Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It wasn't clear from your post that you are using the 4K display at 30Hz, you only mentioned trying out the 39" one.
I was referring not to screen real-estate related problems, but specifically to the 30 Hz refresh rate, it's way too low even for desktop usage to be comfortable (and forget enjoying games).
Yes I do use the 4k resolution, hence all the problems I've found. If you use a lower resolution then everything will look bigger already = no problems, but no extra real-estate. @ 4k, you have to increase font sizes or just have excellent vision to be able to read anything. You can't increase all the font sizes, and if you do, they stay huge on your laptop screen when you disconnect the monitor. It is a pain.
The mouse lag is very noticeable. However with muscle memory and a little practice I've learned to click without having to wait for the catchup. Furthermore, 90% of my time is spent typing, not moving the mouse, so its not a big issue anymore. I've always been one to avoid the mouse via hotkeys & shortcuts anyways, so, meh.
Absolutely if you're doing any kind of intensive mouse movement such as graphics editing (or if it just bugs you enough), think before you buy. 39" @ $280 is still tempting to me for some stuff, even if I never did use the 4k resolution.
I absolutely know how terrible it is. Like I said, I'm using it now.
I also know my dock takes 1/2 my screen when I disconnect the monitor, Outlook only lets your resize fonts in 2 of 3 panes, not on the ribbons or the menu, OSX only lets you resize your menu bar with the Accessibility zoom (for nearly blind people) which then requires you scroll your desktop around, if you disconnect your mac from the monitor without first going to sleep it sometimes keeps the 4k resolution on your tiny laptop screen, making it impossible to even unlock your computer, Yosemite seems to randomly "forget" the monitor is even attached, the screen doesn't auto-wake when your computer does (you have to hit the power button specifically), and you have to go into a secret menu on the TV by pushing a "secret" code on the remote to turn off the super-duper-secret sleep timer.
But its still worth it for the real-estate; and the poster didn't care enough to mention a minimum refresh rate or gaming.
It is well known that educating at a younger age is more effective. What is the point of offering technology classes to girls that hate mathematics due to the previous 10 years of being told that math is for boys? What is the point of offering technology classes to minorities that have trouble with basic algebra due to poor schooling? By the time kids reach high school, their brains have already slowed considerably in relation to their ability to learn. They are already indoctrinated to "how the world is". Take the previously reported issue of forcing kids to wear RFID necklaces. The arguments against such I remember on
Pope Francis, though I disagree with the specifics of his message, said it right in that if you insult somebody's faith, they might just punch you in the face. That is what you're fighting against in high school. I'm not saying they're going to punch you, I'm saying they already believe, in their hearts, that STEM is not for them and so are instinctively opposed to the idea. Offering to teach STEM is not enough as the classes will be ignored. You first have to teach that STEM fields are awesome, else they'll never choose to use what is offered in high school. You can teach that at the high school level, but it will be as difficult as converting a Muslim to Christianity.
Will the high school funding make some difference? Sure. I'm not saying don't put any money in high school programs (They will need it soon enough even if you do start at the primary level). I'm saying the timing, doing it now without first addressing the underlying issues, is insane. It won't work as hoped (just like Affirmative Action didn't work), and so is wasting money (unless your goal is a $.01 stock price boost from the PR)
Nobody credible thinks that can be done. But anyone who has put more than two seconds of butt-hurt thought into this realizes that you make a difference where you can and hope that this difference is compounded in the next generation.
Obviously by doing some research I've not put more than two seconds of butt-hurt thought into this. But you do bring up an excellent point: bigots throwing insults instead of offering up their own two seconds of thought on the matter ruin discussions.
Intel can make a difference at the primary level. $300 million can make a huge difference (and I'm not talking about just throwing money at individual schools). They're instead making the wrong decision to do what is popular and visible to short-sighted morons for the PR benefit, not to actually deal with the problem at hand. There is no reason to hope the next generation fixes the real issue if you work on fixing it yourself.
1. Primary schools are biased against women in STEM.
2. Primary school funding/quality in the US is stupid lopsided against minorities & the poor.
Working to change High School programs is better than working to change college admissions criteria or setting hiring quotas, but until the primary school funding disparity is fixed, there is no such thing as equal opportunities.
We can't (and shouldn't) demonize or try to change cultural influences on how children are raised. If people want to raise their children in a way that is counterproductive to succeeding (financially) in a capitalist democratic society... that is their choice. Hippies can live in barns with the chickens... or whatever other stereotype you want to believe in. That is what being free is all about: making choices that other people think are stupid. Equal opportunities can only be considered upon, and must be limited to, what society has chosen the government to be responsible for: education, law, (health?), defense, water, power, etc.
It is just as absurd to think you can fix the race & sex disparity problem at the high school level as it is to think you can cure a cold by wiping your nose.
Thanks for the tip about Seiki. I didn't know about them.
Also, I find it hilarious that one of the best options for a dumb TV is one that runs linux.
Wow I had no idea. The one I'm using at work is of course owned by my company. But now with the price sub $300 I think I'm going to pick one up for myself just to play around with it. Never been inside a monitor's guts before.
work out of the box perfectly with the HDMI port on an Apple MacBookPro
Late 2013 or newer models only. Though I wouldn't say "perfect", unless you have excellent vision. OSX & most software definitely have issues scaling. You make the dock big enough on 4k, it takes 1/2 your screen when d/c. The top menu can't be resized except with the Accessibility zoom which means a scrolling desktop. Outlook... ugh. You can only change the font size for the reading pane & message list, not the folder, menu, or ribbons.
Still worth it.
For mbp, that means late 2013 mbp or newer. HDMI only. no mdp.
FINALLY! +1 tinnitus!
Their 65" 4k (30hz @ 4k resolution) is now on Amazon for $999. The 39" has worked just fine for me, so I imagine the 65" is comparable in terms of quality. (It does have 4 stars on 600+ reviews)
Having reviewers announce what they're primarily interested in would allow you to choose the reviewer that best matches your own preferences. Then you can easily give that reviewer greater weight when reading reviews. If you don't want to or don't need to choose a reviewer, you can instead look at individual reviews for the specific points that best line up with your interests. If good networking functionality is very important to you, then you just skip over reviews that don't include it as a metric. If you see a metric, good or bad, appear in multiple reviews for the same game, then you know that feature really stood out and should probably be considered if it is even remotely interesting to you.
games will be considered Recommended, Essential or Avoid.
Translated to a 1-10 scale, that is 5-8, 9+, and 1-4.
Translated to 5 stars, that is 3+, 4.5+, and 1-2.
Better is to find a specific reviewer that favors the same types of games that you favor and read what they have to say about a particular game. Reviewers themselves should be given scores in different genres to reflect their interest, and scores in different aspects of games that don't necessarily translate between genres and are not necessarily used on every game (perhaps each reviewer chooses 3 most important factors of a set list of say, 10 different areas); then have multiple reviewers on each game.
How should we score an excellent game with severe networking issues? A flawlessly polished game with a hackneyed design? A brilliantly tuned multiplayer experience with dreadful storytelling? If you expect the score to encompass every aspect of a game, the task becomes an exercise in futility. Add an inflated understanding of the scoring scale in many quarters - whereby 7/10 and even sometimes 8/10 are construed as disappointing scores - and you have a recipe for mixed messages.
Excellent game with networking issues:
"Mary the FPS guru" says:
Polish: 9.5/10 "It's pretty!"
Networking: 4/10 "Networking problems ruins everything."
Replayability: 8/10 "Single player scenarios keep me coming back."
"Matt Foley the puzzle champ" says:
Team Balance: 8/10 "Pick your army, its all about skill"
Networking: 6/10 "It's ok because I live in a trailer down by the river!"
Price: 10/10 "Freeware, freeware, freeware."
You get the idea. Sorry for the babbling. No time to reword this.