Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I won't notice (Score 1) 331

by StarFace (#48901765) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

As to the quality, I've never noticed it being significantly worse than Apple's DVD player, the main difference being interlacing, you have to remember to turn deinterlacing on if you leave it off for other things--and yes, without proper deinterlacing it can look pretty awful.

But then, I don't watch films on a home theatre rig or anything fancy. Perhaps I am a bit of a troglodyte in that regard. My computer monitor and headphones is sufficient for me to enjoy the experience, so maybe I'm not seeing what would otherwise be obvious if I tried to use VLC on a large television screen or projector.

Comment: Re: I won't notice (Score 1) 331

by StarFace (#48898829) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

Because downloading is kind of lame & takes hours if you have normal Internet access speeds. I prefer to rent DVDs because the quality is significantly superior and I like the commentary and behind the scenes stuff. Just rip the DVD and return it, it is fun to browse at the rental place if it is a good one. Lots of esoteric old titles nobody bothers to seed.

Comment: Re:I won't notice (Score 5, Informative) 331

by StarFace (#48894831) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

Try VLC. It is the only thing I will use to watch DVDs these days. For one thing you can start playing the film immediately for most discs, just stick it in and load with menus skipped. For those discs that put other crap in the 1-1 position, loading to the menu means just that. No preview bullshit, no restricted navigation, no tedious animated menu effects, just straight to the navigation point, click play and the film starts without every other authoritative government's angry and unskippable piracy warnings.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by StarFace (#48853689) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

I'd much prefer many small programs that do very few things, very easily and very well; versus large programs that try to be everything to everyone. Incidentally, that is also the unix philosophy.

Yes, but as you know, that philosophy of a thing doing one thing well, is a statement on the scope of any particular piece of software, not its depth or capabilities. A program can, and likely should, go to whatever depth is necessary within its scope. If I want to do some serious text editing, I want a deep text editor like Sublime or gVim, not something like TextEdit or Notepad.exe. Some people can get by with those all right, and indeed I use simple programs like that if all I need is to quickly change a typo in a .txt file--but often I need more. All of these examples are text editors, they have a similar narrow scope, their "thing", they stick with what they should be doing and nothing more--however there is a huge difference between Notepad.exe and gVim when it comes to depth within that scope.

I don't get your screenshot though, how is this supporting your case? That seems, actually, to be a prime example of a utility that would really benefit from a few menus! I mean, this is exactly why menus are a good thing. Look, they even waste space with buttons for "Exit", "Save" and Load! What a waste of space and mental serenity. Bad as that is though, I don't see anything here that would classify as being out of scope, or example of software that is trying to do too many things. All of these are integral to the function of page scouring--one thing--and thus good example of a narrow scope with depth (as would be wget, the underlying engine behind this particular front-end).

I shudder to think what is behind that "Pro Mode" though. Ha.

Comment: Re:Google hates widescreens (Score 1) 116

by StarFace (#48851581) Attached to: With Community Help, Chrome Could Support Side Tabs Extension

Oh please. Unless you want a world full of foolish "apps" instead of honest to goodness software that can actually do more than three things, getting rid of menus is woefully stupid. It's not "hiding" commands to put things in menus. The menu system is an extremely efficient triggering and referencing system, as efficient to use with a mouse as a keyboard. It makes everything easy to find, not hard.

That is not to say that every program needs a menu, but they are the exceptions. Serious software with anaemic menus is not even worth the download bandwidth and are deleted from my computer promptly. That includes crappy consumer oriented browsers like Chrome.

Comment: Re:I don't care about NASA (Score 1) 156

by StarFace (#48655843) Attached to: Can Rep. John Culberson Save NASA's Space Exploration Program?

That is an interesting and novel idea you have there. Kudos for coming up with that line of thinking, yourself. It might not have much merit in the practical world, but it is catchy, and I bet you could get a lot of people blindly repeating it as though it were a proven fact, based on that.

Comment: Re:Ads (Score 2) 319

by StarFace (#48436285) Attached to: Google Launches Service To Replace Web Ads With Subscriptions

Bullshit. The World Wide Web ran just fine for over a decade without excruciating ads everywhere. And yes, if you were to ask me which version of the Web I would take, the free but relatively low-key, or the highly commodified wasteland of Capitalism run amok, then of course I would take the old WWW back. I would gladly see this whole JavaScript, Flash riddled shallow 'social' monster that it has become, vanish without a trace.

If running with AdBlock contributes in some small way to the decline of the materialistic money grubbing component of the Web that I despise, well that is all the more reason to run it. And Gladly.

Comment: Re:and speed was never the point of dropbox (Score 1) 124

You should be relying upon bandwidth throttling features to do that for you, not the inefficiency of your tech. Speed is vital in this market because speed reduces the chances of causing data conflicts. Slow and steady background uploads increase risk of conflicts as the average user doesn't pay attention to upload/download status before shutting down a machine or resuming work. Faster transfer reduce problematic "lazy" sync usage at a statistical scale.

Comment: Re:Disable Javascript already! (Score 2) 174

by StarFace (#47033129) Attached to: Malvertising Up By Over 200%

Only a small minority of sites flat out won't work without scripting. Just cruise past those idiot webmasters (they were probably making Flash only sites back in the day) and find an analogous site, there are usually many.

Then there are some that bitch if you have it off, like YouTube (they cannot track you as well without it, which is why they whine). But they are still functional. I can make full use of YouTube without scripting, with a Flash downloader. I get better performance than with their shitty streaming thing, anyway.

And always send feedback if a company or individual is clearly clueless over how scripting should be optional to the functioning of a site. If you never write in, they will never know their site is broken in a secured environment.

Comment: Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score 1) 361

by StarFace (#47010289) Attached to: How Firefox Will Handle DRM In HTML

Actually, speaking globally the average person with access to technology does pirate media and software. They might not be using Bittorrent, but the guy that burned the 500 Best Software DVD likely is. The average person is buying it from a street vendor. So with distribution as with the initial crack, it only takes a few people to facilitate, or "mainstream", if you wish, piracy.

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl

Working...