Forgot your password?

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.

Comment: Re:Time warp? (Score 1) 130

by BadgerRush (#42979203) Attached to: Unnecessary Medical Procedures and the Dangers of Robot Surgery

These surgeries are safer and less painful than traditional gut-opening ones. ...

So while some are no doubt botched, overall people are better with than without, a net gain.

You cannot say that all robot surgeries are better and safer because that is not true. This new surgical technique has different pros and cons, reduces some risks but increases others, so it's use needs to be evaluated (epidemiological studies) for each kind of surgery in order to assert if it is beneficial for that kind of surgery. New things are not better just because they are new, they need to be tested and proven.

An example from a couple of years ago, some studies shown that robot prostate cancer surgery decreased the risk of in-hospital complications, but increased the risk of impotence and incontinence. So in this case (prostate cancer) robot surgery does not shows a clear net gain.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 513

by BadgerRush (#42053631) Attached to: Dutch Cold Case Murder Solved After 8000 People Gave Their DNA
The big difference is that in Netherlands they can trust law enforcement to destroy the samples after that investigation was done. In the other hand, in NYC you can be fairly certain that law enforcement would hold on to those samples and resulting DB, breaking promises and maybe the law with impunity.

Comment: Re:RCMP staff should be sued and then fired (Score 5, Insightful) 770

by BadgerRush (#41793505) Attached to: Canadian Teenager Arrested For Photographing Mall Takedown
What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.