Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unlimited 4MP pics (Score 1) 112

Photos below 4MP (Says 2048 x 2048 instead of 4MP dont know why) resolution does not count against the quota. Higher resolution pics count against your quota. Storage price is 2$ per month for 100GB and 10$ per month for 1 TB. Need a credit card and auto recharge every month.

Your information is out of date now. As of Google I/O you can store up to15MP images that don't count against your quota, and unlimited 1080P videos that don't count against your quota. http://googleblog.blogspot.com...

Comment: Re:But Macs "just work", right? (Score -1, Troll) 245

by BradleyUffner (#49781701) Attached to: A Text Message Can Crash An iPhone and Force It To Reboot

I'm genuinely confused as to why people keep buying Apple stuff. I can get the same performance for half the price and twice the battery life from a lot of different brands.

By Spending large amount of money on something you don't have to you "prove" to others that you have large amount of money. See http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Han...

Comment: Re:thought the article was joking ... (Score 1) 441

by BradleyUffner (#49779273) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

Obviously this is a grievous error which should be fixed, but I can definitely see how a machine learning system could pick up this answer as a false positive with no foul play*: extinction through biblical flood may be the most commonly held hypothesis in the US.

42% of Americans believe in creationism, and it's not unlikely that they'd all believe dinosaurs were killed in a flood.

The other 58% could be split between asteroids, volcanos, continental drift, "other" and "don't know", with no single group having a share over 42%.

* Centuries of generally teaching BS to kids notwithstanding

I think religion is pretty dumb and all, but I'm having a hard time seeing why it needs to be "fixed". Search engines are for finding web pages that contain your search terms, not for finding the truthful answers to questions. If the resulting crappy web page actually contains the searched terms then Google did it's job properly.

Comment: $3.49 (Score 4, Insightful) 59

"I'll go to Oakley, Ray Ban, whatever, Philippe Starck in this case, download the file, pay $3.49 for it"

If you think you will get anything from a popular name brand for $3.49 you are out of your mind. 99% of the cost of these brands is for the name its self; the materials cost practically nothing.

Comment: Re:That's unethical (Score 2) 353

Are you really telling someone it's unethical to haggle over some of the terms of their employment arrangements? You have strange ethics.

The haggling was already done when the company offered them a job and they accepted. Sure, they can try and ask for more later, but the company is under no obligation to do anything that wasn't specified at hiring time.

Comment: Re:Get it in writing (Score 1) 353

How's it different from a contractor, working for the same company, and using the same resources ?

It's not. As a contractor, if you are hired to write software for a company, that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.

Comment: Re:The funny thing is... (Score 2) 525

You are asking the key question.
That is the question that gets ignored, on purpose, the 800 pound gorilla.
Why not just reduce pollution?
Anytime I get into a debate with anyone about "climate change" or how much carbon is getting pumped into the atmosphere, I ALWAYS use the argument of reducing pollution. We know for a fact that air pollution contributes to increased rates of heart disease, of asthma in children, to increasing rates of dementia, the list goes on and on, yet the douchebags continue with this "The Planet is Warming Naturally, Its a Cycle"

F#$k you and your cycle.

The general argument against "why not just reduce pollution?" is that some people don't consider carbon dioxide a pollutant. They argue that money shouldn't be "wasted" trying to reduce something that isn't a pollutant when there are actual dangerous pollutants that could be reduced if everyone weren't so focused on carbon dioxide. I'm not saying that I agree with this point of view, I'm just trying to explain it.

Comment: Re:scripting in a document is bad (Score 1, Troll) 48

it was a novel idea and i'm sure it solves some problems but having scripting in a document format is simply has too high a price to pay. scripting does not belong in documents!

I'll let all the guys doing web pages know. I guess we'll have to figure something else out.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...