Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why do we need H.265? (Score 1) 184 184

>Doesn't H.264 (aka MPEG4) which has much wider client support (browsers, hardware decoding, mobile etc) do a good enough job?

I dunno. I've seen x265 encodes of video which come out at under 150MB where the x264 encode is ~1.5GB for the same quality.

That's a huge saving in bandwidth.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 2) 581 581

What you raise, is an often raised response to discussions about free-speech and censorship.

What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).

When it comes to the mass dissemination of individuals voices, the internet is similarly coralled. Get a blog, people scream, on your own website! And there, the footfall is often small in scope. On sites where many people come together, those sites are owned by corporations and businesses, often merely looking for a proft..

The stark fact is, there are no public spaces on the internet. It's all owned by someone.

Comment Re:That's good (Score 1) 146 146

Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.

The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?

Comment Re:Ugh (Score 4, Insightful) 127 127

Ad blocking was born in response to the arms race advertisers launched (and lets be fair here, also the websites that hosted them) where their ads became increasingly intolerable, obnoxious, disturbing and disruptive (to simple reading comprehension, never mind anything else). This behaviour *necessitated* a response; intitially simple pop-up blockers (now integrated into browsers AS STANDARD!) and gradually moving forward.

If anything, we've seen a lull in hostilities for the past few years as ad blockers have proved very successful, limited only by their install base.

The next round will probably involve websites refusing to show content until adblocking software is disabled (seen here and there already) and if/as this becomes more prevalent, ad blockers responding with stealthing mechanisms.

Since users ultimately own the rendering device, I'm not certain the advertisers can ever win. And god knows, they lost the moral argument long, long ago.

Comment Re:Hijacking my friends' email addresses (Score 1) 144 144

Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA?
The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails.
Seems like any activity based on exploiting such contacts in said manner would clearly land Uber with not insignificant fines and/or criminal prosecution.
(IANAL etc.)

Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie