Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:TV system doesn't match (Score 1) 207

by tepples (#48894975) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

Were you going RCA video out?

Yes. All three of these devices were pre-HDMI and used S-Video output.

But most of the other video standards, like RCA, composite, S-video and such are 1-way. It would be *impossible* for the system to "know" that the TV doesn't match.

The Apex would scale 576i at 50 Hz to 480i at 60 Hz. The others just threw up their hands and gave up.

I've never had any DVD played on a computer (or by association, out the computer's video out) that cared about PAL/NTSC.

From roughly 1987 to 2006, it was rare to connect a PC to a TV-sized monitor. PCs were for desks, and "consumer electronics" devices were for the living room, and conventional wisdom was that never the twain shall meet. SDTVs of that era that couldn't display the VGA or DVI signals coming from a computer, unlike now where most TVs have VGA and HDMI inputs respectively, and one had to buy an obscure scan converter (or a desktop PC video card with a built-in scan converter) to convert the signals.

Comment: What makes GNU/* (Score 1) 158

by tepples (#48894881) Attached to: Google Just Made It Easier To Run Linux On Your Chromebook

So, it is probably more correct to say Linux without the GNU unless we should call Windows "GNU Windows" since one might choose to run a Mingw app.

MinGW is just GCC with the C library of Microsoft Visual C++ 6. If someone were to install Cygwin, on the other hand, that might stand a better chance of being called GNU/Windows. (In fact, Cygwin stands for Cygnus GNU/Windows.) And you're not the only person to present this sort of reduction to absurdity argument. So I set out to define a "GNU/$kernel" userland for myself as GNU Coreutils plus two other major GNU components, such as Bash, Emacs, GCC, or shared glibc. GNU/Linux counts, Cygwin counts, and MSYS counts.

Would "X11/Linux" be a better term to distinguish Fedora, Debian, and the like from Android and uses of Linux on router appliances?

Comment: VP8 is BSD licensed (Score 1) 158

by tepples (#48894845) Attached to: Google Just Made It Easier To Run Linux On Your Chromebook

Technology-wise: In rate-distortion terms, Theora is comparable to H.263-family codecs such as DivX (a popular implementation of MPEG-4 ASP). VP8 is comparable to the baseline profile of H.264. This means the picture can be more detailed at the same bitrate.

License-wise: WebM is distributed under the revised BSD license. As a free alternative to a patented format, it's in a similar position to Ogg Vorbis, for which RMS approved of use of the revised BSD license.

Comment: TV system doesn't match (Score 1) 207

by tepples (#48894671) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

PAL/NTSC doesn't really exist in DVDs (yes, I know people will argue that, but I can put any DVD from any region, NTSC or PAL into my old DVD player and it'll output what NTSC or PAL based on a software switch).

Not all DVD players can do that. I own a copy of Wobbl and Bob, which is "region: all" and encoded in 576i/50. I've owned three "consumer" DVD players: an Apex, a PlayStation 2 slim (NTSC U/C), and a Magnavox, all region 1. Of the three, only the Apex would play it. The PS2 froze on a black screen with an error message "TV system doesn't match", and the Magnavox displayed a similar message with different wording.

Comment: Edge detail vs. texture detail (Score 1) 207

by tepples (#48894623) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

Unless you're seriously only concerned with being able to locate the edge of straight lines

The edges of objects in a photograph are fairly close to straight lines, especially once you zoom in. So when you double the width and height, edge detail doubles and texture detail quadruples. You might be thinking of the latter.

Comment: Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work (Score 1) 128

by tepples (#48894371) Attached to: WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users

Mistake one - it only works on a single browser

...simply open https://web.whatsapp.com/ in your Google Chrome browser...

WTF!?!?!? There is Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer. All those with large user bases. I am not even counting the small browsers. And they chose to release only for Google Chrome? What year is this, 1995?

I opened it in Chromium on Xubuntu 14.04, and it still doesn't fucking work. I reserve my swearing for the most egregious cases of malice or incompetence, and this is one of them. I come in with a browser that's recompiled Chrome and they turn me away because I don't have Chrome.

Now as for your other points, some of them appear weak. I want to help make your argument against WhatsApp stronger and even more F-bomb worthy.

If you just have a dumb phone or another platform, you can't use the web client.

<sarcasm>
Of course you can. All you have to do is buy WhatsApp Enabler for $45.
</sarcasm>

Its even worse, imagine that office full of metal that behaves like a Faraday cage, or that office in a bad location sitting on the shadow of 3G coverage.

Then put your office's WPA key into your phone.

Have a dead phone and you're travelling on a train with WIFI and want to use the web client, you can't!

What device would you be carrying with which you expect to use a web application over Wi-Fi? Or do "normal" people still carry laptops?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz

Working...