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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 1) 145

I know. I was replying to someone who indicated problems with digital broadcasts "because the reception was so spotty." I compared 20 year old streaming quality to poor quality broadcast digital. Which is true -- (20 year old streaming with modest bandwidth problems) it was watchable while digital broadcasts with modest reception problems is not.

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 1) 145

"So, it was better than digital broadcast TV displays?"

Quality of picture? Hello no. However, if the "signal" (slower bandwidth) was weak in Media Player or Real Player (or whatever), the most I would see was a "buffering" and a pause. On broadcast digital TV there's horrible artifacting, audio buzzes and skips that make the program unwatchable -- or it just doesn't come in at all.

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 2) 145

I saw the future 20+ years ago. I had DSL in an apartment rather than cable TV (I could afford one or the other -- not both). Antenna reception was crap. There were a bunch of sites that offered (then free) live video feeds (go go Real Video!). Local news, 1950's tv programming and even some cable programming. I lived that way for quite some time. Then I got married and wife just wanted to push a button and have the screen magically show what she wants to see. It was a few years ago when we finally got rid of cable again.

It wasn't 1080p, but a lot of it was about as good as an analog TV could display.

Comment Re:It's still version 1 (Score 2) 88

DirecTV Now does not require Silverlight on IOS. It does not require Silverlight on android. It does not require Silverlight on my Fire TV.

I was an original SlingTV user and I can say the trouble they had early on was worse than what I'm seeing on DirecTV Now. Except for the first 2 days. That was horrible.

Comment Re:There will be no train (Score 1) 408

"Now add in 90 minutes at the airport before and after which don't exist on trains. Now add in the extra pollution and carbon usage of the planes. Now add in lower prices because rail is cheaper to run and uses less gas. Now add in the lower congestion at airports because some percentage is now using rail. You end up with a trip that's cheaper, barely if at all longer, more comfortable, less polluting, and improves things for everyone else too. I'm very glad to have voted for it."

Extending the rail between LAX and Union Station would be a hell of a lot cheaper, disrupt far fewer neighborhoods (and the court battles have only just started to rumble as track approaches the San Fernando Valley). And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to streamline security.

Further, Amtrak suggests one arrive at least 30 mins prior to train boarding. Earlier for busy stations. The train will be more expensive than air, will cost immensely more to build than we were told and displace a *LOT* of lower income homes. I'm very glad to have voted against it.

Comment Re:There will be no train (Score 3, Interesting) 408

"LAX is right on the coast, as far from the city center as one can get. It's a half-hour ride through traffic to downtown."

Yup. LAX is about 30 mins away from the center of downtown. Union station is about 10 min away from the center. Clearly we must spend billions and billions of dollars to turn a 60-90 min flight in to a 3 hour train ride that costs more and breaks the bank so a few people who can afford it can travel in comfort and shave 20 mins off their cab ride.

Makes perfect sense.

Comment Re:Logic Failure (Score 1) 90

" Unless their simulations can explain Earth is the only planet to have gotten a full fledged moon in such an environment the single large impact theory would seem to be the more likely scenario."

It probably is. And surprisingly enough, the "single large impact" theory ALSO appears to be the same as the "multiple moonlets" theory, only "after the single large impact"

Am I wrong or reading this wrong? Wouldn't the "single large impact" toss up a ton of rocks and basically form a "ring around the Earth (mutliple moonlets) which would eventually either coalesce in to one larger moon or eventually fall back to earth?

Comment Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list (Score 1) 90

"What you are suffering from is called a displacement.
More precisely you appear to assume that scientists, like the creation myth in your favorite holy book, are claiming an absolute trust."

What you are suffering from (as are the people you are criticizing) is thinking that science and faith are the same type of thing (like a table, or a rock). When someone who thinks this way (like you apparently do) is on the "side" of science, those of faith become the targets of contempt ("creation myth in your favorite holy book") and those who think this way on the side of faith think see your side as "it's just a theory -- they can't even agree what truth is".

They are two very different things. Having a science vs. theology debate is about as useful as having a color vs. scent debate. Or maybe a dark vs. wet debate...

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 1) 821

I believe it was universally believed that Clinton would win. I wouldn't doubt that *IF* the Russians hacked the DNC it wasn't to help Trump but to make a globally weak administration (Obama) even weaker by causing distractions as she came in to office. Russia would do (and has done) well with a globally weak US executive.

Comment Re:Retaliatory measures based on no evidence. (Score 2) 821

I'm not a Trump supporter. I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control. Both candidates were horrible.

And I'm not hoping the "Russian narrative" goes away -- I think it's way premature to be jumping to conclusions and ascribing motives before the subcommittee on national security has been briefed. They requested a non-public briefing and were essentially told to pound sand.

*IF* the Russians hacked DNC emails I doubt it would be to help Trump but to cast doubt about the legitimacy of a Clinton election victory. Besides, the Obama administration (and by extension, a Clinton administration) would have been better for Russia as it's been weak.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...