Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Stupid metric system (Score 1) 140

by BadgerRush (#47747011) Attached to: 2 Galileo Satellites Launched To Wrong Orbit

For temperatures, the Celcius is much more usefull and intuitive than Farenhight becaue Celcius is based on important milestones. What is the difference between -1F and 1F? One really really cold and the other is also really really cold, there is no difference, the 0F doesn't mark any intuitive usefull milestone. The zero degrees Celcius on the other hand, is a very important milestone, the temperature in which water freezes. You can intuitively see the difference between -1C and 1C by noting the presence (or not) of ice/ground-frost/snow/etc. The fact that you may be dealing with ice instead of liquid water is a very important information that changes our routine and as so it is the most important and intuitive temperature milestone and deserves the zero.

And regarding distance units. Are you really arguing that we need more units than one being 1/10 of the other? That is terrible, it leads to overposition of the units, leading up to different people choosing diferent unitis for the same distance. Also, the same argument you used for the foot can be used against the imerial/US-standard systems: there is a lack of something equivalent for the decimeter, the foot it too big and the inch is too small, also it lacks a good equivalent for the centimeter, and the milimiter, and ....

Comment: Re:The "dying industry"... (Score 1) 113

by BadgerRush (#47602333) Attached to: Spain's Link Tax Taxes Journalist's Patience

You mention bloggers like it is a bad thing. Well, it is not, and here is why: Bloggers can't stand on their name, so their content (and their sources) has to speak for itself.

Before the internet people had to blindly trust their news sources. Journalists had their "laws" regarding sources and biases (e.g. require two independent sources, etc), and a good journalist could produce good content. Unfortunately the reader had no way of knowing if a particular journalist followed the "laws", we had to thrust the "name" of the newspaper or of the journalist, that is, thrust that the newspaper wouldn't risk muddling its name by not fact-checking everything.

Now, with the internet, most of the sources are as available to the readers as they are to the journalists. So the new journalists (bloggers) can cite their sources in their articles, and we the readers can check those sources and compare them to the journalist's conclusions. Suddenly a journalist's bias and incompetence is not hidden any more, any reader can "see how the sausage is made" and point out when it is wrong.

Unfortunately the internet is still riddled with journalists who "graduated" in the old world and refuse to cite sources, those grew up on a world where their sources where their business secret, something they had to protect from other journalists who might steal their story. Those don't realize that all the sources are just a google search away, and that the real differential they bring is the analysis of the sources. Personally, I assume that any article not citing its sources is either lying or has errors, and just dismiss it.

Comment: Re:How does this work exactly? (Score 1) 28

by BadgerRush (#47581637) Attached to: New Display Technology Corrects For Vision Defects

Puting your glasses also don't change the distance from your eyes to the objects. Instead the lenses bend light so it is indistinguishble from light coming from another distance, and that is exactly what this solution does, in simple terms it is like putting the glasses on the device instead of on your face.

Comment: Re:Ookkaayyy... (Score 1) 28

by BadgerRush (#47581605) Attached to: New Display Technology Corrects For Vision Defects

What about people who need "reading glasses". Those people navigate the rest of reality very well without their glasses (actually puting their glasses limits their reality navigation ability), those need their glasses only to read and I bet many would apreciate a phone that you can just pull out of the pocket and read instead of also pulling the glasses from the other pocket.

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 28

by BadgerRush (#47581589) Attached to: New Display Technology Corrects For Vision Defects

It won't ajust automaticaly. According to the video the solution has a hardware component and a software component. The software is configurable and can be setup to different prescriptions (or the lack off), but the hardware (a lensing film to be placed on top of the screen) is specific to one prescription.

But, even withtout the flexibility to ajust to other people's sights, I think this technology has a huge potential in very personal devices like mobile phones. I believe many people would gladly give up the avility to show their phone to other people, in exchange to the added ability to not have to fumble for their reading glasses every time they want to check something on the screen.

Comment: Re:misunderstanding of the internet? (Score 1) 484

by BadgerRush (#47318387) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

With this broad definition of "retransmit", the most normal aerial setup is completely illegal because: the antenna captures the signal and then "retransmit" it trough a cable to a circuit inside the TV which then "retransmits" it to several other internal circuits before reaching the screen which then "retransmits" it again as light to my eyes.

With a "retransmit" definition as broad as the one used in this decision, just watching anything makes you a felon because your eyes are capturing the light signal and "retransmitting" it trough the optical nerve to the brain. It is clear that from now on every one of us needs either a broadcasting license or to close our illegal retransmitting setup (a.k. eyes).

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 4, Interesting) 484

by BadgerRush (#47318227) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

So it is ilegal to watch TV at my office because I can't sleep in my office?

And a person living in a basement (you know, like the tipical slashdoter), can never legaly get aerial TV because that would entail puting an antena and running a wire on other person's roof?

They didn't "profit by selling everyone else's content", they profited by selling access to publicly available content to which the clients already had the right to watch but didn't have the tecnical means do do so. They where just a antena renting service.

The TV channels decided to distribute their content for free, it shouldn't be ilegal to provide means for people to reach this content. If a drive-in theater decides to screen films for free that doesn't make it ilegal for taxis and buses to charge to ferry people to the theater.

Comment: Re:USPS should offer a subscription service (Score 1) 338

by BadgerRush (#46874767) Attached to: How the USPS Killed Digital Mail

..., the USPS is the envy of the world. ...

With phrases lake this one I'll go out on a limb and guess that you never left the USA (or that you didn't pay much attention when you did). Just because something in the USA works well, or even is the best in the USA, doesn't mean it is automaticaly the best in the world, or that people in other countries lay awake at night dreaming with such a marvel.

You wan't to see a postal service to be envy of? Check the Brazilian one, it is at least as good and reliable as the USPS and that includes delivering mail to tiny vilages in the middle of the Amazon jungle.

Comment: Re:I Pay (Score 2) 328

by BadgerRush (#46759493) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket

They share a network, it is called the Internet. Comcast customers are not paying just for access to Comcast subnet (do they think they are a BBS?), customers are paying to access to the whole Internet at the contracted speed.

Now, I understand that Comcast cannot be blamed for slow speeds when connecting to a 3rd party if the slowdown, the funnel, is inside the 3rd party network, but that is not the case here. The slowdowns where caused because Comcast failed to contract a fast enough link (or peering agreement) to a specific part of the internet. The funnel was at their network border and consequently their responsability. They failed to provide a service that their customers are paying for.

If Comcast doesn't have to provide full bandwidth to 3rd party networks then I found a new business model: I'll set-up a small ISP providing gigabit internet for hundreds of customers and then contract a single gigabit link upstream (or even a slower one, maybe a 54kbps dial-up), after all I cannot promise full bandwidth to a 3rd party.

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...