Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1182

No, it's not. It depends on where you live. Not every town has ordinances against that, and those that do have certain guidelines for where it is permissible (for example, an indoor or outdoor firing range that meets certain parameters.)

Except if you actually RTFA, it was against the law in his town, and that was what he was arrested for.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1182

He may or may not be financially liable for the cost of the drone, and I can't fault him for wanting to take it down. But the real crime here wasn't shooting the drone - it was shooting a shotgun up in the air in a residential neighborhood.

"I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air"

Yeah - because shooting buckshot into the air is MUCH safer, as long as you don't have the slightest grasp of the laws of GRAVITY.

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 184

No, your reading comprehension is lacking. Nothing in the post I replied to mentioned ANYTHING about battery. He only mentioned that devices would have to add CPU fans (where I assume they didn't already have one).

The fact is *tablets* will support H.265 when they have hardware decoders to support H.265. At which point the power usage will be close to H.264.

Don't even know why I am bothering to continue this silly thread with non-engineers pretending to know how video decoding works in HW/GPU/SW/etc. If your ridiculous point made any sense we'd still be watching VHS-quality MPEG-1 video.

Comment You can't take the pee out of the pool (Score 4, Interesting) 318

Giving proper citation, my favorite quote on the topic, from News Radio:

Joe: You can’t take something off the Internet. It’s like taking pee out of a swimming pool.

Which seems surprising appropriate for kids doing stupid things...

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 184

Not when they are running a modern 3D FPS for hours at a time, which most gaming PCs are perfectly capable of doing without catching fire.

As far as phones, etc, they do all of this in dedicated hardware, anyway. This whole thread is such FUD from people who know nothing about the actual topic (H.265 decoding hardware)...

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 2) 184

I don't need to RTFA (though I did). I work in the industry. H.265 is already in every 4K TV on the market. Netflix, Amazon, MGo, and others are already streaming it. It's going to be the basis of the 4K Blu-Ray successor.

Customers may not even know they are watching H.265 encoded video, but that doesn't really matter. The "users" in this case are the CE manufacturers and the content providers, who have already made the decision to adopt it.

Which requires a lot of electricity - internet streaming and hard disk space don't require a lot of electricity. So I'd prefer that H.265 doesn't make it big until most equipment has dedicated decoder silicon.

Except H.265 doesn't require that much from a decent GPU. A LOT LESS than your average 3D game that people play for hours a day. This is a silly non-issue. And as I already said most equipment already does have dedicated silicon. 4K TVs have had it for 2 years. PC GPUs accelerate most of the computationally intensive operations as well.

Oh, and all of that hard disk space and the servers that contain them requires a shitload of electricity. Do you think sever-class HDDs just spin through perpetual motion?

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 184

Not just bandwidth costs, but storage costs as well. B/W + storage for Netflix's entire content library is well over $100M / year (I have heard that their total for encoding+storage+streaming is closer to $500M). Cutting that in half would be huge.

Not to mention it's not just about the providers costs, but the customer's ability to stream it - high quality 1080p for 3-5Mbps means most people could stream HD now.

That said, this is not going to magically solve any of those issues - they have something like 10-15 streaming formats to support various devices. But I'm pretty sure their 4K is all HEVC over MPEG-DASH.

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 184

That's ridiculous. I wanted to assume this was a joke but there just wasn't anything particularly funny about it.

First: computers/devices are designed to let their CPUs run at 100% with whatever cooling mechanism they have designed.

Second: PCs are a tiny minority of the devices that stream/decode video these days - especially 4K. Obviously, you don't need a 4k stream on a device that only has a 2k display or less (almost all PCs, tablets, and phones). So that leaves 4K TVs, BD players, and high end gaming-type PCs to do HEVC 4K. On the first two in that list, these days it's all done on a dedicated chip (or really, an SoC - system on a chip - that contains most of the functionality of the device. On the gaming PC, it's done on the GPU and is TRIVIAL compared to running a modern 3D game.

H.265 is going to become the standard in the near future - not just for 4K (in which is will pretty much be the only solution) but for 1080p as well, since you get significantly higher quality (including 10 or 12 bit color, BT2020 colorspace, high dynamic range, etc) for about 1/2 the bandwidth. Basically 5 Mbps to stream near Blu-ray quality 1080p movies, and even at 3Mbps 1080p looks decent. That will put HD streaming in the homes of about 90% of the US population. And that's just the first generation HEVC encoders - like X264 has over the years, they will continue to improve...

Comment Re:I prefer Google TV! (Score 1) 133

Yeah, I know exactly how the Chromecast works and its advantages and disadvantages... I have developed streaming software for it and many other devices.

If you want to have an ultra-portable device for traveling it has potential, but is not nearly as convenient as you describe for first time setup. When you move it to a different AP you have to go through the whole process to set it up again (though it does remember a few after you have done it). And if you are in, say, a hotel room with a walled garden sign up you are screwed, and need to bring your own wireless AP to set up the connection.

Not to mention it has a pretty anemic processor and can *barely* stream/decode 1080p content.

But anyway, I agree that Chromecast is a very different beast than something like a Roku. My point was if you want a device to plug into WIRED ETHERNET (the point of this article!) for streaming, it's very likely in a fixed location where portability is not an issue, and there are such better options for fixed-location streaming devices than Chromecast. Ie. the hardwired Chromecast adaptor is a pretty niche product.

Comment Re:I prefer Google TV! (Score 1) 133

And with that you can't play (legal) 1080p video to a TV... which is ALL I want to do, and without any effort.

A Roku (or many other devices, including PS3/PS4, many TVs and BDs) takes 10 minutes to set up and you are able to watch pretty much any movie or TV show you could think up via Netflix, VUDU, Amazon, Hulu, etc. No way your "$140 real linux PC" was at that point after a couple of hours (and probably never). Either way not worth the effort - I have a "real PC" (boots whatever I want) that cost a lot more than $140, but that doesn't mean I need to go through the pain of trying to watch a new release movie on my living room TV with it...

Comment Re:I prefer Google TV! (Score 2, Interesting) 133

Chromecast all but requires another smart device running (continuously) to control it. You can't control it directly.

No buts - it requires another device, period.

Chromecast is one of the least useful of "the sticks", I agree, but really all of the sticks are currently horribly underpowered with fairly poor wifi reception.

Basically now for $30 + $15 = $45 you can get a slow "stick" device that still requires another device to work, but even when it does the experience kind of sucks. Or you can spend ~$90 for a Roku 3 that is blazingly fast for what it does, has a great remote, full wifi or IR control for other devices, and hundreds of 3rd party apps (not to mention the wifi signal is actually solid).

Don't underestimate convenience - that extra $45 cost will pay itself off in an hour for many people who actually value their free time and don't feel like fighting with a Chromecast.

Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach. -- S.C. Johnson

Working...