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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:The future of console games (Score 4, Informative) 249

In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

This is incorrect. Please stop spreading disinformation and/or stating things as facts that you have done no research or testing on.

Yes, there are some games purchased from Steam that require the client to be running in order to load the game, even in "offline" mode. However I have multiple games in my Steam library that do not require the Steam client to be running. I manually start up the Steam client only when it is needed and leave it off the rest of the time and have no problems with certain games.


Goodbye, Google Voice 166

itwbennett writes "The trouble with Google Voice is that the way we use phones has changed — and it hasn't kept up with the times: 'Fewer people have a mobile phone and a business line and a home line that might make One Number For All so. Text message costs (which are actually close to nothing) are almost always bundled into contract costs. Automatic voice transcription, while still a mean feat, is no longer such a magic trick,' writes Kevin Purdy in a blog post explaining why he's breaking up with Google Voice. The main problem is that, despite some very cool features, Google Voice doesn't play well with others — even apps in its own family. And it doesn't look as though that's going to get better anytime soon." I've been very happy with Google Voice for a few years now, and one reason is the transcribed voice messages, which may get hilariously garbled sometimes, but are almost always correct enough to be useful.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

Your setup isn't a bad solution. It's pretty good and to be honest it's exactly what I've considered setting up with one of my technically literate friends.

The catch is, this solution only works well for an IT geek who can do it themselves. It doesn't work for the vast majority of people out there. Google would. An enterprise cloud-based solution also has a few less weak points compared to a homegrown one like this.

In summary, when you factor in time, ease of maintenance, and increased risk of failure, however slight it may be, the cost effectiveness of a Google Drive solution at the rates listed in this article holds it's own in my opinion.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 2) 335

You've neglected to consider the technical expertise and time required to implement, update and test such a system. Sure, maybe you can do it, but does everyone you know have the required knowledge? Most people can setup an automated backup job to a cloud provider quickly following a short video or walkthrough. Time's money and I don't value my own at a low number.

Additionally, regardless of what you think about the NSA spying or Google changing the terms of service, said companies will do a better job of keeping it secure, tested and updated than a non-IT geek will any day.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

As long as you live in significantly separate geographic areas where a disaster won't take out both locations, that's a decent solution. Many people are not lucky enough to have someone they trust implicitly with their digital lives who happen to live on the other side of the country though. You're also betting that the drive at your in-law's home doesn't somehow die around the same time something bad happens to your drive. The chances are probably small, but how much are you willing to gamble on that? A Google Drive solution would work for pretty much everyone and Google takes care of the redundant storage with tested, offsite backups.

How much time do you and your in-law spend verifying and testing the backups and restore scenarios? Untested backups aren't backups. In my opinion, when you factor in the time required to setup remote access, secure the remote network, maintain and test restores, the costs of the increased electricity usage, additional drives and hardware, it's not nearly the money-saving deal it would seem at first glance. Personally, I'd rather pay a little more to use Google's enterprise class infrastructure and spend my own time on other things.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

Are you implying that you can get automated, offsite backups with built-in redundancy so that if/when that your home gets robbed, burns down, gets struck by lightning, or destroyed by a natural disaster that 1 TB of data is recoverable and you manage to accomplish this for roughly $13 per year? If so, please share your plan with us as it's the single most cost effective offsite data storage solution I've encountered lately. If not, surely you're not trying to say that a single, locally stored, end-user spec'd HDD is the same as enterprise class storage with multiple layers of redundancy and geographically diverse storage and backups locations should be even remotely similar from a price per GB perspective...

Comment Re:I imagine nobody cares (Score 1) 107

Your 3G results are low you are on CDMA. GSM/HSPA/HSPA+ 3G networks are much faster. In the past 2 years, I've used a Verizon 4G Galaxy Nexus and a Google Galaxy Nexus (GSM/HSPA) on T-Mobile and AT&T. My Verizon results were similar to yours. With AT&T 3G, I usually get in the neighborhood of 6-8 Mbps. When I was using T-Mobile, speedtests ran anywhere from 10 Mbps to 16 Mbps. So I don't think it's accurate to say 3G isn't "good enough" or "doesn't work". I would agree that Sprint and Verizon 3G is sub-par but AT&T's and T-Mobile's 3G is plenty fast. I can haven't noticed any difference speedwise in my daily use when switching from Verizon to T-Mobile/AT&T.

After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.