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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not unexpected. (Score 1) 141

It uses the EXACT same part (down to the model number), and we're wondering why Kawasaki hasn't done a recall on theirs.

Because often the specification isn't bad, but the manufacturing process had a defect that only affected a specific run or a batch. It is quite possible that even with the same part number that one batch sold was defective while another was not.

Usually, this can be attributed to production lines using materials to their absolute limit (stamps, presses, drill bits, etc) to try and maximize profit. Occasionally one goes just enough out of spec to slip by QA, but then is corrected in the next batch after the worn production parts are replaced.

Comment: One solution (Score 2) 137

by KingMotley (#48434917) Attached to: Aereo Files For Bankruptcy

Well, from what I've seen, the content producers are about to feel a world of hurt. Having a son of my own, and watching what he and his friends do, one of the many things I've noticed about the up and coming next generation is that they don't watch TV AT ALL. Not a single minute. I guess the content producers will finally get what they deserve, but it will just take another 5-10 years before they feel the pain they have caused themselves.

Comment: Re:Tempting (Score 1) 181

Well, it is mostly needed for three things:
1) Addressable memory in 32-bit browsers. The threading approach means all tabs must not take more than a total of 4GB of memory, and this is quickly becoming a problem.
2) One tab crashing them all. Yes, firefox crashes on me often enough that it is annoying. Yes, the tabs come back when you relaunch, but then I get bombarded with login requests to all the sites I have open that require logins to view.
3) There is something shared between the threads that the firefox team can't seem to rid themselves of. One tab can, and often does considerably slow down, or make other tabs stutter. So bad that watching HTML5 video in firefox is nearly useless except if you only have 1 tab open, and even then it is a worse experience than in IE or Chrome.

Comment: WHy net neutrality doesn't work (Score 1) 243

by KingMotley (#48273027) Attached to: First Detailed Data Analysis Shows Exactly How Comcast Jammed Netflix

You are totally correct here. ISPs should only be allowed to be content producers, or content distributors, IF they relinquish all their monopoly statuses with local municipalities. Comcast, Time Warner, etc should be taken to court under anti-monopoly laws in the US. As they are guaranteed monopolies and their behavior is definitely harming consumers and they are trying to leverage their monopoly in one sector to give them an unfair advantage in a different sector, this seems a rather simple case, but well... lobbying... money... corruption... self-serving politicians... yeah.

Comment: Re:Well, that's cool I guess (Score 4, Interesting) 125

by KingMotley (#48253217) Attached to: It's Official: HTML5 Is a W3C Standard

Please show an example where Microsoft sat on a standards body and then patented something regarding that spec, because as much as you'd like to believe this is true, it simply isn't. You have this backwards. Microsoft often had patents relating to things they sat on a standards body for (much like everyone else on that committee), and in most cases had already implemented a version of it before the committee was formed, let alone ratified anything. In some cases, they implemented something that was being discussed prior to ratification (which takes years), and then the standards body changed their minds and made changes to the standard before ratifying it. And in other cases, Microsoft implemented functionality that was already prevalent in the marketplace (another companies work -- usually netscape), and the standards body came up with a different, incompatible solution to the same thing.

If you have an example (any example) of what you say, I'd like to hear it, because I've never found any evidence of it, yet.

Comment: Re:Chrome Dumbed Down (Score 1) 68

by KingMotley (#48150287) Attached to: Google Finds Vulnerability In SSL 3.0 Web Encryption

Yes. Because it will work on 90% of the websites the user uses, he will likely understand it's not his browser problem, it is a problem with the website in question. The browser should not indicate a secure connection to the website if the browser knows that the connection is in fact not secure. Seems pretty self evident.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...