Do you have actual stats on the frequency? Context is important after all. After all, people fall down and die in bathtubs more often than your scenario happens -- and its the reason you need a gun. But what have you done to make your bathtub safe?

Why? Because your life *might* be at some point be at risk? Therefore you should, nay, MUST have the means to kill people via point-and-click in your closet? Maybe its not-reasonable, but I'm not convinced by your argument that its the only reasonable conclusion.

And not just you, a fine upstanding responsible adult, (that's you right?) but every american should have this option; no matter how stupid or irresponsible they prove themselves to be, and they shouldn't have to take any sort of firearms training or competency test to show they have any idea how to use one either. They should even be allowed to have one if they are clinically depressed, or taking anti-psychotics, or if they are habitual drug users etc without any sort of evaluation at all.

Maybe if you didn't let crazed psychotics have guns in the first place (see above) you wouldn't need to defend yourself against them with guns as often.

Wait, was it the governement breaking down your closet door? No? I didn't think so. Someone mentioned dictators becoming president for life etc earlier -- have the rebels in the civil wars and rebellions that followed ever shown much difficulty getting their hands on small arms when it came time to fight? Large armanents sure - its are to get surface to air missiles, but pistols and rifles and such? They flow like water. Why do you think you need one in your closet in advance, just in case "of the government"?

How is that "not a problem" with a bracelet? Perhaps the bracelets are slightly less likely to be lost or stolen. Then again, I've found a lot more lost bracelets in the last 10 years than lost phones... and if they are valuable for identity theft, stealing them might well become a real thing.

Basic geometry dictates that any regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.

The radius of the circle will be the distance from the center of the polygon to any point. And the diameter double that.

Its pretty self evident (and easily proven) that a regular polygon with an even number of sides will have pairs of parallel sizes opposite each other.

Its pretty self evident (and easily proven) that these pairs of opposite sites form parallel chords.

Bisect the polygon through the centers of a pair of chords.

The length of from the center of the circle to the center of a chord is necessarily less than the radius. (Because the chord is inside the circle.)

Therefor the length of the polygon from point to opposite point through the center is the diamter.

The length of the polygon from chord-center to chord center is less.

So its clear you can rotate the polygon to align the chord centers ol the cover with the points on the hole. Rotate the cover upright so that looking down, you are now fitting a line that is less than the distance between two points between two points.

The cover will drop into the hole.*

* assuming its not to thick

Q.E.D.

Uh... no.

A rigid non-moving pattern, either complete, or just a partial overlay would be pretty trivially detectable by equipment programmed to look for it. (or monitored by a human being).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The iris is much more alive and dynamic than a fingerprint. That said, sure, I guess an iris scanner, made by the lowest bidder, with no eye towards security despite being a security device could fail spectacularly; and be just as happy with a random marble or contact lens as an actual iris.

True enough.

PPI is a meaningless stat. An inch 11' feet away (my TV) is not the same as an inch 3' away (my PC monitors), is not the same as an inch 12" away (rougly where I usually hold my phone.)

pixels per degree (of field of view) is what matters. This is why a phone needs hundreds of PPI while a movier theatre 40 feet away needs a fraction of that to look just as good. The human eye only has so many receptors after all.

There is some debate on just how many pixels per degree the human eye can discern, and there are things like moire patterns and aliasing show that humans can detect "artifacts" in motion even when the actual resolution is sufficient for a still image. But whatever we come to agree the maximums of human eyesight are, it will be the case that we will need more PPI in a phone than a monitor, and in a monitor than a TV.

Like I said, I think long term 8k and beyond is going to happen and desireable. But today, the price premium and performance hit to driving that many pixels just isn't justifiable.

Rather defeating the point of the investment.

Thanks, although that's a use case for something that needs extremely high resolution its not a use case for that high of a resolution on an imac screen. Unless I sit 1.5 inches from it.

I agree, and I misused the term.

That said, 2k *is* a real thing. Its a cinema / projector standard (usually around 2048x1536)

And cinema 4k is 4096 x 2160; whereas monitor resolution 4k is 3840x2160 -- which comes up a bit short. Cinema 4k refers to horizontal reslution being 4k (4096) vs it being 4x as many pixels as 1080p (1920x1080).

So yeah... I definitely abused the nomenclature; and I'll avoid calling 2560x1440 "2k" going forward as you are right... But its not like I started it. Nomenclature for resoultion standards is a godawful MESS.

Agreed. I ended up getting 2k monitors this time around; (2560x1440) because good 4k screens tended to be slower (refresh rate), much more expensive, and put more demand on the video card).

Admittedly technology doesn't stand still, and I might have bought a 4k screen if I were shopping TODAY. Prices have come down, refresh rates over 30Hz aren't hard to find on affordable units, etc.

Or maybe not...they still push the video card a lot harder, and I'm happy with my 2k screens. They are great for programming, and working with PDFs, etc. 4k honestly doesn't look better to me; there is virtually no 4k content at all, games don't benefit from it... the consoles barely drive 1080p; and I need a pretty solid card to run my 2k screens in games. And shrinking the text down and getting 4x as much on the screen wouldn't be readable to me anyway so that's not a plus. So even 4k, as the parent said, is overkill for most things.

8k ... what's the point? Do I want one? Sure I do. And a pair of GTX titans to drive it too. But need one? Or have any use case that even sort of validates having one? Nope. I don't. And I'm curious what one would even look like.

I guess at the end of the day, I'm glad it exists because it'll continue to push the hardware advance, and prices will come down.. and maybe one day I'll be able to buy a 100" 4k TV for cheap because the 150" 8k 3D TVs will be "the premium" model.

Heh; my favorite is probably:

https://www.lingscars.com/

Take in the pure awesome of that website design... and then view the source code. :)

Its pretty much impossible to sign up for, or do anything online at all online without an email address.

You could live without an email address, but you'd pretty much be giving up doing anything more than passively viewing the internet to do it.

Tell them you never saw the need. That your close friends and family don't use it much so you never bothered.... Although your sister has one and all does is plays are silly games and gossips all day and you really don't have any time or interest in that.

Then deflect the idea that you are somehow superior to people who do have facebook accounts by just discussing something you ARE active in.

The key is to appear "normal but without a facebook account" rather than "secretive or condescending".

Once you've leapt over that hurdle, you can talk about privacy harvesting, the study showing that facebook corresponds with lower levels of happiness, the estimated $30 billion in the US alone in lost productivity due to time wasted on facebook, the risks of oversharing and that anything on the internet is public and forevor, and then joke about the absurdity of voluntarily "joining an advertising company".

By the end of most conversations I have with people about facebook they don't think I'm suspicious or condescending or weird. I haven't sold them them on closing their account and I always concede that facebook has its uses and agree that its great for keeping in touch with friends and family abroad... although I already use X,Y,Z for that myself (steam, skype, facetime... whatever...).

So... Basically the plot of the Big Lebowski ?

If I were running /. I'd have the editorial integrity not to.