Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 325

by markdavis (#48896341) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"You lost all credibility when you said upscale. You just showed that you don't understand that you've been caught in a marketing gimmick.

Apparently you don't understand the technology at all, because upscaling is a real and useful feature, not a gimmick. And I said "upscale" because nearly ALL consumer equipment does it and you have to factor that in when comparing to something that is much higher resolution. It narrows the gap further.

>"And ... pretty much everyone can tell difference if you put them side by side"

Wrong. Perhaps if they are 1 foot from the screen, but that is not a "reasonable size or distance".

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 325

by markdavis (#48896329) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

So you are assuming people always have, everywhere they need:

1) Access to the Internet
2) Reliable access to the Internet
3) High enough speed access to the Internet
4) Reasonably priced non/metered Internet
5) No problem with some entity knowing exactly what, where, when, and how they are watching everything.

Streaming is not a suitable replacement for physical media in all cases.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 325

by markdavis (#48894431) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"So by most you mean 51% of the 7 billion or so out there?"

Reasonable setup- 60" TV viewed at 8 feet:

No, by "most" I would estimate 75% of people off the street would not be able to tell you they were watching an upscaled DVD on that setup instead of 720P or 1080P (without showing them that) and be perfectly happy. Maybe 50% of those 75% would probably still not even notice a difference if you flipped between the upscaled DVD and a 1080P source in that same setup.

And I would estimate 99% of people off the street would not be able to tell any difference between 1080P and 4K in that same setup- even when flipping between the two. The number would be higher for really large TV's, or really close viewing, but it will still be an insignificant number.

Now, the results for the typical Slashdot demographic? The numbers would be much further along the "I can tell" scale, but I bet not as much as you might think.

Resolution is a rapidly diminishing return once you reach "very good". It is the same insanity of putting a 2K display on a 5 or 6" phone. It is WAY beyond the human eye resolution discrimination for any typical person held at any reasonable distance (like 12 to 14 inches). So rather than being a useful feature, it becomes more of a marketing gimmick- a spec just to sell devices to consumers that don't know any better. The net effect is it just pushes up the price and places more demand on the battery.

Comment: Nope (Score 4, Insightful) 325

by markdavis (#48893949) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

>"But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players to adopt a new format whose benefits may only be realized on ultra large displays or close viewing distances?"


4K is such a crazy marketing gimmick. Most of the population can already barely tell the difference between a quality DVD upscale and a Bluray at any reasonable size or distance. The manufacturers *want* to keep making everything obsolete so people "have" to keep buying new stuff, and re-buying their content over and over.

Comment: Re:Tabs on side?? How about tabs on BOTTOM. (Score 1) 116

by markdavis (#48850277) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Although I agree with a lot of what you said, the issue is that the code was already there to put the tabs on bottom. They removed it for no good reason except to enforce their vision of looking exactly like Chrome. First the changes to the URL bar, then the style, then the addition of the menu button, and now removal of tab location choice. It is a sucky thing to do. If we wanted Chrome, we would use Chrome.

If they want to remove crap and bloat and simplify the base browser (like it is SUPPOSED to be, that was the GOAL of Firefox), then made the damn "developer tools" an add-on. 99.9% of Firefox users have absolutely no need for them, so why is all that long and extremely complex code part of the native browser- making it complicated, and taking up lots of space?

Comment: Tabs on side?? How about tabs on BOTTOM. (Score 3, Insightful) 116

by markdavis (#48848077) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Meanwhile, Firefox takes away the choice for users to have tabs on bottom (below the menu bar and bookmark bar) , like many want. Since Mozilla now has SUCH a desire to be EXACTLY like Chrome, it should be no surprise they would remove user choice, and even add an annoying and identical menu button on the right.

Thankfully, for now, you can get sane behavior back with the "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on. Yet again, Add-on's save the day and show off one of Firefox's main strengths. Back to Chrome- who knows, maybe they will start adding user choice?

Considering how important browsers are to a user's computer experience, I fail to understand why Chrome is so hostile to customization and why Mozilla is following that same path now. Let users put things where they want them (at least without artificial limits), and don't take away existing customization options!

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 512

by markdavis (#48772215) Attached to: Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack

>"he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.""

What I find interesting is that in Islam, Jesus is a Prophet.

And let's examine what Jesus spent his life and sacrificed his life teaching:

* Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone

* A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another.

* Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

* But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

* If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

* All the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and so on, are summed up in this single command: You must love your neighbor as yourself.

* For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

* if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins

* But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles

Jesus, a prophet of Islam, teaches forgiveness, tolerance, love, and non-violence.

Comment: Re:commercials = FAIL (Score 4, Interesting) 196

by markdavis (#48741851) Attached to: Dish Introduces $20-a-Month Streaming-TV Service

Oh, they are all already out of business because of DVR's on cable and satellite services? I think not. The cable and satellite companies DO pay for access to the channels (and quite a bit, at that). And even with ability to fast forward through commercials, many people (myself included) still see things and stop and play interesting/relevant commercials.

I am neither clueless nor cheap. I know exactly how this stuff works and I will not pay any price for content which forces commercial viewing. And if that means I have to pay more for access to the channels... fine. So how is that clueless or cheap?

I am certainly not alone in this feeling. The genie is out of the bag, and many of us will never go back. Next step- I want to pay for only the channels I want/watch. I am tired of subsidizing extremely expensive and totally uninteresting sports channels and other such nonsense.

Comment: Re:At least it's not ... (Score 1) 248

by markdavis (#48701517) Attached to: Microsoft Is Building a New Browser As Part of Its Windows 10 Push

>"At least it's not "Your desktop IS your browser."

It might as well be if someone designs a site or vertical application that requires that browser. That will lock you to that browser *AND* that operating system.... and everything that is forced on you with it- licensing, updates, registration, spyware, locks, whatever.

Give me Firefox- an open source browser that runs on all platforms and is designed by an open organization with no vested interest in the underlying OS.

Comment: Re:IMO, The biggest problem with fingerprint.... (Score 1) 80

>"Deep vein scans? What practical use are those if it takes so much effort to confirm the identity anyway?"

Have you used them? I have. A deep vein palm scan is easy, and takes only a few seconds. In addition it is pretty cheap and simple too.

Comment: Re:IMO, The biggest problem with fingerprint.... (Score 4, Insightful) 80

Fingerprints aren't even good for ID. They shouldn't be used at all.

Biometrics should be limited to deep vein scans which are fast, accurate, very hard to "steal", very difficult to obtain without the user's consent, and aren't being left all over the place all the time.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson