Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Slashvertisement? (Score 1) 92

by Bitmanhome (#47511305) Attached to: Buying New Commercial IT Hardware Isn't Always Worthwhile (Video)

I agree with most of your post, but this is simply false. USB 3.0 is a completely new interface, bolted on USB 1/2 to make it seem like a seamless transition.

I've been wondering about that -- Since a USB 3 port has separate pins for ultra-speed and high-speed, shouldn't I be able to plug two devices into the same port?

Comment: Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score 1) 157

But if the claimant doesn't have any copyright authority, I don't believe the claim is actionable under the DMCA. If I claim your video violates someone's copyright, YouTube is under no obligation. If I claim the video violates my copyright, only then is YouTube obligated to take down the video. And this triggers the perjury clause.

Comment: Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score 3, Informative) 304

by Bitmanhome (#47084761) Attached to: Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K?

20/20 is the ability to read things made of lines 1 arc-minute thick. If the letters are smaller, you might not be able to read them, but you can tell tell it's text because the rods and cones are much more dense than that. "General colored images" usually have texture.

Another big value that's not discussed often is that the higher the resolution, the harder the pixels are to see. This is why even 480i content looks better on an HD TV -- it's a much smoother, cleaner picture. Also, through some quirk of physics, when my eyes de-focus I can see pixels.

Comment: Re:How many megapixels is enough? (Score 1) 70

by Bitmanhome (#46520659) Attached to: Camera Module Problems May Delay Samsung's Galaxy S5

There's two advantages to silly numbers of megapixels on a phone. One is that there's no room for a zoom lens on a phone, so the more pixels your sensor has, the more useful digital zoom becomes.

The second is that us nerds buying high-megapixel senors funds research and development of high-megapixel sensors, eventually making them cheap enough that something like the Lytro light-field camera becomes possible on a phone.

Comment: Re:seperate mobile GPU's is declining market (Score 1) 83

By ordering low-end GPU, you annoy everyone -- the users have to put up with crappy chips, IT has to support more complex systems, and budgeting has to pay for chips noone wants. So instead, order most of the laptops without discrete GPU to save a few bucks. Then order a few with high-end GPU for the few people who want them.

Comment: Re:Reinforcing the term (Score 1) 464

No actually, a dash-mounted tablet (or phone) is not legal unless it is not "operating" (term is not defined), or it has explicit interlocks to prevent app and video operation while driving. IANAL, but the only way I can find to legally use your phone as a GPS is to install it facing away from the driver, and use it only in voice mode.

Comment: Re:Officials say? (Score 1) 644

by Bitmanhome (#45612129) Attached to: Officials Say Site Now Performing Well

No, you're thinking of banks. The purpose of insurance is to take your money and provide as little as possible, as long as you keep paying the premium. That insurance is useful these days is due to regulation, but it's not in the nature of insurance to behave this way.

The rest of your paragraph I totally agree with, except the last line -- It's not the government who's corrupting the system, it's the insurance company requesting laws that reflect their true nature, and the public constantly demanding free health care.

Comment: Re:Officials say? (Score 1) 644

by Bitmanhome (#45604093) Attached to: Officials Say Site Now Performing Well

I don't care "how it was sold," I can only be a responsible human and analyze the claims for myself. It's obvious that:

  • the hospitals support it because it means they can continue overcharging;
  • the insurance companies support it because it forces ALL health care money to go through their hands;
  • the public support it because they believe it means free health care;
  • the politicians know there's no way to make a workable plan, but the public wouldn't shut up about it so they pushed something through;
  • and, most importantly, this is clearly socialized medicine, though more complicated than other countries.

I don't understand the anger at the perceived lies. Insurance is fundamentally a fraud, and health care costs are also fraudulent. You're already happy with this level of corruption, and you're happy with encoding this corruption into law. Why are you suddenly unhappy with the way it's being done?

Comment: Re:Officials say? (Score 1) 644

by Bitmanhome (#45570441) Attached to: Officials Say Site Now Performing Well

One of the flaws in the law is that it doesn't allow for people who CAN afford healthcare and want the MINIMUM of insurance. That kind of catastrophic care insurance program is rarely useful for most normal people, but for those who are independently wealthy the plans are just fine.

It's not a flaw at all, that's how socialized medicine works. If you can afford your own health care, you still pay in to float all those who cannot. So your rich friend is not being scammed, he's simply paying the new U.S. health care tax.

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter