Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Blah, blah, blah (Score 1) 618

by DewDude (#49711381) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral
I'm not going to trust the word of "editor in chief" of some magazine who probably sells advertising that's being blocked. If the advertisements weren't getting to the point there's more ad content than actual content; no one would run them. If the ad networks weren't allowing just anyone to buy ad space; and allowing hackers to insert malicious advertisements...less people would use them. If they didn't use flash that caused massive CPU usage spikes; less people would use them. They tend to forget, at least in America...we're almost at a tipping point of seeing more ad content than other content. 15 minutes of every hour of television in the US is advertising; and that number is going up. Newer shows are being produced a couple of minutes shorter to cram in more advertising; older shows are being edited to fit more advertising; TBS is time-compressing shows to fit another advertisement or two. We're being screwed by the corporations in an effort to advertise. Pretty soon we won't be talking about minutes of ad's per hour, we'll be talking about minutes of actual programming per hour. You won't take in to consideration how much of the screen is taken up by ads, it will be how much of the screen is taken up by actual content. But..mainly..if I didn't stand a chance of getting infected every time my PC loaded an advertisement; if I didn't have to deal with my browser crashing because this site uses 15 flash ads per page; I wouldn't have to block them. Clickbait is the worst ( lists of crap is 90% flash ads and 10% content); but it's almost at the point where I don't even want to visit legitimate webpages. Everyone's monetizing everything with ads. You can't even use a Slingbox without having advertisements forced upon you. I say screw those people; I skip them when I watch stuff on DVR, I use live TV commercial time as a chance to go do something else...I'm not going to wait 20 minutes to load a webpage because the advertisements are bogging the system down.

Comment: My pile of dead laptops agrees.... (Score 1) 417

by DewDude (#49546791) Attached to: We'll Be the Last PC Company Standing, Acer CEO Says
It's all Acer. All the Dells and HP/Compaq laptops that enter my trash heap are usually repairable save for a major motherboard malfunction or two.

The majority of Acer laptops in my pile all have fatal problems that cannot be repaired by swapping parts. They'll be the last one standing because their hardware fails and people keep buying it.

Comment: no! (Score 1) 293

by DewDude (#48661603) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi
Absolutely not! Corporations should not have the control to tell you what you will and won't pay for. If the FCC allows this, its basically a big middle finger to consumer rights. They should abide by the same rules. If your establishment relies on selling WiFi, you should reconsider your business model,

Comment: Gives me a legitimate reason to use IE (Score 1) 107

by DewDude (#48463793) Attached to: Google Chrome Will Block All NPAPI Plugins By Default In January
Can't watch Slingbox without using their plugin, which uses NPAPI. They seem unwilling to update any software...which means I'll have to boot up IE just to use Slingbox.

That is after they make me watch a 15 second advertisement to watch TV I pay for on hardware I pay for on the only valid viewing option on my PC.

Comment: Re:Why Fy? (Score 1) 260

by DewDude (#47737421) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?
>Don't even get me started on ball sports..
This pretty much tells me everything I need to know about your mentality and to put 0 effort in to my return arguement because you're flat out going to not buy them.

> There are Ethernet and power plugs at various spots in the garden..
That's great...for you. For many of us trying to do something as simple as plant a flower bed requires digging permits and utility companies to spend days trampling through your yard to mark where lines are. That's not to mention many people live in places where they can't run wires...say an apartment building or a house they rent.

>So.. because I've solved my particular needs for workspace freedom using wires Good for you. Solving problems using 200 year old technology.

> I would humbly suggest you have a good night's sleep and read up on some modern research on biological effects of RF, and perhaps come back to this discussion afterwards. I have...many of them in fact. I took RF engineering stuff in college. The problem I had with most of those reports are 80% of them were biased one way or another and paid for by some company with other motives; the others tended to be inaccurate for one reason or another. It's true we didn't fully know microwaves; but things have changed. We've done more studies...and many of those have been biased one way or another. It's like reading stuff put out by PeTA; it does nothing but help push their agenda while seeming like fact.

I guess that's my problem...I've worked with this stuff and worked with people who have been around it longer than I have..and we don't see the purpose. None of the guys I know who have been doing cell-phone sites for 30 years have no problem.

Of course are you to a nuclear plant? Anything within 50 miles and you're pretty much screwed anyway.

Comment: Re:Why Fy? (Score 1) 260

by DewDude (#47730653) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi? else am I supposed to watch football when I poop? That's why I own a tablet. But don't see the point of WiFi? Really? Ever consider someone who works from home, and works on a computer? What's the point of not being in the office if you're still tethered to a location to work; one that likely has marginally more natural light. Maybe I want to...I don't know...sit outside on a nice day and do some work. You're just one of those paranoid tin-foil hat types who probably only feels secure in a cubicle. Technology has allowed us to no longer be tied to a terminal..or a room...or a building...or even a populated location. But you banned microwave-based devices....that's fine...I probably wouldn't want to associate with a paranoid job like you in the first place..

Comment: Too bad it won't do any good. (Score 2) 398

Verizon doesn't care. They own RedBox Instant; they last thing they want is customers using Netflix. We're not gonna get net neutrality out of the FCC (the public comments are a sham; the FCC only care about the businesses involved in the decision); so this is not going to get fixed. If Netflix uses Level3; they were cripple all level3 connectivity.

Comment: Re:Trolling (Score 2) 349

by DewDude (#47385337) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice
Sorry; the original lawsuit against Beta were brought by Universal Pictures, Walt Disney, and a few other picture companies. These original lawsuits dated back to 1976. Sony did not have a film/tv entertainment industry till the late 80's.

The lawsuit didn't include anything about disabling the copy of tapes. The argument was the devices themselves were capable of infringement and wanted Sony held responsible. Copying tapes wasn't a concern; as most people couldn't afford a VCR, let alone two; but TV networks were also making the claim that people recording content was infringing copyright.

The Supreme Court wound up making a decision on this case in '84; ruling just because the devices could be used for that purpose, they had a larger number of legitimate purposes; since they also ruled that time-shifting programs for one's own use was legal.

Comment: Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (Score 1) 93

by DewDude (#47341703) Attached to: Bye Bye Aereo, For Now
Why did congress set it up? Think about this?

The 1992 Cable Act set up the must-carry; and it's intention was to help get smaller ignored broadcasters on to cable systems with the must-carry provision. The retramission consent was probably foresight. ATSC was working on HDTV standards at that time (which, if you ask me were at least 10 years too early); 8VSB and COFDM were modulation methods looked at. For some odd reason, the FCC adopted 8VSB even though it's technically inferior to COFDM. 8VSB does not handle multi-path very well, if at all. This is a problem just about everywhere, signals bounce. You live in the city, you get signals bouncing off buildings. You live in a rural area; you got signal bouncing off the ground, trees, etc. Why would you use a system that breaks down at the first little reflection?

Retramission fees.

Those in power knew that 8VSB modulation, in the long run; would cause OTA TV to fail. You'd get a small percentage of people who got signal; but people who used to get marginal reception don't get it at all. I used to get locals with an antenna; but with all the trees around my house it's no point. I get great signal levels, sure; the problem is the amount of multipath and signal degradation is so severe it's not usable.

Maybe that's not true...but the fact is; we're using a modulation system that's outright garbage. Majority of people can't get quality reception without expensive antennas or shelling out a lot of money; the day of putting rabbit ears on the TV are largely over. Create a system where people have to switch to a provider, then double-dip on the profits.

The fact is, no one was sure whether it was legal or not...till the networks got involved. Plain and simple..

Up next on the chopping block are going to be multi-room DVRs, Slingbox technology, and probably anything that delivers video to your computer. The judgement was not very clear on an even less clear law; and "past-precedent" will be used to get all kinds of new technology illegal.

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.