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:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 235

I did not mean there would be zero radio signal below 350 ft, I meant I'd have to go to 350 ft to get signal that I could actually watch reliably. But really this is all besides the point. My point was that it would be much easier and more reliable for many people, such as myself, if we could use any random Ku band dish and a DVB-S2 tuner to watch the free broadcast channels. And it would greatly expand the broadcasters market. Seems a win-win, except for the local affiliates anyway.

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 235

You're not going to get 40 miles with a pair of rabbit ears in the living room.

I feel a "Duh" here is appropriate, but maybe you got confused and thought you were posting on a non-tech user forum. My problem is the large hills/small mountains (whatever you want to call them) in between me and the transmitters. TV Fools says I would need a 350 ft tower to get any signal (and even then most things would be 1Edge). And that's not exactly practical in a built up residential area (not sure if it would even be legal, either... if it fell over, it would be more than long enough to hit a neighbor's house).

As to the freesat thing, in the US there are hundreds of local broadcasters who get to run their own local programming and overlay ads.

Yeah, so cut out the middle man. Seems like a good business move to me. It might take some time and some planning, but they can schedule it so all the affiliate contracts expire at the same time and turn it on then.

Comment Re:Screw paying for ANY television viewing (Score 1) 235

One of the biggest limiting factors of OTA is coverage area. I live about 40 miles from the transmitters in the 2nd largest metro area in the US and can't get any signal. And, at least in the US, the FCC is doing it's best to eliminate as much OTA spectrum as possible (so getting new stations in the future is becoming less and less likely). I wouldn't be surprised if we never see MPEG-4 and 1080p/4K ATSC broadcasts in the US, either.

However, I do think there is a better option. It's something they have in the UK: Freesat. All the main broadcast channels are there (plus a bunch that aren't available via OTA) and all you need is a satellite dish and a DVB-S2 tuner (you don't even need to buy the Freesat branded box, it's only really useful for the guide data). Why the US broadcasters haven't come up with a similar plan, when the US is even larger and harder to completely cover, is beyond me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...