Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What would a real nerd do? (Score 1) 311

Actually, if you were a nerd like me you'd have memorized Pi out to at least 25 decimal places as a child. 3.14159265358979323846264338. It was in the back of my Geometry book as a freshman in high school. Geometry class was so boring I memorized Pi one day in class from the value in the glossary of the textbook that carried out 26 decimal places.

Comment: Re:Question about rebroadcasting (Score 1) 342

by multimediavt (#46827465) Attached to: Aereo To SCOTUS: Shut Us Down and You Shut Down Cloud Storage

Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?

This is basically what the whole case is about. The decision will answer your question.

Comment: Re:How many? (Score 1) 342

by multimediavt (#46827309) Attached to: Aereo To SCOTUS: Shut Us Down and You Shut Down Cloud Storage

Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?

They wouldn't have to. Because the ad rates are different based on delivery medium (newspaper, magazine, broadcast tv, radio, Internet) the broadcasters in this case could argue successfully that they are losing revenue because these Aereo streams would not get counted in their ad "impressions" for broadcast tv and therefore not be charged off at the higher broadcast rate, or even not at all. Since broadcast tv exists on ad revenues they could win that point, but the issue could be worked around by kicking back to the broadcasters based on stream/antenna numbers. That would get passed onto the consumer like Netflix's price hike due to bandwidth extortion by the ISPs, so if Aereo loses this point they could flounder. I will be watching this case closely as the outcomes affect some of my projects in the works. If Aereo loses this case it will be a long time before the broadcasters' cabal comes down, especially with the courts still backing the content providers and politicians are on the take even more with recent SCOTUS decisions.

Comment: Re:Stop people from quitting (Score 1) 405

by multimediavt (#46805341) Attached to: In a Hole, Golf Courses Experiment With 15-inch Holes

experimenting with 15 inch golf holes the size of pizzas to stop people from quitting the game.

Why not make the entire green the hole? People would never be able to quit.

Spoken like someone who has never played golf. Even making the whole green the target/objective, it may still take most novices three to five strokes to get to the green, let alone land on it. It's why the 15" hole suggestion is laughable. Putting is only a part of the game that adds to your score, and it's typically not the hardest part to master, either.

Comment: Re:Softball (Score 1) 405

by multimediavt (#46805215) Attached to: In a Hole, Golf Courses Experiment With 15-inch Holes
I have a similar post farther down the thread but wanted to touch on something you said. The rules of golf (as is) can still apply in your suggested model. They are very adaptable to different course types as well as the differences in stroke and match play. I agree, more par-3 courses with less challenging designs would be the way to get more people golfing. I have seen this happen in small communities where a par-3 goes in. A larger demographic will frequent these courses because they can afford to play more often and they can work on their skills (especially short game). More inexpensive par-3s and finding ways to reduce equipment and greens fees would also help. I don't think it needs different rules nor a different name. It's still golf. Let's not start making different rules for different people or places, like American football and baseball. Golf is golf no matter who plays or where. The rules don't change and that adds integrity to the game at all levels.

Comment: Curtis has it dead on (Score 1) 405

by multimediavt (#46805095) Attached to: In a Hole, Golf Courses Experiment With 15-inch Holes
Curtis Strange's quote is spot on. It's all a bunch of talk. There's no way the USGA nor the R&A would approve such a thing. Not only is putting just one aspect of the game, making the hole bigger won't make you better. Anyone that's played the game long enough to want to get better knows you putt at smaller objects to improve your putting, not larger objects. As I said, putting is also one of many aspects of the game. Driving, approach, chipping and pitching are all equally important as they add strokes to your game the same way putting does. I would argue that getting to the green is not only more difficult than putting once you're there, but requires more physical ability and mental challenge than putting. To have the swing consistency to hit every fairway and every green in regulation is more difficult to develop than reading a green and striking a putt. I have been golfing since I was 17 and still struggle with swing issues 25 years later. I can putt like a fiend, though. Sure, I know the "putt for dough, drive for show" saying, but every stroke counts. You can one and two putt all day, but if you can't get it to the green in three or less, your putting can only save so much. So, no, I really hope nothing comes of this bigger hole thing. It's counterproductive to their advertised ends, helping improve the game. What's next, a field width goal twenty feet high so more people will be better at football/soccer so they will be attracted to the game? I really don't like rule changes to appease people who want to apply less skill and practice to a game so they can compete with more skilled and practiced players. I thought that's what the handicap system in golf was for? We already give people 20+ strokes per round based on their lesser skills, why would they need anything else in a game where the lowest score wins? Bigger hole = dumb idea

Comment: Re:WOWZA! (Score 1) 240

by multimediavt (#46765799) Attached to: How much do you spend yearly on mobile apps?

You are the one who doesn't understand how money is made with open source software, or even most closed source software for that matter.

You seem fixated on the mistaken notion that paying for software is what drives the business, open or closed. it does not.

And you don't seem to understand how truly rare successful, not-for-profit software is. I have been involved with software start-up companies since 1994. If there is no money to be made its chances for success are slim to none. Sure, there are some labors of love that have lasted for years, but their usage and continued existence are limited. Of all the projects you can name, or even Google, there are thousands for each one that have failed or been abandoned. Money is made on open source software the same as any other, supply and demand. If there's no charge for the software then something related must be monetized, e.g., support, upgrades, etc. in order for supply to keep up with demand. Red Hat monetizes both support and upgrades (RHEL) for its Linux distros. Google monetizes data about their customers to sell ads. Two of the most successful open source companies anybody can name. Labors of love can monetize by donation, but that's usually the same as monetizing upgrades should donation lead to continued suppression of any nagware feature going forward through successive versioning of the application. How many labor of love projects are used by more than a niche in the world of users? I guess if you have limited metrics of success any labor of love project is a crowning achievement. Bound in a nutshell and master of infinite space and all, but to speak as if all open source software is developed intentionally for free and only for the enjoyment of the developers is beyond naive of how the world works. Sure open source software has helped a lot of people make their own money and not a lot has been given back to some of those developers, but if all software was open source there'd be a lot less people interested in developing it. Which is why so few people actually develop open source software, because they need to pay the bills. I did not say that paying for software drives a business. If there's no commerce (an exchange of goods or services for a fee, goods or services) there really isn't business, is there? If you develop a piece of software and just put it out there you're not doing business. Business requires an exchange. If all I do is download your software I am not doing business with you. If I send you an email about a bug and you fix it, I am still not doing business with you. If you don't see how giving software away is disruptive to the actual monetized software business then you and the rest of the masters of infinite space that mod you up are truly lost because you don't even understand what you're doing. This was a stupid poll. I should really stop coming here for this stuff. You probably haven't read the new Dice terms for this site! Amateurs!

Comment: Re: instant access to computers around the world (Score 1) 276

Quite. Its amazing how many people today still think the internet = the web. Mention stuff like ftp, gopher, archie or WAIS and you just get blank looks.

Bah! They glaze over at telephone modem. They would think a BBS was an early Facebook. Of course, they'd be right, but Zuck probably doesn't know about the BBS days, either.

Comment: Re: instant access to computers around the world (Score 1) 276

instant access to computers around the world

Actually, in 1981 the internet existed, you could FTP and use email, as long as you knew the bang path routing.

It wasn't for 2 more years after 1981 that I learned of it, but I knew people that were using it in the late 70's even. Contrary to what seems to be the popular public belief, the internet didn't start in the 1990's. That's just when the masses became aware of it, largely due to the influx of AOLers.

Granted it was much smaller then as far as number of connected machines.

Well, it was also a DARPA (ARPnet) project back then and only participating universities, govt contractors and govt agencies could get on. It was not publicly available. What was publicly available then was modem Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs). Those had chat forums, localized email and file sharing. If you were lucky and "knew a guy" or a guy who knew a guy, you could get on a networked BBS that exchanged files with other boards around the world via nightly sync or even luckier if you had someone from one of those universities or other running a board that also bridged to ARPAnet. That's where a lot of old usenet content got started. Those were the good ole days of social media. BBS meet and greets were fun. A lot less scary than now, fore sure and for a lot of new and different reasons.

Comment: Re:"it's also a smart visual explanation of why... (Score 1) 276


"it's also a smart visual explanation of why the future of technology so often bears so little resemblance to anyone's predictions"

No, it's not an explanation at all. It was intended as a metaphor for miniaturization of electronics. Noone in their right mind would take a full QWERTY keyboard with keys the size of pin heads literally.

Except for the pinheads!

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 2) 276

Arthur C. Clarke probably had the most "hits" with future tech of any sci-fi author I know of. He and a Russian predicted satellites in 1945. He's had a few others, and there are more if you google him and "predictions". He was not only a writer but a bit of a scientist and avid scuba diver til the day he died. Wish I could have met him.

Comment: Re:What would a real nerd do? (Score 1) 311

A real nerd would know how to calculate Pi from scratch, no shotgun required...

Pi = (4/1) - (4/3) + (4/5) - (4/7) + (4/9) - (4/11) + (4/13) - (4/15) ... (keep going until you get the number of decimal places you need.)

Gaaaa! What? How about 22 / 7 . Way closer, less painful. Nerds do it more efficiently and more accurately. That was about as bad as the shotgun method, maybe worse. I stopped doing the math at (4/15) when the result was 3.01[something] and adding (4/17) was 3.25[something] ... Not even close.

Comment: Re:Only in America... (Score 1) 311

a gun to calculate Pi value...

Not only are they Canadian, they're French Canadian. Calling them American is worse than calling them Canadian as the Québecers would rather be their own country all together. I just think they're smoking something to not use simple long division to calculate Pi, especially as a university research mathematician. I mean, really! 22 / 7 = closer to Pi than their stupid shotgun embarrassment.

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.