738 posts • joined 23 Mar 2012
Re: PDF on Windows?
Re: Not so much "unlimited"
It's not up to unlimited... I can prove mathematically that within a month I can only download a finite, limited number of packets.
My download bandwidth in bits/packets is limited. Unless I assume infinite compression... ;)
Re: " You build underground. "
That's a silly idea, and you know it.
It's not that people are against the idea, it's just like FTL travel, it's a "hard problem" which we need to face the facts to. It's not as simple as "just go faster, now you have FTL travel" or "just add more fuel now you reach the next star (the rocket equation)". It's not as simple as "just go to another planet/moon and your safer than on earth".
I said jumping out of a life raft into the sea is a bad idea...
We could build underground on earth too, and survive anything that hits earth, plus earth has more mass and more protection than any moon. Again, we'd lower odds of survival by spreading to a moon, rather than increase. Only if we find additional exploitable (that is usable) resources with self sufficiency can it be an increase to survivability.
"If you put a half kilometer of rock between you and space then you have a lovely shield against all sorts of radiation."
We have a bigger one around earth. However anyone suggesting the Moon plays a part in our survival get's funny looks...
Re: Just goes to show...
Down vote all you like for pointing it out again, but the "all your eggs in one basket" argument does not hold when you mention solar flares. Why? Show me one other rock in this solar system protected by both an atmosphere and a magnetic field. While moving to another safe place is desired, there is a distinct lack of them to move to.
It's like bailing out of a life raft into the sea...
Argue about safety and protecting the human race, but not by asking it to jump out of a frying pan, into a fire!
Re: TV manufacturers are shackled by a social phenomenon
Frame rate is not a manufacture problem, it's a content/broadcaster problem.
As a PC user, I prefer higher FPS. It's purely a "what your eyes are use to" thing, no different than moving from monochrome sets to colour sets.
While it's true that it looks "strange", I'd put that down to filming techniques needing to catch up. As higher FPS need a different way to film (as a side note, HD needed them to stabilise the camera more, colour meant your needed to make sure nothing was washed out/over tinted).
All the 4k TVs I've seen support Stereoscopes [3d], so what was the question? 3D is usually down to cheap refresh rate tricks or a polarisation sheet over the tv. It's not "hard" and it's not "future tech" it was possible back when the first cameras were ever made. :P
Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"
I agree on the price bit.
It's one of those "if it's for free, I'd not turn it down" things.
4K looks very nice, and gives a softer clearer image, as for matter of fact, the TV has more to actually work with to create an image.
But is the return for investment, is the result worth the extra cost? It's almost there.
"Costs extra compared to the rest of the content".
No, it costs the same. If you send 10 gb of emails, it costs the same as 10gb of netflix in bandwidth and pipe use. The difference is before the customers did not use the ISP at all, they just sent emails.
Now the customer wishes to use the service they are paying to the full. This creates a problem, as the ISP was playing the "spread the costs over low users" game. Which leaves them in a sticky situation when the real figures show they cannot server the customers with the product they were charging for...
(This sometimes happens with airline companies. They sell 310 seats on a 300 seat plane in hope 10 people don't show up because of reasons, like work turning down holiday or being ill with a cold etc)
They already charge both ends for access. They wish to charge both ends twice for access. Once for access (netflix to upload, customer to download) and again for who they choose to access!
Depends on how hard the landing is. Thankfully it lands softer than the competion...
PS, mines the one with "softer than others" in the pocket.
Re: Patent filing date
>> Jan 31 2011 <<
Still 6 years after this patent: (First hit in google) http://www.google.com/patents/US20070042821
... [looks at patent filling, sees Samsungs name]...
Buhuhuhuhuha... one moment while I go outside to laugh profusely!
I'm back... notice it also specifies detachable parts from the main "body"... though Apple note "strap" instead AFAIK. Also while it notes a bluetooth headset, the patent does also note an LCD display on the device.
Re: Samsung's pre-invented Gear
Pity that Galaxy only released a smart phone watch in 2009 then... they should have patented it... without any phone in the watch! :P
Re: I'm curious...
I can understand that making such a thing is different than actually writing about it in sci-fi.
But the fact of the matter is, most of these devices are made by combining existing parts, in different ways. As said, we have had mobile phone watches and smart watches for ages now... so that in and of it's self cannot be "new".
However, just as fashion gets along well without patents, you could instead protect the design/feature/logo and brand name (hopefully with a real attachment of good construction and materials).
Or you can patent a specific novel function or design... not sure they are here, as even power/cams/functions in the straps have been done before.
tell me there is something original and special about the idea or function they are attempting to patent. Please. I wish to continue to hold hope there is not just a game of paper chasing going on in the courts over patenting existing ideas, products and technology...
PS, I'd type this on a current smart watch, smart phone watch, bluetooth smart wrist device, touch enabled wrist mounted HID or my casio caculator watch, but I'm hard pressed for time and cannot decide which one to use. No doubt all these devices will disappear into the ether as soon as the patent surfaces in a court room?
Re: This is what happens ....
It's not always the designers I suppose. If you set up a separate display for the radio, and one for the dash/info... then someone comes along and "saves some money", all the good engineering in the world goes out the window (along with some vital nuts and bolts I assume)!
I might get the controller if it supports other tablets and works nice with other apps/software. I can already stream to a tablet using existing apps quite nicely... so not really keen on being tied into a format.
But if it's available on both, I can see the gaming tablet for those who won't also want other options.
The controller though is win win in most cases.
Why would life exist everywhere? I observe there are limits to it's existence.
This is the case for matter. This is also interestingly the case for Earth.
If I deal a pack of cards, I can state "this dealt hand only exists here on earth". Why do you suggest I can say that it exists else where?
So, with some things, I can say "it only ever happens once". I consider life to be at least as unique (and / or complex) as a pack of 52 cards. Something that seems extremely simple, can in reality have a mathematical probability so obscure that it only ever happens once in the lifetime of the universe. :)
Re: John Bailey
There is no life on the moon. This is an observable fact. Therefore, while it's incorrect to state "there is no life outside of 20 miles of my house" it is correct to state "there is no life on the moon".
We can state there are places where no life is. Does that boundary stop on the earth, or extend past it? But there is a certain boundary to life.
It's not impossible for a whale and a pot of petunias to appear. It is however extremely not probable.
Really, make the universe as big as you like. Make time as long as you like. There is a limit on what will and will not happen. We prefer to use evidence and observations for this. Speculation does not help one bit to change our understanding.
A spontaneous pot of petunias is about the same probability (within an acceptable margin of error) as life appearing (in the vastness of the universe multiple times). So, if we state that one can happen, we have to admit we also believe the other is likely. Are we happy to make that conclusion?
" In contradiction to what quite a few people believe in statistics a sample size of one will reveal quite a lot about what you have sampled."
No, no it does not. Our solar system has 1 sun. We can conclude from this:
Solar systems only ever have 1 sun. Or all orbital systems have 1 sun.
Both are incorrect, as we have binary star systems, and orbits around planets (or dwarf/failed stars if we wish to keep the stellar definitions in our example).
So... long story short, with 1 data point, we can only ever (mathematically, logically and scientifically) state "There is at least one star in at least 1 solar system in the universe", the same applies to life.
We got more data on stars, we need more data on life. :)
PS, citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_joke#Stereotypes_of_mathematicians
Re: A quote from Hawking
If they wished or had the ability to harm us in such a way they would have already. Which leaves two options.
1) They cannot.
2) They can, but are playing games with us until they do.
With Occam's razor at play, I'd say they are not there. That and the fact any space faring race could colonise/explore/leave marks on the galaxy so quickly, if they existed before us, we'd see the evidence everywhere.
The current evidence points to us being the only/first intelligence within observable and traversable distances.
Re: X customers
Is that the plan? Kill off all mobile phone markets to get people to lug around PCs... um, Tablets... um Xboxes...
Wait, none of that seems on MS plan, well successful plan. So is it they plan to kill off all markets, then retire to the Good Life?
Re: you mean movie makers still have not realised
Actually, Netflix having only 1 and 3 is a bonus in the subscription fees IMO... Though only having the first would be better.
Like most Trilogies, they only ever made the first film, the other 2 are figments of our imagination and shall never be watched...
(Or in the case of trilogies of trilogies, only watch the first 3... though Disney could turn it around ;) )
Re: Slowly does it
That's my new response. I've had enough with BT. In the past it was "I'll help you sort it" and I had success every time. Now it's "Call BT, they'll hell... wait, their not helping? Well, you chose to go with them against my advice..."
Re: "Refine the fuel from ice".
The reality is more amazing than we realise, but sadly our imaginations are just that, and rarely do they become real...
You cannot just make fuel from ice. That's not how thermodynamics works. "Water" is an energy store here, from which we make rocket fuel (ox and hydrogen) with the assistance of a power source.
You have solar in space, but much less in the asteroid belt. So your looking at decades to return something that way. Taking your own fuel is again problematic as you hit the rocket equation and fuel becomes a payload you cannot afford to carry (basically a reducing return of investment problem).
Has no one made a story about land grabs in space? And people claiming their own lands, laws and zones?
Re: Why the UN?
They'll be effected the first time a "returned roid" hits the wrong landing zone...
If anything comes back here, others are effected. It's a small effect, but no need to tread people as a minus on the landscape.
Re: As pointed out above
Other islands are so far away, it's not possible within our own planning time. That is, even beyond our own lifetimes into the distant future for whatever effect we can have on it.
Perhaps in the distant future when setting up such a travel AND sustenance is possible. But now? It's no more possible than attempting time travel. Though we can do other things closer to home, but "colonisation" is not going to be it. We'd be there already if we could. The rocket science was done. The other obstacles are planet sized. Choose a planet, and you have a problem the size of a planet!
Even the most hospitable rock we could find within 100 light years, is more likely to get torched before this one does. We'd be bailing out into the sea, when we had a perfectly repairable, though arguably leaky, ship already. Our planet getting hit by a rock? It's got the best odds of avoidance. Our planet getting solar flared out? It's got the best shielding out there... So any other destination lowers our odds of survival. It's the gamblers fallacy. Until we find a perfect match and a way to get there.
I mean no harm, but I'd hope anyone taking a dip, is able to swim the distance. We're not talking rivers and lakes here, we're talking attempting to swim an ocean, with no supplies...
I think someone coined "space ship planet earth". The best space craft for travel, is already under your feet. We'll reach a close encounter of another solar system naturally, before we will through technology...
In the mean time, exploration is for the joy of seeing and learning and progressing. But it's not to be our false crutch or hope.
Re: As pointed out above
"Eggs in one basket" argument does not hold. Think of an island in an ocean. You can start to live out in boats in the sea. These don't help you survive. Their more at risk of sinking than the island. Even surviving a tsunami, if you prepare, is easier on an island than out at sea (though a random unseen tsunami is the opposite).
Exploration is purely that. It's not going to give us a second place to live. It would be easier to live at the bottom of the ocean and ride out (not literally ;) ) any destruction above sea from an asteroid.
Anything bigger than an asteroid (so moving from life killer to planet obliteration) has already been cleared out of our local neighbourhood. Anything outside of that, probably has less likely probability of hitting us before the heat death of the universe (see number of star collisions in galaxy mergers for how low the probabilities are) that we don't have anything to worry about.
Re: There are so many problems.
Oxygen is not running out any time soon. As a hint, it helps make up 70% of the surface area...
There is a stupid amount of material on our earth let alone in space.
Re: Who actually wears a watch anymore?
The sun is consistent. It was clocks that originally needed to either be set each day to the correct solar time, or made to account for seasonal differences (through clever clockwork).
Over time, it was decided the sun was wrong, and the clocks were correct.
In reality, there is no "right or wrong" with this, just a preferred reference frame. As we now have globalisation and other forms of communication and work (travel east and west as mentioned above ;) ), then our relative importance changed... to the clocks time. :)
Re: What am I missing?
There is a is distinct hole in the market for network speakers with either 1) Built in data over powerline 2) powered but takes Ethernet input 3) Power over Ethernet input.
A quick google gives me... No products or companies for "ethernet speakers". Nothing, nada. Wow. I'd have thought that would be easy.
But the real problem of networking over powerlines is for a multi room, PA system and similar, you cannot guarantee that each room (think office or shops in addition to homes) will be on the same mains ring. So if you have to add some networking ability, a wifi antenna and chip is probably the same price as a socket and Ethernet chip, but 100% guaranteed to have a range.
Re: Bluetooth audio... pah
That's ok, they already sell gold plate ended optical cables...
(Oh, and big name brands do it too. I'm certain they KNOW what they are doing...)
Re: 2 main problems with this fancy wireless audio gumpf
For all honesty it's poor marketing, but it's the marketing that works for the majority. They market the big numbers, over the "reality".
A Sonos is a mini wireless hifi. It's not really there to replace a speaker setup. It's for ease of install on either a PA system (great for just wifing music around, change tracks, change zones etc) or for a few systems where you may wish to link them together at times.
No idea about the others, but each Sonos can stream it's own music, work as a morning alarm, works are a repeater to the other speakers and lots more.
So they are not priced the same as an input only wireless speaker, their trying to compete with that old CD hifi. I'd not use them as a stereo pair (though they support it) but as a replacement to a FM radio.
I doubt it. Some setups have a lot of noise on the line...
It's all true.
Though I could see changes to speakers at some points. There are some really interesting ways to generate sound in the natural world. Insects for instance can out roar a lion at times. :)
Re: @ MJI 'Sony stuff is heavy'
Sony are known for putting lead weights in their products...
I agree, good kit is usually made out of solid and good materials (thus usually heavy unless your using aluminium of similar :P ). But some go way out of their way to confuse customers. :(
Re: What are the odds...
Like current displays can do if we just add a camera to them? Transparent displays are usually used in areas like transportation and security... not for TV viewing...
Unless... [goes off to patent a 100% transparent display, transparent 100% of the time and invisible to consumers]
Re: Patent This!
 Ah, or as said by above, it's already available. :) [/edit]
It's been done. One exists already.
An old school option is a spinning disk (or any surface) with a projector (or laser) pojecting your frames/pixels onto it. :)
Re: That, Stuart, is the question
I'm going to call it here. I would not be at all surprised if "diversity" changes and appears much quicker than most "scientists" realise. Faster than they could imagine. We've only had what, 100 or 200 years of current observation? Has there been much change since then? How do we know if any species are "new" or "existing, but just recently found"?
Re: Re. terror "threat"
Anyone buying a lot of batteries should be put on a list. Because they either:
1) Bought a horrid toy for the kids that uses too many batteries
2) Are too thick to realise rechargeables exist!
Re: I wonder
True. But that requires everyone to use flight mode. Plus it at least solves the presented problem of "is it batteries in the battery?"
I'm assuming it's the usual "your arrested on the technicality". If they cannot arrest you for an actual crime, they can arrest you for lying about why you visited...
"I came to see the family" when it was "I want to buy some cheap booze".
Re: I wonder
You presume they need to install tracking software or hack it...
Hint, they just wish it turned on. Then they get the key/data from it's own unique id. Everything is "on the cloud", or rather tracked via the ISPs/teleco operators anyhow. Then they known who, if it's your phone, you are. If it's not your phone, they still know where it has been.
Not anon, because it would not make any difference. :P
But it could have been polished a bit. I'd love another small square Ipod. Though I guess a "widescreen" version prevents a break in app compatibility. :/
Well, this at least suggests why they removed the design and option of a small square Ipod player... no need to cannibalise your own sales. :P
Tablet sales seem to have hit the low? Will they get beat by laptops soon?
Nah. They will do the same all companies do... skirt the law. They would just make everything dependant on browser toolbars.
Know the term "unintended consequences"?
The thing about websites complaining about advertising blocking... it's like the Mafia complaining about having their bats taken off them.
Some people fund their own websites out of their own pocket. Others fund them in other ways.
Once I know the adverts are SAFE, then I might turn off an adblocker. Until then, the only adds you get to show, are ones part of your content, not ones passed through dodgy Google algorithms with zero safety checks.
Seems there has been a trend of companies offering just enough to buy (either directly, or through offering funding support) the popular free programs. Then quickly adding or insisting the makers add bloatware/foist ware to it.
As other companies follow suit (Adobe being one of the biggest guilty right now) it becomes the "norm". :(
- BEST BATTERY EVER: All lithium, all the time, plus a dash of carbon nano-stuff
- Stick a 4K in them: Super high-res TVs are DONE
- DINO-SLAYER asteroid strike was a stroke of bad luck, say boffins
- Review You didn't get the MeMO? Asus Pad 7 Android tab is ... not bad
- Russia: There is a SPACECRAFT full of LIZARDS in orbit above Earth and WE control it