Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Tiny bumps in JPEG performance (Score 1) 129

by rrp (#47472785) Attached to: Mozilla Doubles Down on JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0
WebP already has big compression gains. Just not in comparison to a static jpg. But compared to an animated gif it's a huge savings. I know I'm not going to convince you or Mozilla to change your positions, but to outsiders, who aren't involved in the browser wars, it seems rather silly that you guys won't add support for this just because something better might come alone a few years down the road, when there's nothing else available to do it now.

Comment: Re:Tiny bumps in JPEG performance (Score 1) 129

by rrp (#47463951) Attached to: Mozilla Doubles Down on JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0
WebM is great for what it does. I definitely support tools that use WebM to replace gifs, like gfycat. But it still can't do transparency (except in Chrome) and as I said it's more complicated than creating a WebP with those features. There are some things that only WebP can do at the moment, which is why it shouldn't just be dismissed like Mozilla has done.

Comment: Re:NIH, or once-bitten twice-shy? (Score 1) 129

by rrp (#47462747) Attached to: Mozilla Doubles Down on JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0
The problem with APNG is that it was not adopted and is not supported by the PNG group. That means the official libpng source has no support for it and will never have support for it. Thus making it a non-standard. Instead the PNG group chose to support MNG. So Google chose to go with the standards; they're not just doing it "because reasons."

Comment: Re:Tiny bumps in JPEG performance (Score 3, Insightful) 129

by rrp (#47462657) Attached to: Mozilla Doubles Down on JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0
One problem with your logic is that WebP isn't just a replacement for jpeg. Sure it can be used that way, but WebP also supports alpha channels and animations. And yes, you can argue that we can just use a HTML5 video for that (except I've only heard of Chrome supporting transparent videos at the moment...), but it's much more complicated than creating a WebP with those features, and it can be shown on a website with a simple img tag, IMHO. And being able to take for example a 10 MB animated gif and shrink it down to around a 1 MB animated WebP seems like a worthy enough cause to me.

Comment: Re:Dead end (Score 1) 191

by rrp (#46272619) Attached to: Elon Musk Says Larger Batteries Might Be On the Way

And one that does 40 mpg will use half the fuel of one that does 20. Yeah, totally unintuitive.

Yes. But that's not the whole story. 40 will use half that 20 does. 20 will use half that 10 does. But 40mpg is 5.88 L/100km, 20 is 11.76 L/100km, 10 is 23.52 L/100km. So switching from a 10 mpg car to a 20 mpg car saves 11.76 L/100km, but switching from a 20 to a 40 mpg car only saves 5.88 L/100km. So that is why mpg is said to be exponential. This is not just me blowing smoke, see https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... and look at the section "Fuel Consumption Rate". Even the US department of Energy says Volume/Distance is a better representation (even though they stick to gallons and miles).

Comment: Re:Dead end (Score 1) 191

by rrp (#46261837) Attached to: Elon Musk Says Larger Batteries Might Be On the Way
I used to drive non-stop from Los Angeles to San Francisco all the time (around 380 miles). And that was in a 1992 Chevy S-10. With modern fuel efficient vehicles that get 40+ mpg it's even more reasonable of a trip. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a battery that can go the same distance. Especially when charging the battery is going to take longer than a stop for lunch at some fast food joint.

BTW, there are some advantages to L/100km. MPG is exponential, so as the numbers get higher, there is actually a diminishing amount of savings. So upgrading from a car that gets 14 mpg to one that gets 17 mpg is the same savings as going from one that gets 33 mpg to 50 mpg. With L/100km it is linear so the savings stays the same along the entire scale. All you need to remember when seeing it, is that the lower the number the better the fuel economy (and anything lower than 6L/100km is pretty good efficiency).

Comment: Re:Just use Windows Media Center (Score 1) 328

by rrp (#43111031) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Dealing With Flagged Channels For XBMC PVR?
I never put my computer on standby because half the time Windows itself crashes, so I never experience that issue. I don't have any problem with it complaining that there are no available tuners or low signal quality, but I have heard that other people have that problem. But even with those problems, I'd still rather save the $10/month (or $40 if you had a STB for every tuner) by using the cablecard tuner, as the hd-pvr isn't any more reliable.

Comment: Just use Windows Media Center (Score 2) 328

by rrp (#43110669) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Dealing With Flagged Channels For XBMC PVR?
I know this will be unpopular here (and trust me, I hate it as much as you guys do), but just keep using Windows Media Center. I have Time Warner Cable, so pretty much all channels are copy-once, except the broadcast channels. I started off using MythTV + Hauppauge HD-PVR. It was decent, but it wasn't totally reliable. Plus I still had to pay $12/month for the simple cable box (no dvr, only one tuner). So when the CableCard tuners came out, I instantly jumped on it. So for $2/month I can record 4 channels. And sure it sucks to have to run Windows, but WMC is still leaps and bounds better than anything offered by the cable cos even though it hasn't been updated in years. Plus I can use my Xbox 360 to watch tv (both live and recorded) in another room.

Comment: Re:I use apps for business as a family account (Score 1) 141

by rrp (#42220285) Attached to: Google Axes Free Google Apps For Businesses
I run it for my family as well. All I really care about is google accepting email for my domain and delivering it to the appropriate inbox while weeding out spam. Even if they made it so users had to have a normal gmail account and you can just set it up to deliver email from your domain to that specific gmail account, that'd be fine (I know one could set up and run their own server and have it forward to people's accounts, but I'm talking about having something more integrated than that but less "business" than their current setup).

Comment: Re:Question About Cable Routers (Score 1) 231

by rrp (#36234004) Attached to: IPv6 Traffic Volumes Are Low, But Nobody Knows How Low
I have TimeWarner, and my service is advertised as 15Mbps/768Kbps. In actuality, I get 25Mbps/968Kbps when running a speed test (except at peak hours). And this is all over DOCSIS 1.1. They also just recently gave me a new modem, which is only DOCSIS 2 capable (an Ambit U10C018), although it still connects with 1.1.

Comment: Re:Contenental standardization *works*. (Score 1) 2288

by rrp (#35904162) Attached to: Why Does the US Cling To Imperial Measurements?

I'm blissfully unaware of it's existence when driving

It's funny you say that, seeing as how Canada is the #1 country we import our oil and petroleum from. Maybe think about that next time your driving?

I'm not saying anything pro or anti metrification. I'm merely saying that Canada is an important neighbor and trade partner. Mexico is too. These are important countries for our economy and they are on the same continent. So you shouldn't just ignore them. Whether that means we need to adopt metric is another argument altogether and certainly not one I'm going to wade in to.

Comment: Re:Contenental standardization *works*. (Score 1) 2288

by rrp (#35901152) Attached to: Why Does the US Cling To Imperial Measurements?
I'm not sure what you mean by "think laterally", but none of the definitions of continental mean "From San Diego to Bangor ME (4330 km) and Nome to Key West (7250 km)," excluding Canada. I know Americans like to disparage Canada, but it is our neighbor and largest trading partner.

"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner

Working...