According to the IPCC personal vehicles contribute about 5% if the worlds CO2 emissions. Since most electricity is produced using non-renewable fuel, they pollute somewhere in the same range as gasoline cars. What does this mean? It means that anyone who talks about personal vehicles and any change to their use whatsoever as a solution to climate change is a moron. Most environuts I have met are morons. Please note, before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not a climate change denier, I am just pointing out that anyone talking about cars as a solution to any problem related to climate change is a moron. Even if we all stopped driving tomorrow and decided to bike to work, it would have an entirely insignificant impact on CO2 emissions.

Changing from gasoline cars to electrical cars will have almost zero effect on CO2 emissions when you consider that walking instead of driving will have a theoretical maximum effect of 5%.

The largest CO2 emitters are electricity production, the agricultural sector etc. This is where we need to start. Starting at a place with a maximum 5% effect is simply retarded. Here is a tip to the environuts: Stop yapping about cars, cars do not emit CO2 in any statistically significant manner.

As for buses, it's basically the same, though the total CO2 emissions are even lower. Again, according to the IPCC the entire transport sector accounts for about 15% of the CO2 emissions, so any discussion involving changes to transportation as a means to solve the CO2 emission problem is retarded.

Seriously?

Word Perfect for Windows was total crap. It didn't lose because of shady Microsoft techniques, it lost because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population. Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent in addition to be so full of them selves that no matter how much market loss they were experience they refused to listen to their customers.

Netscape was ruling the world until IE6, in hindsight a crap browser, but at the time, heads, shoulders and entire torsos above Netscape. At the time. Afterwards Netscape grew into a bloated monster and the world was saved by Google Chrome.

Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.

That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.

I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct. :-)

That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).

Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.

Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.

Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.

The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.

That is not entirely true. Yes, Blu-Ray is a disk format, and as such it doesn't care about resolution, however, it must be able to deliver a 4K data stream through a HDMI 2.0 interface at bit rates significantly higher than for HD. The format must also be able to store a 4K movie on the disk, which means the drive probably has to be able to support BD-XL3 or XL4. This means that the player (drive) must be able to support BD-XL, it must support HDMI 2.0 and it must support 6x speeds. I doubt most Blu-Ray players of today supports this.

Not even close. Not yet. Probably never.

Your loss. Streaming "HD" is barely SD in quality.

You can't. 3D doesn't work and it never will

No. It ended because there were better alternatives. Norway and Japan do commercial whaling today and these operations are not even close to profitable. Never will be. The product isn't attractive enough to fetch a price making it profitable.

That is actually not ad hominem since you include a property that is probably a real factor in your evaluation of his level of seriousness.

Ad hominem would be: why would I still take you seriously if you have red hair?