Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Parallax. (Score 1) 408

by msauve (#47925997) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos
While it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between a zoom and prime lens, there are some pretty wide range zooms these days. Mostly on point-and-shoots. The newly announced Canon PowerShot SX60 HS has a 65x (21 â" 1365 mm equivalent) zoom. Yes, that's the optical zoom. I can't imagine how bad the chroma or distortion is at the extremes.

Comment: Re:Parallax. (Score 1) 408

by msauve (#47920987) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos
"Smaller things further away are easier to hide than close-up."

Not if the resulting images are adjusted so the pictured object is the same size. Unless you're reducing a detail to the single pixel range, that is. Additionally, the phone's lens would be more out of focus (when focused on the edge of the phone) when taken from a closer position - depth of field can be used to de-accentuate a feature. Finally, parallax would make the phone's camera appear smaller in proportion when photographed from a closer position.

You seem to be doing everything exactly, and perfectly, wrong. Are you trying to troll, or simply don't know what you're doing?

Comment: Re:Parallax. (Score 2) 408

by msauve (#47920709) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos
Straightedge across phone's camera and edge. Another across the front of the phone. The two straightedges will form a wedge - a lens inside that wedge will see only the side of the phone (no camera, no front). It's not clear why you were playing around with taking pictures from across the room, I doubt the wedge extends nearly that far.

Comment: So, he's a crappy programmer... (Score 2) 160

by msauve (#47919551) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics
and couldn't program it to prioritize based on which one was seen first, was closest, was apt to fall first based on speed/distance, or any one of many other possibilities. You could even place weights on them, and throw a die at the end as a tiebreaker. The rule should be interpreted as "allow the least harm," not "allow no harm."

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 3, Informative) 235

by msauve (#47917849) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
"For IPv4, QoS simply means reordering packets"

Uh, no. Do some reading on diffserv. There are mechanisms to accommodate a range of bandwidth (assurance) and latency (expediency) needs. QoS is much more than simply reordering packets, and includes things like classification, marking, queue management (strict vs. RED/WRED vs. WFQ), policing, shaping, trust relationships, etc.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 235

by msauve (#47917453) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
"If you have a 12mbit connection vs a 20mbit connection how is it you think the traffic magically figures that out so it can send you traffic at the correct rate for your link?"

For most ISPs, that would be traffic policing, although some may use traffic shaping. Look it up, you'll learn something new.

You clearly don't understand the difference between QoS and congestion control, or between TCP and UDP, or that some protocols cannot degrade gracefully. Congestion control in no way replaces proper QoS.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 235

by msauve (#47917211) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
"Simple they manage the outbound rate at which they send ACKs and let TCP on the rremote host figure out the rate limiting."

That's congestion control, not QoS. Many of the protocols where QoS is most desirable run over UDP, not TCP.

Your whole "defaults to EF, demote to EF" thing is confused. I think you mean DSCPs DF, EF and AF13, where EF is the extra-cost premium service.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 2) 235

by msauve (#47916705) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
It doesn't even do that. QoS on a home router is only going to prioritize the traffic leaving the box. It's all on an equal basis "best effort" from there. So, it only protects you from yourself - you can make outbound Skype continue working when you have a bunch of torrents running. But, the quality of the incoming Skype will still suck - you have no control. The ISPs would like to give you that control (and charge you more for it), but no, that would apparently be evil.

So, the OP was being clueless. Unless QoS is bidirectional (for most types of traffic), and end-to-end, it provides little value.

People are always available for work in the past tense.

Working...