0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 1 bot  
    Main » Discussion » I have yet to have never seen it all.
    Pages: First Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Last
    Posted on 19-02-24, 00:22
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #29 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 735 days
    Last view: 733 days
    Posted by DonJon
    Posted by sureanem
    If Western carriers were to start employing security measures similar to the Israeli carrier El Al, an airline which is forced to take security much more seriously, wait times could probably be cut by around 80% for around 80% of passengers. Why isn't this done?


    Israel airport security knows where it's at despite being one of the, if not the most, targeted country for terrorist attacks including of course those involving planes, it's amazing how well they're doing on that front.

    Not despite, because of.

    The cultural factors are important. As they say in the video, rather than focusing on the weapons that could be used for an attack, they focus on the people who could use them. And that would probably be illegal in the US. However, informally, this already does happen at Western airports. If they'd formally adopt the practices of El Al, but with a lower threat model, they could skip the security screening for those who don't belong to any risk groups. It would be trivial to first check the passport biometrics and/or government databases, and only then carry out interviews and such for those from the higher risk groups. Same with the air marshals thing. If they'd have all people in, say, risk group 5 or above travel on some planes, it would be sufficient to have air marshals and such on those. It would also serve to decrease worst-case losses and incentives for most types of airline terrorism.

    I don't agree with his assessment that Israeli airport security is inapplicable to the other airports in the world. Many elements of it certainly are. I mean, the IRA isn't active anymore, nor is the Red Army Faction. This is a matter of simple Bayesian statistics. If they'd just manage to sell people on it (or do it on the down-low), it would make air travel much less of a hassle for most people.

    But they won't, because making air travel less of a hassle for most people isn't a goal. Sigh.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-02-24, 00:45
    Custom title here

    Post: #266 of 1050
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 2 days
    Last view: 23 min.
    Posted by DonJon
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    Now, civilian aviation, THAT was intentionally ended. The then-new FAA, charged with striking a balance between commercial and civilian aviation interests, decided that civilian interests were in the way of commercial interests and erected a series of regulations that were intended to force civilians to the ground.


    sorry,but...do you have source on that? Not regarding the fact that many airlines are struggling right now,as this is no secret,but that civilian aviation was somehow deliberately crippled.

    Also can you explain what you mean by "commercial and civilian aviation"?Civil aviation is normally defined as any non-military flight.That would include private, commercial, cargo and such So I'm not sure what you mean when you differentiate those two...
    Sorry, I have a tendency to misuse civilian in this context. I meant commercial vs private.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-02-24, 01:01
    Custom title here

    Post: #267 of 1050
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 2 days
    Last view: 23 min.
    Posted by jimbo1qaz
    >https://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence/pidp-11

    oh god, this is a Wix website: Took 4 seconds to load on Firefox, hijacked my browser back history (had to press alt+left 2-5 times, and Wix has 2 identical history entries), and doesn't load without JS enabled.

    All wix sites won't load because of visibility:hidden bullshit, but Firefox Reader manages to extract text from that page. (Disabling CSS via umatrix works too.)
    Sorry. Didn't realize it was badly behaved for some.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-02-24, 04:04 (revision 4)
    Dinosaur

    Post: #157 of 1043
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 11 hours
    Last view: 11 hours
    Speaking about airplanes noone wants: ever heard about the McDonnell Douglas MD-95?

    No? Well, I won't blame you, and that's because when the final incarnation of the legendary DC-9 (if you ever boarded into an jetliner for domestic flights -anywhere outside the Soviet Union- anytime between the 80s and early 00s, chances are it was a DC-9 or any of its descendants) came to fruition, McDD was having a hard time selling its newest plane to airlines around the world - apparently noone was interested into yet another rehash of the already ancient DC-9. Furthermore, being deep in the red at the time didn't really helped business at all, so the MD-95 order book remained kinda empty.

    BUT! The aircraft didn't got sent to the scrapyard right away! Instead, this little Seattle-based player founded by some random dude named "William Boeing" came to the rescue, merging with McDD, and saving the project... and that's how the Boeing 717 happened (actually, this is the third aircraft to carry the 717 name; it was initially used for a unrelated military model AND a shortened version of the 707. But none of those used the 717 nameplate when they reached production, unlike the completely alien MD-95). All cool... or not? See, despite having the backing of Seattle's aviation juggernaut deep pockets, airlines still didn't wanted the MD-95 717, yet still Boeing didn't lost the faith, and eventually sales picked up.

    Then 9/11 happened, and once again, nobody wanted the 717... or any flying tube in general. The 717 fate was sealed after that: production ceased in 2006, after only delivering 156 units in a unusually short production run of 8 years.

    BUT! this story is not over yet!
    Enter Delta Airlines, the Atlanta-based airline that showed no interest on the MD-95/717 program at all, yet suddenly found itself surrounded by a few dozen specimens of the model, comprising a large part of the former AirTran Airways fleet (which was both the launch customer AND the final delivery for the program, mind you!), after the 737-exclusive Southwest acquired them and decided to dump the unloved 717s at Delta. The latter, already used to flying good ol' DC-9s until they broke apart actually noticed that the 717 was as good as their founding father, if not better. Today, not only they operate roughly 60% of all 717s ever made, they are STILL trying to get Boeing to bring back the model to production!. Or at least, Delta won't give up until they own each and every 717 ever made... all 156 of them (their current count is at 91, as of the time of this post)

    ... except for the original MD-95 prototype - the bunch of savages at Boeing scrapped it (because it wasn't a 747 or a Dreamliner), instead of sending it where it belongs, to a museum!

    Reading this reminds me of the DC-3, where -according to aviation nerds- the only thing that can replace it is another DC-3 (and yes, that prehistoric thing still fly - just raise your head next time you step foot on Alaska or the Colombian jungle)

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-02-24, 05:54 (revision 1)

    Post: #35 of 88
    Since: 11-04-18

    Last post: 853 days
    Last view: 853 days
    Posted by sureanem

    Not despite, because of.

    The cultural factors are important. As they say in the video, rather than focusing on the weapons that could be used for an attack, they focus on the people who could use them. And that would probably be illegal in the US. However, informally, this already does happen at Western airports. If they'd formally adopt the practices of El Al, but with a lower threat model, they could skip the security screening for those who don't belong to any risk groups. It would be trivial to first check the passport biometrics and/or government databases, and only then carry out interviews and such for those from the higher risk groups. Same with the air marshals thing. If they'd have all people in, say, risk group 5 or above travel on some planes, it would be sufficient to have air marshals and such on those. It would also serve to decrease worst-case losses and incentives for most types of airline terrorism.

    I don't agree with his assessment that Israeli airport security is inapplicable to the other airports in the world. Many elements of it certainly are. I mean, the IRA isn't active anymore, nor is the Red Army Faction. This is a matter of simple Bayesian statistics. If they'd just manage to sell people on it (or do it on the down-low), it would make air travel much less of a hassle for most people.

    But they won't, because making air travel less of a hassle for most people isn't a goal. Sigh.


    for sure the profiling based on race or religion wouldn't fly in the US... pun unintended. Always having personnel who are armed like they have there could be worth considering maybe...At this point I feel like it's either the US style system which is a mess in and of itself or the more effective Israel style method but which is unacceptable in most of the world..or maybe some kind of mix of that. I just hope we don't get to the point where everyone has to be strapped to their seat and sedated or something like that in order to be able to fly...
    Posted on 19-02-24, 06:58

    Post: #50 of 152
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 6 hours
    Last view: 31 min.
    It's interesting to see how some designs that seem superior on paper (and even in application), ultimately fails more due to external factors, like the case of the Lockheed L-1101.
    Posted by DonJon
    I just hope we don't get to the point where everyone has to be strapped to their seat and sedated or something like that in order to be able to fly...

    From my experience with the diversity of passengers you might encounter in a plane, there were times I honestly wished this were the case...

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-02-24, 07:24

    Post: #37 of 88
    Since: 11-04-18

    Last post: 853 days
    Last view: 853 days
    Posted by KoiMaxx
    From my experience with the diversity of passengers you might encounter in a plane, there were times I honestly wished this were the case...


    oh god...I've never experienced anything like that myself, though I've only flown a few times so that probably helped my odds... but ya, let's just say if someone wants to act like a lunatic or complete jackass, do so outside, on the ground. otherwise you should be barred from flying, no tolerance from any kind of antisocial behavior on a plane
    Posted on 19-02-24, 08:33

    Post: #53 of 152
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 6 hours
    Last view: 31 min.
    Posted by DonJon
    otherwise you should be barred from flying, no tolerance from any kind of antisocial behavior on a plane

    Unfortunately, sometimes they come out only as soon as the door is closed :-/

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-02-24, 09:14

    Post: #38 of 88
    Since: 11-04-18

    Last post: 853 days
    Last view: 853 days
    Posted by KoiMaxx
    Posted by DonJon
    otherwise you should be barred from flying, no tolerance from any kind of antisocial behavior on a plane

    Unfortunately, sometimes they come out only as soon as the door is closed :-/


    oh,I understand that.Obviously, you can't land the plane midflight because of them, but once someone has acted out like that, put them on an asshole-while-flying blacklist. Nationwide: not just for one company. We remove driver's permits or privilege to drive in certain cases,there could be something like that for flying I guess
    Posted on 19-02-25, 18:05 (revision 1)
    Post: #126 of 409
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 42 days
    Last view: 17 hours
    The intro to this video worried me for a moment, since I had literally been experiencing those style of errors today while watching Youtube videos...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eM4wjgXsJI

    AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64
    Posted on 19-03-02, 17:17 (revision 3)
    Dinosaur

    Post: #184 of 1043
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 11 hours
    Last view: 11 hours
    Welcome to the future, where even your TV now needs an AV solution.

    No, not AV as in "more cables".
    No, not that other AV as in "porn"!
    But ye olde' AV as in "antivirus".
    Or that's what McAfee Intel is paying Samsung to convince us consumers that we need more bloatware on our freakin' televisions:

    https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/19/02/28/150212/samsung-is-loading-mcafee-antivirus-software-on-smart-tvs

    if your smart appliance platform, of which you have all the control, are the sole application source, and supposedly vet every single application uploaded, is bad enough to require a freakin' antivirus, then you're Doing Something Really Wrong™. (Also: lolTizen)

    Samsung, you're drunk, please stick to making explosive cellphones and washing machines.
    And dear appliance industry: we consumers don't give a crap about your razor-thin profit margins, so knock it off with the Smart $APPLIANCE disease, pretty please?

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-03-02, 18:17
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #63 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 735 days
    Last view: 733 days
    In their "defense," TVs reached their peak quite a few years ago, just like smartphones are doing now. It's just a panel with some connectors on it. The only distinguishing features are size and resolution, and to some degree minor characteristics like color and contrast. Aside from that, they're all the same. They don't wear out easily, there haven't been many improvements to the technology, and unless you're an American, you only need one. So how do you convince people into buying a new one (e.g. not used) if their old one still works fine? 4K is the only improvement I can think of after 1080p became commonplace, but if you only can get 1080p content anyway, what's the point?

    And thus, "smart" TVs were born. I am sure that we will see are seeing a similar abominous development with smartphones, where they feel the desperate need to "add value" but at the same time are puzzled as to what value it is they can add. An optimized re-write of Android with less bloat, with core parts in C or something sane? Ha-ha, fat chance.

    I own a 720p flatscreen TV that I bought off of craigslist or the local equivalent for around $30 ten years ago or so, and it still works fine. Why bother upgrading? Even if they'd be giving them away in the street, I would still have to physically install it for a negligible increase in quality.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-03-02, 21:18

    Post: #55 of 152
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 6 hours
    Last view: 31 min.
    Admittedly, I'd be willing to upgrade to a newer TV if it comes to it. But if manufacturers really wanted to make more sales, they should probably offer more basic models without all that SmartTM crap and just a good screen, decent audio (which are getting harder and harder to find), and a fairly robust AV (no, still not that other AV :P)

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-03-02, 23:48 (revision 2)
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #64 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 735 days
    Last view: 733 days
    No profit in that. Sure, you can sell maintenance numbers of TVs just like people buy new light bulbs or refrigerators whenever the old one breaks. But the sales would be dismally low compared to up until now when there's a new {big, color, flat, digital, 720p, 1080p, 4k} TV every ten years or so. If you can convince people there is some actual value in upgrading before it breaks, then you can sell your televisions for much more. A 40" 1080p TV is less than $200 (new), and that's all you need. Say people buy a new TV every seven years, there are 700 million TVs out there getting replaced, that's a hundred million a year. At $150 a piece that's only $15B a year. Compare this to the current figure of $100 bil, and it's not hard to see why they're so desperate for innovation.

    I mean, the whole concept of smart televisions is absurd. Everyone I know, even people who are completely incompetent with technology, only ever uses their television as a screen. Either for terrestrial TV, or digital, or for Netflix from their laptop. I've never witnessed firsthand anyone actually use these "smart" features, except to switch inputs.

    If they're into technology, they might have an Apple TV or a Chromecast or something similar, or otherwise use their laptop with a wireless keyboard/mouse - they are much more comfortable to use than a finicky remote, they can play torrented movies, and they can play from obscure streaming websites. And if they aren't, they'd much rather use what they already know than to learn some new and complicated UI for no benefit.

    There's no scenario in which it serves any other purpose than a box ornament.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-03-03, 00:26 (revision 1)

    Post: #48 of 175
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 422 days
    Last view: 422 days
    Posted by sureanem
    A 40" 1080p TV is less than $200 (new), and that's all you need.

    Unfortunately, that's not true. You could buy one of those, sure, but maybe it's a B-grade panel with dead pixels. It's too costly to hire skilled workers to use finer polarizers, so they use ones with shitty viewing angles so they don't have to be as straight. Then they use the cheapest, slowest display controller they can to save money, and buffer the hell out of the stream, causing 300ms latency. Tight voltage levels on the backplane to reduce motion blur? Nope, too expensive to manufacture. Should they calibrate it before shipping so the colors are right? Nope, adds an extra QA step to pay wages on.

    You get what you pay for. Initially, the smart features were just candy they added because they needed a fast enough chip to run higher resolution menus anyway. Now they're expected by the populace to be there. That 40" 1080p TV has the same smart crap as the several thousand dollar models. They're not charging more for it.

    *Edit Add*
    I should note that I still use a 10-year old 1080p display for my consoles. Excellent uniformity, calibration and comparably low input lag, so I admit your position has value. My point is: develop OCD and you'll really be able to tell if a display is actually worth the cost.
    Posted on 19-03-03, 04:00

    Post: #56 of 152
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 6 hours
    Last view: 31 min.
    Just adding to what Bear mentioned and somewhat emphasizing my point -- I would like to be able to buy a TV with good IQ and audio and without any of the smart (read: dumb) stuff that just adds to the cost without any meaningful value.

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-03-03, 06:14 (revision 1)
    Custom title here

    Post: #288 of 1050
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 2 days
    Last view: 23 min.
    I gotta say, there's a lot of room for improvement in the current TV standards.
    More bits of color, wider dynamic range, and yes, higher resolution. 1920x1080 is not a perfect resolution that reaches beyond the resolving power of the human eye.


    As far as smart TVs... my parents use the integrated streaming apps.
    They're a desirable feature for a lot of people that don't want to have to plug another box into their TV to watch the Netflixes.
    I question what world you live in where EVERYBODY hooks a laptop up to their TV. I live in a world where people are still surprised that is something you can actually do, or don't even own a laptop.



    Posted by KoiMaxx
    Just adding to what Bear mentioned and somewhat emphasizing my point -- I would like to be able to buy a TV with good IQ and audio and without any of the smart (read: dumb) stuff that just adds to the cost without any meaningful value.

    So... a computer monitor and a pair of speakers?
    You'll pretty much never get good audio out of a panel display, because good audio requires a lot of space.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-03-03, 07:35 (revision 1)

    Post: #57 of 152
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 6 hours
    Last view: 31 min.
    Posted by CaptainJistuce

    So... a computer monitor and a pair of speakers?
    You'll pretty much never get good audio out of a panel display, because good audio requires a lot of space.

    Yeah, it's pretty much a PC monitor with speakers and a tuner built-in :D
    I'm not really saying it should have earth shattering audio, but even my old 40" Samsung LCD has better audio than a lot of more current offerings.

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-03-03, 07:55 (revision 9)
    Post: #133 of 409
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 42 days
    Last view: 17 hours
    Our Samsung TV from 2016 always had AntiVirus (there's an option to toggle it on/off), I never understood how this 2019 Mcafee/Samsung news is... news.

    CaptainJistuce I find 1920x1080 to be exceptional, when watching a Bluray and Full HD Free-to-Air TV is very good too. Upscaling of standard definition media is terrible though, but that's usually because such media is also using significantly inferior encoding & compression quality.

    AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64
    Posted on 19-03-03, 09:45
    Custom title here

    Post: #289 of 1050
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 2 days
    Last view: 23 min.
    Posted by Nicholas Steel

    CaptainJistuce I find 1920x1080 to be exceptional, when watching a Bluray and Full HD Free-to-Air TV is very good too. Upscaling of standard definition media is terrible though, but that's usually because such media is also using significantly inferior encoding & compression quality.

    Same argument I had when people were claiming HD wasn't needed, DVD was fantastic, and you couldn't actually see the difference between 480p and 720p and that the human eye can't actually perceive 1080p.
    I can still see pixels, I can still see color banding, there's still room for improvement.
    ...
    In fact, in terms of color and dynamic range, we're still trying to catch up to "hopelessly obsolete" CRTs. We're NOT YET EQUAL to the technology we abandoned at the turn of the century.


    Upscaling doesn't count for anything, of course, because you can't get more out than you put in. It is never NOT going to be 480-line content(or 720-line content, or whatever weirdo vertical resolution is going in).




    Also, I gravely dislike that frame rates have been capped at 60 for so long, as someone who greatly enjoyed running his VGA(-esque) CRT at higher refresh rates. To say nothing of the scourge of chroma subsampling.



    And mostly unrelated to anything, HDMI is a garbage standard.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Pages: First Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Last
      Main » Discussion » I have yet to have never seen it all.
      you need to wake up michael