Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:For home tinkering? (Score 1) 142

by undercanopy (#37779998) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Computer Test Lab Set-Up For Home?
only problem with that is that power consumption becomes non-trivial with multiple boxen, esp if they're older tech. for starting up now and then it's not so bad, but if you wanna keep 4 machines running all the time it start to add up, whereas a single i5 with a bunch of ram would consume less power than one of the old P4(?) machines that might be lying around.

Comment: Re:It's hard enough to be impartial abot things (Score 5, Interesting) 333

by undercanopy (#35659704) Attached to: RIAA Lobbyist Becomes Federal Judge, Rules On File-Sharing Cases

You know, I think the judge recruitment pool would be rather low if you didn't allow those that have either stood as plaintiffs or defendants as lawyers. Because if they're biased then so is the EFF lawyer too, right? Or is that just the lawyers on the side you don't like.

we're not talking about a lawyer being biased, we're talking about a judge being biased. Judes recusing themselves from cases where there is, or even could be, a conflict of interest is not unusual. Her having been a RIAA lawyer creates a worthy argument for recusal, but i could argue the other way as you have. Being a lobbyist, though? That's a lot more conflict-y than just a lawyer trying to properly represent their client.

Comment: Re:Steam and Electronic Arts (Score 2, Insightful) 349

by undercanopy (#30905674) Attached to: Game Distribution Platforms Becoming Annoyingly Common
It's exactly the same in theory and legal terms, sure, but in physical terms, that the book doesn't phone home to ask for permission every time you try to read it. I think that was the point -- whether or not you legally own 'rights' to the content, they'll have a much tougher time trying to stop you reading it, regardless of the changing whims/stability of the publisher. Or: I don't have to go find a cracked version of the book in order to keep reading it after the publisher goes tits-up.

Comment: Re:WOW! Insightful? Really? (Score 1) 206

by undercanopy (#28282087) Attached to: DIY 18-ft.-High Robotic Exoskeleton

no saying that at all, saying you're a fool to try and proclaim that PS was lying about the height of the robot based on the height of foreground object in a low-angle shot. (sure we COULD calculate the height of the mecha based on that if you knew the angle and the distances to the mecha and the people from the camera and the height of the people, but we don't)

We can both look at those pictures all day, doesn't change the fact that they're still perspective shots and that PS is likely far-more well informed about the project than you or i

Actually, the last picture you linked to lends to the mecha being 18 ft... thanks for helping my case.

"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday

Working...