 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I would imagine a lot of people said the same in 1850 about the
>> Industrial Revolution. And look what's changed since then (in terms of
>> manufacturing).
>
> Um... has anything changed? Apart from the invention of plastic, I can't
> really think of anything.
You just need to look at a modern car, building or home appliance to see
countless things that would simply be impossible to manufacture 100
years ago even with a limitless amount of money. Not because of the
reliance on electronics, but because processes and materials simply
hadn't been developed. Sure plastics have been around for ages, but
today we take for granted there are plastics that you can leave in
direct sunlight for decades without fading or going brittle. In another
decade or two we'll take bio-plastics for granted and they will have the
same or even better performance than we have today.
Another large part of the change is making things more efficient to
manufacture, and thus affordable for more people. Food processing and
transportation has become hugely more efficient over the last few
decades, just look at the sort of things the average person could afford
to eat in 1900 or even 1960 compared with today.
> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
> benefit.
Who would ever need more than 640KB?
> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
Have you felt the *heat* from a modern portable projector? If they made
the pixels even smaller, they'd need an even bigger light and a fridge
to stop the thing melting. There's still a way to go until you have
something small that can project clearly and sharply on to a big wall
without filling your room with heat and fan noise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I wouldn't know about online video rentals. But I have noticed that
> YouTube used to be unreliable to the point of being useless (i.e., every
> 8 to 10 seconds it freezes to buffer some more data - moreso at busy
> times of the day), and the pictures used to be so utterly blurry that
> you can't even recognise people's faces. They do seem to have fixed that
> now, so there's that I guess...
I very often get the sense that you always look for the worst possible
interpretation of things (related to technology), and always try to see
the faults in things, and take things in the most negative way possible,
without even trying to investigate further or trying to find out if what
you think is not really how it is. I also have noticed that you seem to
like to generalize personal experience, is if it were true for everybody,
without even trying to find out if it is indeed the same for everybody or
whether it's just a local problem.
Some time ago the YouTube player changed so that it would be able to
switch to a higher or lower resolution version of the video on-the-fly,
depending on your connection speed. This, in my experience, has gone a
bit of back and forth in terms of what exactly it does, but you can still
see this in that if you manually change to a higher resolution it won't
pause the video, and instead will start downloading the higher resolution
stream and switch to it on-the-fly. Likewise (and especially) if your
connection is laggy, it will automatically switch to a lower-resolution
version of the stream that takes a lot less bandwidth.
If at some point you had a laggy connection for some reason, that's hardly
YouTube's fault.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
> > surfing the net and play games are delusional.
> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
> magnifying glass to use.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
without magnifying glasses all the time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/14 14:55, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>>> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>
>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
>> magnifying glass to use.
>
> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>
> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
> without magnifying glasses all the time.
>
Umm, I think Jim was being ironic. Either that or he bought his tablet
off a market stall in a 3rd world country.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:55:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>> > surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>
>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires
>> a magnifying glass to use.
>
> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>
> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
> without magnifying glasses all the time.
No, that can't possibly be true. ;)
(I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars on
it).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:26:56 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/04/14 14:55, Warp wrote:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>>>> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>>
>>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and
>>> requires a magnifying glass to use.
>>
>> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>>
>> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use
>> it without magnifying glasses all the time.
>>
>>
> Umm, I think Jim was being ironic. Either that or he bought his tablet
> off a market stall in a 3rd world country.
;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I saw games going from atari stick figures from my childhood into the nearly
photorealistic games of today. Same for much better photos being taken and
instantly shared to anyone in the world.
what you really don't get is this: what you used to call a PC is today
everywhere. It's in your pocket, in your TV, next to it, on your desk, on your
lap, on your hand... same for screens. And all are interconnected and
wirelessly communicating with each other. then again, you didn't even knew
youtube was 1080p now...
that's far more impressive than raw CPU power in an old beige box in the
basement
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2014 08:58 AM, scott wrote:
> Sure plastics have been around for ages, but
> today we take for granted there are plastics that you can leave in
> direct sunlight for decades without fading or going brittle.
Really? Where are they?
> Another large part of the change is making things more efficient to
> manufacture, and thus affordable for more people. Food processing and
> transportation has become hugely more efficient over the last few
> decades, just look at the sort of things the average person could afford
> to eat in 1900 or even 1960 compared with today.
Yeah, well, that's a bit before my time, so I don't really have a handle
on that.
>> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
>> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
>> benefit.
>
> Who would ever need more than 640KB?
Nobody. 640KB is enough to store a *vast* amount of text.
...and then they invented ways to store stuff that isn't text. And
suddenly that 640KB looked really puny.
That's kinda my point. When the Internet first started, the limiting
factor with surfing the web was how damned long it took to load the HTML
and all the images. That has long since stopped being a problem. So
until the next bandwidth-heavy thing comes along, there's no real reason
to increase.
BTW, I just saw on the news that Peterborough is getting gigabit-speed
Internet access. (Quite how that's physically plausible I'm not sure,
but presumably they know what they're on about.) My employer's *LAN*
isn't that fast! The politician was standing there enthusing about how
this is going to "super-charge local businesses", but I can't think of
too many businesses where this extra speed will be of any use... (Unless
you're a web-hosting company or something - in which case, you *already*
have gigabit speed - or more...)
>> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
>> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
>> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
>
> Have you felt the *heat* from a modern portable projector? If they made
> the pixels even smaller, they'd need an even bigger light and a fridge
> to stop the thing melting. There's still a way to go until you have
> something small that can project clearly and sharply on to a big wall
> without filling your room with heat and fan noise.
I guess the problem is that you're generating a lot of light, and then
trying to selectively absorb the colours you don't want. If you could
somehow do it the other way around - only generate the optic power you
actually want in the first place - it could be a lot more efficient.
But I'm not sure how you would do that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> (I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
> that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars on
> it).
I have an iPad Mini that has a resolution of 2048x1536. And it's
incredibly thin and light.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:57:11 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> BTW, I just saw on the news that Peterborough is getting gigabit-speed
> Internet access. (Quite how that's physically plausible I'm not sure,
> but presumably they know what they're on about.)
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
