Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: I wish! (Score 1) 157 157

Why did it only work during your honeymoon without issue?

Because I have a better setup at home for watching media. She was already planning to bring her laptop and a few DVDs. I knew that the Apple TV would be easy to pack, easy to set up, and would greatly improve the viewing experience, so I tossed it in my bag and called it a day.

At home, however, messing with discs and having to use a laptop to navigate through apps and menus doesn't sound like any fun, which is why I've ripped my entire collection and am serving it up over the network to my Apple TV via iTunes Home Sharing. Simple, less complicated to use, and provides both a better image quality and better sound quality than AirPlay Mirroring does, since I'm able to get 1080p with surround sound and don't need to worry about it randomly dropping out like AirPlay Mirroring does every once in awhile.

Next time if you want to issue try a honeymoon without distractions like things with screens.

Thanks for suggesting there will be a next honeymoon and for telling me how we should spend it. No really. I appreciate it. *eyeroll*

We spent a week up in the mountains at a resort, but the fact was that we were both dead tired after the wedding and all of the preparations leading up to it, and we knew ourselves well enough to know months in advance that that's how we'd be, so we planned accordingly. Which is to say, we got outside exactly as much as we wanted to, but we brought several seasons of TV shows with us on disc, a 1500 piece jigsaw puzzle, and made sure that we booked a really nice room since we figured we'd be spending most of the time inside. We figured right.

Plus, there's only so much sex and talking to be had. At some point, you need a break.

Comment Re:Memristor? (Score 1) 175 175

I saw comments elsewhere that indicated Intel has denied that this is a memristor. Of course, given the description they're providing of what this thing is, it's possible they're just saying that in order to try and avoid the inevitable patent lawsuits that would result from claiming they're using a memristor.

Comment Re:I wish! (Score 1) 157 157

If there was an easy answer to this, then everyone would be doing this to watch watch mkv files (with .srt files where you have to choose between them), and other things (streaming from popcorn site or whatever).

VLC on Mac + Apple TV let my wife and I stream DVDs during our honeymoon without any issue. AirPlay Mirroring sends an on-the-fly re-encoded stream to the TV, so it generally doesn't matter what format your content was in originally: if it can show up on your monitor, it can show up on your TV (with a few exceptions).

That said, for the purposes of this summary's question, he'd likely be better served by something like a Steam Link, since it has wired connections for his keyboard and mouse (it can also work with Bluetooth peripherals), can operate wired or wirelessly on the network, is built on top of Valve's In-Home Streaming functionality that is already proven, and has confirmation from Valve (check near the end of the article) to be able to stream any content, not just content from within Steam. Plus, it's just $50. Chief downside: it doesn't launch until November.

Related products or ideas:
- Razer Forge TV/Android TV (seems to be limited in terms of what it can stream, may not have ports for peripherals)
- Wireless HDMI (can be expensive to get low latency, doesn't do anything for peripherals)
- Wireless USB hub (can be expensive last I checked, no clue how good it actually is)
- HDMI over Ethernet ($20ish, but doesn't help with peripherals and requires your home is wired up)

I had been planning to put my next gaming rig in my media room, but at this point I'll wait for a Steam Link and will tuck the gaming rig somewhere out of sight in a distant room (sadly, no server closet or a convenient place to put one).

Comment Re:Electric is Evolution. Driverless is Revolution (Score 1) 870 870

Not only that, but if we introduce the idea of eliminating mass ownership, it also has the potential to mitigate some of the concerns regarding the range of EVs. Namely, if you don't own the EV, then "recharging" it is as simple as swapping the entire car out for a fresh one. A fresh, driverless car could even meet you en route to your destination to make things even simpler.

Granted, it doesn't cover every use case (e.g. family road trips with lots of luggage would be a hassle still, since you'd be transferring that luggage as well), but it would cover a number of them, such as overnight trips to places that are cheaper to drive to than fly to.

Comment Re:Watch Out! (Score 1) 170 170

Yeah...the whole premise of the summary is built on a comparison between dissimilar products intended for different uses.

If what you're interested in is streaming content, including games, from a PC to the TV, then Valve lets you stream to another PC on the network for free, or else offers the Steam Link for $50 if you don't have an old PC laying around. Which, as you said, is significantly cheaper than the cost of an Xbox One. Plus, all of Valve's stuff works across platforms, rather than being locked into Microsoft's ecosystem with Windows and Xbox.

And if what you're interested in is a PC wrapped up in an appliance/console-like experience, then Valve's partners will soon be offering Steam Machines ranging in price from about the cost of an Xbox One up to the cost of a super decked out gaming rig.

You don't need a Steam Machine to stream, and if all you're interested in is streaming, then frankly you'd be better with a Steam Link anyway, since it works on platforms where the Xbox app doesn't live and works for content that's outside of the Xbox app. But for people who already run Windows at home and have an Xbox One, the addition of streaming is a nice value-add, so I don't want to ding them too much.

Comment Re:You've been called out & you're running (Score 1) 380 380

I'm not attempting to prove you wrong. As I said, other than quibbling over some of the subjective claims, I find your objective assertions to be generally accurate, even though they're misleading in how one-sided they are, just the same as when news reporters cherry pick statistics to suit their narrative. Yes, they're factually correct, but you're using them to paint a misleading picture of reality

I've already provided specific examples of that sort of behavior in response to and in relation to you numerous times (including in the thread you just linked), and I will not be drawn into yet another worthless discussion where we rehash those same points again.

Comment Re:Anubis IV, which sockpuppet'd you use? (Score 1) 380 380

The first DuckDuckGo search I did turned up our last discussion. But thanks for jumping to wrong conclusions that are easily disproven and then basing a series of false accusations on them. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

(quick aside: while I know others have multiple accounts, this is my only one, and the only time I post as AC is when I post sensitive information)

Anyway, I have no intention of getting dragged into another discussion with you. You and I have already said what we want to say to each other, both in that last discussion and in the one that preceded it (which is linked from the last one). I have nothing more to add, and I'm frankly not interested in hearing anything else you might have to say.

Have a good day.

Comment Re: Or... just hear me out here... (Score 1) 1175 1175

I don't know that I'd call it "inexcusable". Maybe "ill-advised". He was using a shotgun, and given that he was almost certainly shooting at a steep angle with a line of fire that was clear of any targets that could suffer collateral damage, by the time the pellets would have landed, they'd be no more harmful than hail the size of shot pellets. Which is to say, not dangerous.

For some additional facts regarding shotguns, the effective range for most sizes of shot is just a few dozen yards, since at 50 yards out, the pellets will have lost over 3/4 of their energy and over half their velocity. Again, given that he had a privacy fence and waited until it was over his property, we can assume a steep angle, meaning that they'd basically go straight up and then just fall back down harmlessly, but even if we assume that he aimed just barely high enough to clear the neighboring house, shot pellets are unlike bullets in that they don't have spin from barrel rifling to keep them from tumbling out of control, so they lose the VAST majority of their energy to wind resistance. By the time they'd have fallen enough to actually hit a rooftop or window, they'd have spent almost all of their energy, rendering them harmless.

I'd actually be more concerned about any pellets that ricocheted off the drone, since they would have the potential to be significantly more dangerous than the ones that missed the drone.

Comment Re: Or... just hear me out here... (Score 1) 1175 1175

You can't fire guns into the air in the city. At anything.

Not so. It depends on the circumstances and local laws.

In many states, the question of whether or not it's legal to discharge a firearm within city limits is left up to the cities themselves to decide (and we don't know whether the homeowner was even within city limits, since he could be living in an unincorporated part of town outside the city limits, for all we know). And even in cities where discharging a firearm within city limits is unlawful, almost all of them would carve out an exception (whether written or unwritten) for a homeowner defending their own home. Moreover, in most (all?) states, firing a weapon into the air is not, in and of itself, illegal. After all, that'd make quail hunting, duck hunting, skeet shooting, and other similar activities illegal too. It's generally "random" or "celebratory" gunfire into the air that's illegal.

All of which is to say, shooting into the air is not necessarily illegal, and it's entirely possible that the contents of that card may provide evidence to support his case.

Comment Re:Yes, all that and more. (Score 1) 380 380

Unjustifiable? He's spamming.

Proving him wrong? He's generally not wrong. He's attempting to mislead people by being selective about the information that he chooses to present.

His claims are mostly sound (I'd quibble over a few of the more subjective ones), but he's only presenting information that supports his product, while ignoring similar information that supports competing products. He's presenting this as some sort of a rivalry between hosts and ad-blocking extensions, and only talks about the benefits that hosts has, when the truth of the matter is that each of them has different capabilities and excels in different areas, so they're best used in a complementary fashion, rather than mutually exclusively. There are a number of things that ad-blocking extensions can do that hosts can't, but you'll be hard-pressed to get him to acknowledge them. Likewise, you'll be hard-pressed to get him to acknowledge that ad-blocking extensions may be a better solution for certain people who aren't technically-inclined and would have trouble using a tool such as his (assuming they can use it at all, since his tool doesn't run on OS X, for instance, last I checked).

Comment Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts (Score 1) 380 380

I had a long back-and-forth with apk a few months ago. I largely agree with him, except inasmuch as he sets it up as an "either/or" rivalry between extensions and the use of a properly configured hosts file, rather than recognizing that extensions and hosts are best used in a complementary relationship with one another.

For instance, there are a number of features that extensions can do that hosts simply can't do (e.g. outright removing elements from the DOM so that they doesn't waste screen space), yet apk was reluctant to acknowledge those benefits in the discussion we had, though he was very quick to acknowledge the things that hosts can do that extensions simply can't do (e.g. blocking malicious traffic outside of the browser). He's not wrong about the benefits of hosts, but it makes it a bit hard to take him seriously when he's only willing to acknowledge facts that point towards the benefits of his product and is quick to dismiss valid use cases that don't align with how his product gets used.

As an example of that, when I suggested that one benefit of extensions was how easily they could be recommended to and used by non-technical users, since they're widely compatible and setup generally consists of just clicking a download link, he continued to insist that hosts was easier to setup, use, and keep up-to-date, and held up his product as proof of that fact. He didn't have an answer for me when I pointed out that his software can't run on my primary PC at home since it's booted into OS X. Nor, would I imagine, would he have an answer for me if we started discussing iOS, since users don't have access to the hosts files, whereas they do have access to extensions.

Meanwhile, you're engaging in what appears to be a non-ironic use of ad hominem to suggest that someone isn't skilled enough to make their point. Ouch.

Comment Re:yes. tried one. (Score 2) 340 340

You're welcome to believe that, and I'll even admit that my memory may be inaccurate, but my recollection of the research I've seen ([citation needed], admittedly) is that they controlled for other factors, in particular food and lifestyle choices. Which is to say, there's no doubt that food and lifestyle have an impact in those areas, but the research also seems to indicate that there's no doubt that sitting/standing for too long can have an impact in those areas as well.

Just because one cause is more common than another does not mean that it is the sole cause.

Comment Re:yes. tried one. (Score 1) 340 340

You and I are in agreement (barring the fact that you think I made an assumption I did not make). In the sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted, I said (emphasis added):

if all you're doing is trading sitting for standing without otherwise changing your routine, you really aren't going to see a net improvement

I had hoped that would make it clear that I believe (as you do) that a simple trade is insufficient to address the greater issue, but by no means was I suggesting that a simple trade is the only option available. As I said earlier in my comment, what's needed is some sort of change in the routine, and your suggestion to change between sitting and standing throughout the day is great example of a means for accomplishing that. I provided a few other examples in my post as well.

Which is to say, we're very much so in agreement about the importance of changing things up. I apologize if I was at all unclear regarding that.

Comment Re:yes. tried one. (Score 5, Informative) 340 340

This. The real problem isn't sitting or standing: it's being still.

As standing desks have become more of a fad in the last few years, longer-term research is finally starting to come out regarding their effects, and everything I've seen so far indicates that its users are basically just trading one set of issues with sitting desks (i.e. circulatory problems, certain spinal issues, heart problems) for a different set of issues with standing desks (i.e. foot problems, different spinal issues, heart problems).

In both cases, the research is indicating that simply increasing the amount of activity in your routine alleviates the worst of the concerns, which is why it's so important to build regular breaks into your day where you get up and stretch, walk around, or at the very least do something that gets you out of your usual position, whether that's sitting or standing.

Standing has the benefit of predisposing its practitioners towards more regular activity, which can be a benefit, to be sure, but if all you're doing is trading sitting for standing without otherwise changing your routine, you really aren't going to see a net improvement. At best, you'll see a temporary relief of the symptoms specific to sitting before you start to develop the symptoms specific to standing.

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...