They've done it multiple times already. You just don't know because Slashdot hasn't spoon-fed the information to you.
They've done it multiple times already. You just don't know because Slashdot hasn't spoon-fed the information to you.
There's quite the range of 'local dimming' technology out there; some of its pretty bad... some of its really good.
As expected the OLED stuff scores 10/10 but *some* of the full-array stuff scores really well. So does ALL dimming irritate you or just the bad stuff? Of course that's not a comprehensive list... but it does show the range of scores.
Also FWIW a number of TVs also have a menu option to turn it off or adjust the effect so you can get 'some dimming' but not as much... which will reduce the effect -- less 'contrast' but less artifacts.
So you have some options if you want 4K but or the TV otherwise impresses you besides the local dimming.
You are reading the wrong post, unfortunately.
It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.
If you could have their air, but also had to live with their technology and medicine too would you still take the trade?
Meanwhile, depending on where you live, 100 years ago was pretty filthy... London air quality in 1917.... sulpher dioxide and soot from the smokestacks... and that was on a good day... 100 years ago puts you right in the middle of World War I
Meanwhile, smog and acid rain, are on the decline in North America thanks to environmental regulation and pollution controls... and with the mass market arrival of electric city air quality is actually poised to get even better in the future.
I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.
* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.
The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.
No, the product was 100% transformative. It was completely different from any that came before it, and it was copied by everyone who came after, because it did what people wanted much better than anything anybody had tried before. This is the very definition of a transformative product, and denying requires blinding yourself intentionally.
Sure, it had good marketing. But good marketing may get you one sale. A good product is what gets you the second and third, and there have been many second and third sales of iPhones.
No, because how does Microsoft make any money off someone who upgrades their graphics card and storage, but who doesn't buy a new Windows license?
Office 365 (slightly tongue in cheek)
And maybe a Windows 365 Enterprise subscription (which if it lets a single user put Windows Enterprise (with control over updates, no telemetry, etc etc...) on his gaming desktop, his laptop, and his HTPC... for one price (the same way office 365 works) that might well be alluring to "people who care".
While the "people who don't" will run home/pro and suffer Microsoft's "management" of their PC.
more and more PC owners are learning they don't need to ditch their 3 year old computer and can instead opt to upgrade it. SSD, more RAM, and a new graphics card and their old machine is better than new.
OTOH... more and more mac owners are learning that their new Mac will only ever have what it shipped from the factory with, and that the ram upgrade and SSD upgrade that makes the stuff from 2010 still usable today... is NOT going to be a pattern that repeats anymore.
Right now, most windows gear is still upgradable... but desktops are shrinking and ultrabooks are growing... so the tipping point is coming. Enthusiasts / gamers may still have the option to upgrade their 'rigs' but mom and pop might be stuck with whatever is soldered onto their ultrabook...
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance?
Of course I have. But it's tempered by other competing interests.
1/3rd of all coal industry spending on senate candidates went to democrats. 20% of coal industry spending on congress went to democrats. Given the makeup of the houses they only need a minority of democrats in their pocket to further their agenda.
And that's my point. They have MORE than enough influence to keep the liberal-green alliance from running amok.
The parties don't move in lockstep.
Getting a pay cut isn't going to motivate him. He clearly isn't bringing his A game... he needs to be incentivized; perhaps a more aggressive bonus structure, or more stock options? Maybe he needs a big raise? You need to do this to attract and retain talent!
Again, its about the balance.
For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.
The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming influence over policy in the face of all all the opposed lobbies, to the point that they government would be running a decades long campaign to literally suppress and fake the science is simply absurd.
Especailly since old-coal-joe ALSO gets billions in taxpayer subsidies and support... so why aren't they whitewashing the science to show minimal impact? Al Gore isn't the only PAC open for business, and old-coal-joe has a LOT of money to spend...
A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"
Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.
The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.
Heck even think of Gore himself.
Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.
They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that
If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green"
It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
I'm curious though why you think the administration has a vested interest in systemically lying about the climate change science? I mean... what is the profit motive here? I get why tobacco companies funded and undermined cigarette studies; I get why car companies would dodge emission controls; I get why governments don't want to deal with native affairs; or crumbling infrastructure... so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change? There's plenty of money on the table from 'big oil' to drill-baby-drill, and they don't care who drinks from the trough in support of their business interests... so why is there this big conspiracy to fake climate change?? It's delusional.
I mean, sure, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but its not a conspiracy... its just the scientific process of continual refinement, testing and re-testing claims etc. The brontosaurus was real... then it wasn't... no maybe it is again, but maybe with feathers... that's just the process. And yes, lots of 'bad science' is done, but it eventually washes out as more data is made available and more testing and validation of results is performed, as our knowledge and our techniques improve. So yeah mistakes are made, but betting -against- the latest consensens is not really a winning move. Yet you seem to think that on this ONE issue, not only is science wrong, but its a big conspiracy to fabricate it... by 'liberals' for... reasons?
Quite so, but my hypothesis was that that the cellular channel would be for advertising, telemetry, forced software updates, etc. You'd still need to put the TV on your wifi to stream netflix etc.
How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet?
I said cellular. I meant cellular.
Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan
Yeah. They will. It's already happening.
"Verizon's Mobility Services include wireless voice, text messaging and wireless data packages for both 3G CDMA & 4G LTE. Adding our Mobility Services to your product suite lets you offer variety in voice and data services that keep your customers productive - at the office and on the go. Additionally, you will retain and grow your customer base with Verizonâ(TM)s Mobility Services as the technology platform to deliver IoT applications and solutions."
It won't be free, it will be "free"... the cost will be front loaded into the purchase price; or covered by some other subscription fee, or advertising revenue. How much do you think 1GB of data per unit over a 5 year period is going to cost at wholesale x 1 million units...
It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
We are fast approaching a time where the TV will come with built in cellular data, and lifetime subscription (for specific uses). I've already seen several devices that have this scheme... for example a 'cloud punch clock'.
You might have to enter your wifi password to stream 4k from netflix, but it might send its telemetry, get advertising updates, firmware updates, and its cloud 'siri/cortana/google voice recognition stuff' via a separate always-on cellular network connection.
The price of the chipset itself is small in a $2000+ TV; and the cost of prepaid data measured at likely less than 500MB per years for 10 years, bought at wholesale for a million TVs at once... well... that's also going to be pretty small.
Right now the IoT is at least theoretically constrained to our wifi and runs through our firewalls. But we're fast approaching the time where it's just directly connected to the carrier bypassing our home networks entirely.
Indeed, our home networks themselves may become a nerd relic, the way home servers are. Your computer connects to the cloud, your printer connects to the cloud, your TV connects to the cloud... who needs a LAN? Sure a LAN would be faster... but once its good enough the average user will be happy to forgo having to maintain a home network in exchange for 'it just connects to the cloud'.
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.