TV + ?

Dear 42,

Why are there so many possible connections to connect my (your device here) to a TV? Here's a brief list of possible connections and associated resolutions, and also compatibility between connectors with a passive adapter. (It's all true, but feel free to skim to the end)

DVI-I: A Digital/Analog combined standard
A DVI-I output is compatible with all other DVI devices, as long as you aren't trying to use a DVI-I/A cable with a DVI-D device. But if you have the right cable you can use any DVI-I output with any DVI input. Specifically, you can use a DV-I/D cable to output from any DVI-I/D device to a DVI-I input, but if you only have a DVI-D input you must use a DVI-D cable, weather the output is DVI-I or DVI-D. A DVI-I output can be adapted to VGA or HDMI with readily available adapters, and potentially to HDMI or DisplayPort depending on weather the output is sending a digital or analog signal. It may also be possible to find an adapter from DVI-I to component, but I haven't seen one. 1080p+

DVI-A: An Analog only standard
DVI-A is only compatible with other DVI-A devices unless used with an adapter. DVI-A devices can usually use DVI-I cables but not DVI-D cables. DVI-A can be easily adapted to VGA. It may be possible to convert to component, but I haven't seen an adapter. DVI-A cannot be passively converted to any digital standard. 1080p+

DVI-D: A Digital only standard
DVI-D is only compatible with other DVI-D devices unless used with an adapter. DVI-D can easily be converted to HDMI with an adapter. It may be possible to convert to DisplayPort or MiniDisplayPort, but I haven't seen the adapters. DVI-D cannot be passively converted to any analog standard. 1080p+

HDMI: A Digital only standard
HDMI is much like DVI-D, except that it has the ability to carry audio and data between supported devices. It can be easily converted to DVI-D, but you loose audio and data when you convert it. 1080p+

DisplayPort: A Digital/Analog combined standard
Display port is similar to HDMI except that it also supports analog, and in the future may support display daisy chaining. Display port can easily be adapted to VGA, DVI-I/A/D, HDMI, and potentially component or MiniDisplayPort. 1080p+

MiniDisplayPort: A Digital/Analog combined standard
MiniDisplayPort is identical to DisplayPort in capability. Different adapters are required to fit the port, but otherwise it's the same. 1080p+

VGA: An Analog only standard
VGA is the original... oldest common connector for computer displays. It can be adapted to DVI-A, Component, or potentially DVI-I, but I've only seen a component adapter in the flesh... or plastic. 1080p+

Component Video: An Analog only standard
Component is the oldest standard video connector to support full HD (1080p). It has three RCA connections, usually red, green and blue. It should be adaptable to VGA and DVI-A but I haven't seen such an adapter in person. 1080p+

S-Video: Analog only standard
This is what you wanted to use if you had a progressive scan TV and a nice DVD player in the 90's. If you have a TV with s-video and a video card that has it too, this is better than nothing. It's not easily adaptable to anything else. 480p

Composite: Analog only standard
Old standard these days. Your VCR might have it. Composite isn't easily adaptable to anything, I've seen s-video to composite adapters, but I don't think they work the other way around. Some video capture devices are available that support it (to get a composite signal into your PC). Basically it's obsolete. 240i

So sorry if you've actually read all of this. The point is. Why are there so many damn video standards? Old ones can be forgiven, but why are there five possible digital video connections with the same basic resolution/quality.

Almost every phone now has a micro USB connector now, couldn't someone just pick one port for video? This should be easy!

Relations

Dear 42,

So, I was just having a shower, and was contemplating the nature of relationships. It occurred to me that there is a political component and a... trust/faith component, and then a love/desire/need component as well... it'd like to turn all those slashes into a single term... what do they have in common...

Too many ellipses I know, moving on.

There is clearly a political force at work in most all relationships, and by political I mean, primarily, balance of power. Everyone has to feel that they have some power, internal and external. Families get leveraged, finances, history, friends, strength... leverage leverage leverage. And that's the politics of nations I'm talking about, not so much people. But I'm sure you see that there are commonalities.

Surely happiness doesn't exist in purely political relationships between individuals. Faith, and Trust are the words that came to mind, golden Ideals that ring pure and true. Clearly they are separate and counter to the forces of politics within relationships. And yet, I can hardly imagine a relationship that doesn't have both.

I think maybe politics are a reaction to inequality (a play to get the upper hand), and that when tranquility exist, and therefore politicking is re-missive, other, favorable, traits become dominant.

But you have to have love/desire/need... well love and desire at least, but those often imbalance things and create a power imbalance.

Thus imbalance of power disrupts tranquility and leads to loss of faith/honesty... hmm. I want a different word for that word/word too, something that means both of them and more... Maybe it's peace... But I'm slightly turned off by the hipness of the word.

Power I think is necessary, to avoid stasis if nothing else. But how it's balanced... seems much more awkward than it should be.

Just a thought