On a tech site, I'd think you'd know about multi-core CPUs and such... They're pretty common these days.
On a tech site you'd think you'd know that processing video takes more than 1 core. You want ALL your cores working on the video, not transferring a file. Some libraries like libx264 are built for multiple cores especially when used with ffmpeg. This is why Firewire and eSATA and Thunderbolt are preferred. All of them have independent chips which handle the work so the CPU doesn't have to do it.
That's not a question of efficiency, and theoretical gripes don't matter to anyone.
Yes it is. With an high inefficiency it means that the actual, realtime performance is affected by a number of outside factors. In the real world, USB3 is rarely used for professional work. eSATA, Thunderbolt and even Firewire is used.
In the real world, it's plenty fast, and you'd be hard pressed to point to an actual scenario where someone tried and found they were unable to use USB.
You've confused the argument. I don't doubt USB is everywhere; I've said it is a poor choice for realtime work like video. To use a car analogy, I can use a Toyota Camry to transport some home improvement materials. For small items once in a while (a gallon of paint, some tape), it's fine. If it was my job was as a home improvement contractor, I would buy a truck. Your example would be to argue that Toyota Camry is fine for all home improvement because they are everywhere. A Camry is a poor choice for the professional work.
Are the developers of such devices really this incompetent?
My guess would be that they were told to implement it in a certain way. They may have had objections but were overruled by managment.
Are they really so focused on jumping on the IoT revenue bandwagon that they give the actual security of their devices a passing glance, if that?
Yes. I find this is the most plausible explanation: "Make it work on the interwebs! By next week!"
USB is dirt cheap. You can have a separate bus-per-device if you so desire. That will easily eliminate all contention.
I don't think cheap equates to performance. The problem with USB is that it is CPU bound meaning that contention isn't as easy to remove as you think. For most video production work, the CPU is busy with processing the video and is limited by USB transfer. This limitation isn't a problem for a keyboard or mouse because the amount of information is quite small but video, music encoding? There's a reason why USB-based speakers never really made it so far.
And what you really mean is USB is useless for REAL-TIME work... When USB can do faster-than-realtime for you, the contention and other gripes aren't much of an issue.
No, USB doesn't. That's been the whole point. USB2 has a theoretical max of 480MB/s while Firewire 400 (the original) is 400Mb/s. In theory, USB2 should have no contention. In reality USB2 would get far lower (35MB/s) while Firewire would get around 49MB/s. USB3 pushes the max to 625MB/s while the practical rate is around 400MB/s (less than 60% actual efficieny).
Firewire is dying out in production video shops, too, though it has been (almost-) replaced by several different alternatives, not (just) USB.
Yes but production shops didn't turn to USB for Firewire's replacement. They may have tried eSATA and then Thunderbolt. Maybe they will use PCI-E in the future. USB3 is closer to Thunderbolt 1 but is beat out by Thunderbolt 2.
1. "Customer preference"? By saying this, you are implying that having video pre-roll before playing, AS AN OPTION, is somehow impinging on the preferences of others with the ability to stream from start to finish. However, there is absolutely nothing preventing someone to open the video player, immediately press play, and watch the video with no delay.
Sigh. How many would choose this option? Very few. Yet you call it stupid when they don't offer an option that few people would choose. I see.
The specific functionality I'm looking for is for the video to keep downloading the stream while the video playback is paused. So to say that the customer prefers to watch the video instantly is to completely bypass the fact that I'm a customer, too, and I want this feature that does not in any way intrude on people who don't want it.
How is that not the same thing as simple buffering? The problem is that you want control over a feature that very few people want but it's stupid that programmers didn't offer it to you. But to answer your very specific feature set, YouTube offers it from select studios.
2. I would actually prefer the ability to download the videos instead of streaming them. But we live in a society where access to legally purchased video content (movies and TV) is almost completely locked down by the "Content Cartels". The Content Cartels are a bunch of large enterprises with huge budgets that dictate terms to content providers like Amazon, Netflix, etc. by telling them how they can and can't use their content. They often specify explicitly certain features to be allowed or disallowed.
Content Cartels meaning the legal copyright holders? Yes, they have control over content they own. But that's what copyright means.
3. Referring to driving out to a Redbox or buying the DVD/BluRay is fallacious, because you are referring to antiquated physical media distribution as a solution to an online services problem that can be resolved by software alone. Why should you encourage society to spend a tremendous amount of fuel on physical distribution of goods that can be delivered at a fraction of the economic and environmental cost as electrons over a wire (or indeed, over the air, if you have LTE)? "Just buy the BluRay" is about as stupid of an excuse as I've ever heard for not supporting video streaming pre-rolling.
Your argument is fallacious because you are imposing a solution of yours that only you want. If people are streaming, they want it now. If they can't get it now, there are other options. That's like saying I want high speed fiber but I don't want to pay anything to install it. You have to pick and choose between two options; you don't get to create a third option then complain that it's not unfair when it doesn't exist.
Yet streaming video players are deliberately coded to be as stupid as possible, and not allow the user to "pre-roll" the entire video, basically meaning that they open up the video player, then leave it paused for half an hour or an hour while the video downloads, then come back and watch the whole thing at full quality with no "graceful downgrades" due to their connection being slow.
Did you ever think that it's not "stupid" but more related to customer preference? I would venture to guess that most people don't want to wait for the full video to download as soon as they've purchased/rented/clicked on it. First, the customer wanted "streaming" not "downloading to play later" videos. Second if they could/wanted to wait for as little as half an hour, the customer would have gone outside and headed to their nearest Redbox or even (gasp!) brick and mortar store to get the DVD/Bluray themselves. Thirdly, you think that most people really care whether it's 4K vs 1080p vs 720p. Most people don't care that it's pixelated for part of it as long as it isn't for the entire thing.
Swimmers aren't required to don industry-standard street-wear.
Well not industry standard but some of the suits that swimmers used years ago are now considered banned as it gave too much an advantage to some swimmers. After 20 new world records were set in the 2009 World Championships, a serious discussion had to occur. Eventually FINA banned the suits for competition.
There are enough resources on earth to build a nuclear power plant for ever 4 million or so people. And enough fuel to power them also.
Again, you're ignoring real, logistical problems with your "only" thinking. If "only" we could build enough nuclear reactors to supply7 billion people. If "only" we could lay down the infrastructure of power lines efficiently and neatly without any problems whatsoever. If "only" all the nuclear powers gave up their nuclear weapons and converted the material into fuel instead. If "only" . . . .
I pointed out and provided a link that the continent of Africa is sufficient space to sustain that population.
You are conflating two things as equal. It "only" takes a quarter of the US to fit 7 billion people. And it "only" takes the entire continent of Africa (if it were properly converted into farmland) to feed the world's population. Which "only" is it? By your own argument, it "only" takes an entire continent and a quarter of one to feed and house the whole world's population. At the same time, you've disregarded things like power, heat, cooling, sewage, water, sanitation, etc. Those things are somewhat vital to sustain a population. It's not just about 2 things that sustain a population: Space and food. So I wouldn't say that Africa is enough to "sustain" the population.
Also, there is a lot of unused space on Earth.
Technically true but meaningless as you neglected to factor in the amount of space to sustain a population. In your example how much land is required to sustain 7 billion. How much infrastructure do you need for that populaton?
Your article also explains why it doesn't happen today: Politics, corruption, legal matters. It also does not state what happens if they world's population continues to grow. Can Africa sustain the world at 14 billion, 21 billion? What about the toil of environmental problems? Larger and bigger questions that the amount of physical space a person can take.
After Apollo, they stop receiving the massive funding for a single project that they did before. They also did not have a directed, singular purpose. But they still did other important work.
In manned flight, they built a space station (Skylab), the Space Shuttles, and then assisted with another space station (ISS). In unmanned flight, NASA continued with the exploration of the solar system continued while sending probes to study the outer planets (Voyager) and the inner planets (Mariner, Pioneer, Viking, MERS, Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit).
In terms of other scientific study, NASA has been rather important in launching multiple satellites that have changed our understanding of the universe: COBE, WMAP, etc. Also they built what some may argue is the most important scientific instrument we have known: the Hubble Space Telescope.
Many of those projects involved technology we did not before.
"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN