pixels they each have a chance of failure and all non-uniformly degrade with use. Anyone who really intends on benefiting from 8k resolution and OLED quality will notice failures of individual elements as sure as they will notice overall steady desynchronization of uniformity resulting in a dirty veneer as light elements degrade at different rates over time.
Technically it is possible to recalibrate displays the same way they were calibrated at the factory by adjusting LUTs for each element yet nobody seems to be offering this capability. I suspect necessary calibration equipment costs at least as much as the display itself.
In the real world you'll take your 88-inch 8K display home and watch highly compressed crap designed to be acceptable to the lowest common denominator like everyone else where the difference between QLED and OLED won't be worth shit.
Personally I would say Kodi is more like a toy in comparison to Plex.
Kodi is a CLIENT that displays content stored on SERVERS.
Saying that Kodi is a toy for misunderstanding its role is like saying SSH sucks because the system your connecting to doesn't have enough ram to compile software.
Plex can transcode videos on the fly (or in the background as media is imported) so that only the server needs to be powerful enough to transcode instead of each player.
Or any PVR/NAS with interface supported by Kodi. (Essentially ALL of them of any consequence)
Plex is definitely supported on more devices. It can also put copies on a phone for mobile off-line viewing.
Kodi can be installed on a phone and access all the same shit as your Kodi client on the sub $50 SBC driving the 4k TV.
You can share libraries with other people (Say vacation photos with my dad, etc). It also has an option to put the server in the cloud. Plex also integrates with Trakt via plugin as well.
"The cloud" means Plex's servers. U need an account to do anything with Plex even if all you want is exclusively local.
I thought people were using Plex now?
Wrong. Nobody uses Plex.
Gosh, running proprietary software on your computers comes with great risk? Yeah, that sounds like an important news story .. from maybe 20 years ago.
At no prior time in history have "legitimate" storefronts offered such a massive array of harmful software.
The problem is perverse incentives and associated market failure directly resulting from app store environment.
come 2019 it will go to a subscription model. Pay up or they brick your computer...
This doesn't sound so bad given current malware as a service model Microsoft has adopted for Windows 10.
It must be wonderful to get a new version of Windows packed with great new features.
When you have some time in your busy schedule waiting for updates to finish installing, interrupting boot loops, reinstalling software Microsoft doesn't want you to use, dodging regressions and restoring all of your settings (again) send me a postcard of all those amazing new features that makes Windows 10 so much better.
Who cares? Nobody is impressed with barely functional crap powered by the worlds most prolific cyber stalking company.
So youâ(TM)d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying.
Absolutely false.
The creditor in this case is the restaurant who agreed to extend credit to you in the form of meal you pay for AFTER THE FACT.
The restaurant MAY require payment up front with credit card only yet cannot extend credit and then refuse to accept cash as payment against this debt.