Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes (Score 1) 454

I woudn't at all be surprised if drinking sugary sodas is the number one cause of diabetes.

That's just because you're ignorant and don't realize that you don't cause it in any way due to how much sugar you intake, but go on continue being stupid and using that as an excuse to try and control the behavior of others.

Get a clue before you make such ignorant statements. Sugar intake itself has no effect in causing diabetes, and the problem is never too much sugar, it's not enough. Don't mention diseases you've got no clue at all about.

Comment Re:Non-removable apps (Score 1) 151

Android is only the dominate player because everyone stopped writing their own software and started freeloading off of Google.

Now they want to freeload off of Google AND not allow Google to profit from it.

If it doesn't benefit Google, why exactly does Google want to support Android?

Android isn't free, thats the first mistake people make. It just doesn't cost any cash up front, but you pay by turning your data/customers over to Google right out of the box. At no point was this hidden from anyone.

I really don't see how Samsung has a leg to stand on, they don't have to run Android. Apple doesn't. Windows phones don't. Samsung didn't use to run Android or have a Google Play store so its hard to argue that they can't find an alternative considering they used to use alternatives until ... they all agreed to use Android under terms and conditions they've been using for years. Now suddenly its a problem?

Google could just drop Android support entirely and the field could devolve into even more chaos than the Android landscape already is, is that a bright idea for Samsung? Do they want to let MS regain a foothold again?

Samsung gave up control over the OS when it stopped paying for the OS under its terms and instead started freeloading off of Google and became bound by their terms.

They did this to themselves, intentionally. Fuck'em.

Comment Re:Lutz also said design is the difference (Score 1) 535

Yea, he figured if you're going to be such a douche that you buy that sort of monstrosity ... everyone should be able to spot you from a long way off so they can point and laugh. He really was just being mean to the Aztek owners.

Comment Re:Tesla not on that list? (Score 1) 535

Before you get to cocky there, remember which brands from GM were actually profitable and which ones were failures instead of comparing which ones they kept and which ones they closed.

GM closed their only profitable brands. Pontiac and Saturn. They were profitable in a large part due to Bob Lutz and the Kappa chassis, otherwise known as the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky which were on back order the entire time they were produced.

Disclaimer: Solstice owner

Comment Re:Free as in $5 to $15 per GB? (Score 1) 246

that Apple switched from GCC to LLVM specifically to avoid copyleft.

Yea, they wanted an open source compiler instead of the GPL crap. So they went from GPL to BSD ... are you seriously trying to claim thats proprietary? If so you're just making yourself look retarded. Not stupid, flat out retarded.

You probably meant "Xcode is free as in without charge." That's true if your home Internet lacks a quota or has dozens of GB per month.

Apple will allow you to download it in their stores for free.

But if you're stuck behind cellular or satellite Internet, such as in a rural area or urban Seattle, multiple gigabytes can become very expensive to download.

And that changes any of this how? Regardless of where you download it from, you're going to be downloading it and thats going to cost. You've not described anything that justifies downloading it from someone other than the source.

You're just a shitty hater, you can't even find actual flaws to pick on.

Comment Re:They made the disclosure (Score 2) 229


You know what they are going to do, there is no confusion, you can simply choose not to use their product or pay in a different way for a version that doesn't sell your info.

You can make an informed choice, which makes it fair, and imo, acceptable to do so.

Comment Re:Epic Fail? (Score 1) 229

Which is ironic considering they'll continue on using all the services that hide or lie about the fact that they do this very thing.

NOTHING is free. The laws of physics simply don't work that way, and they do apply to people and behavior as well. People will move on to another product ... which is selling their information due to a clause that sounds completely benign in paragraph 12 of page 43 of the EULA.


People will cut off their nose to spite their face at the drop of a hat.

Comment Re:Bad Ads vs Good Ads (Score 1) 236

- Don't they know some of us are bored at work and don't want to get caught by the boss?? :D

While you're half joking, you are pointing out exact why so many non-techies would use ad blockers as well. Its about respect.

Those ads are rude and thats why you don't like them, even if its only subconsciously that you realize it. They don't give a shit what you're preferences are, or even that they aren't the only ad on the page. They are going to broadcast and spam you with their wares weather you like it or not because god damn it you will like it if you hear their ad.


It is nothing more than total and complete disrespect.

If you have no respect for me, why the fuck do I want to buy your product?

Solution: I will never buy from anyone/thing/company that does any of the things you've mentioned as well as several others where its clear that they have no respect for me at all.

I concur with you 100% Respect me in your advertising or go fuck yourself.

Note: I PREFER targeted ads, done right. Its nice to be introduced to a competitors product thats just as good but cheaper or easier to obtain, or maybe (for things like food and music) just different. I do not prefer to see the same ad on every website I visit for the product I JUST BOUGHT AND WON'T NEED AGAIN FOR 10 YEARS (refrigerator in the most recent round)

Comment Re:It's simple (Score 1) 236

If CNN provides malware through their ad system, it reflects on CNN, not on the 3rd party ad provider and thus those provider have no incentive nor intention to provide safer content.

Thats completely untrue.

CNN provides ads on its site through some provider, then CNN serves a bunch of malware and gets a bad rep ...

CNN isn't going to use that ad provider for long if it continues.

Ad provider goes out of business because websites stop using them since they have a bad ratio of good to bad ads.

This is simple every day business at work, ad companies most certainly care what gets served on their network.

Comment Re:Why pull instead of improve? (Score 1) 236

He can still improve it without it being sold you know?

Sometimes an App gets on the store and its just broken. Not in the way that testing noticed, but it really isn't doing what its supposed to do and instead of continuing to do bad things to new people, you stop selling it. Fix it. Return it to the store.

If you read what he said, thats pretty much a given that he's doing just that.

Comment Re:Am i the only one... (Score 4, Insightful) 236

I think it does.

Its not that he didn't know his website's ads would be blocked, its that he didn't realize how dramatic the effect would be for his revenue stream.

Once he realized that it would crush his revenue stream completely, he then realized that 'hey ... blocking all ads may not be the best idea, it might actually be bad for some people and legitimate products because ... I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IT HURT'

He just had a realization when he felt the effects himself. When he realized he was shafting himself out of cash when he wasn't being an 'evil advertiser' or anything, he realized that he was nuking it from space instead of maybe a pistol or two.

Sometimes we don't immediately fully realize the effect we have on others until we see it directly for ourselves. Thats all this was.

Comment Re:Moral outrage! (Score 1) 236

You sir are an idiot.

You can simply not click on the ads, and you get a website for free. Whats going to replace it is a website that doesn't exist. You won't pay for it, so it won't have any money to operate, so it won't exist.

Do you pay for a slashdot account or use an ad-blocker?

Yea ... I thought so.

You'll cut off your own nose to spite your face, jackass.

Comment Re: Wrong choice (Score 0, Redundant) 282

Linux powers a lot of things that its not the best choice for simply because they hired some Linux fanboy so thats all he'll suggest. Doesn't mean its the best at the job, just means they picked it. Spending an extra $20k/year on someone with a clue could save them millions on hardware.

Rendering farms aren't indented to be fast at routing packets, they're intended to use CPU cycles to render, which any OS that gets out of the way ASAP is probably good for, here its more important that the application you want to use runs on the OS you want to use. So its not surprising the more cluster apps run on Linux any more surprising that more Desktop apps run on Windows.

So while there may be a lot of Linux rendering clusters, still doesn't make it the right choice. Do you think that because a lot of people do Cocaine that its the right thing to do too? Or do you actually evaluate the situation and make a sane decision?

Comment Wrong choice (Score 4, Informative) 282

This was just a bad choice. If they wanted a proper software defined network, they'd have selected FreeBSD since it has the fastest, most compact networking stack in the world and its well known/accepted fact by anyone who does high-end networking, hence why Microsoft ALREADY has a fuck ton of FreeBSD installs on their core network labeled ... Juniper Networks ... or F5 ... or any of the other ones.

Someone deserves to get fired for this. Not because they picked Linux, but because Linux simply wasn't the right choice in any way shape or form as every other major company doing networking has illustrated.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford