Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:when? (Score 1) 182

The first question that comes to my mind is, "What the fuck is the point of 2 Gbps service for residential customers?"

Your question is limited to existing technologies and platforms that are built around the assumption of 12/3Mbps connections at best.

Imagine a respectable percentage (or large enough market) where the network was reliably 2Gbps or more.

If the latency were low enough, there'd be less reason not to share multiple GB files on remote drives for editing locally, like agencies using Photoshop files between 700MB and 1GB large.

Hi quality VR conferencing might materialize if the machines connected to each other could exchange data at rates that today are considered too fast to do anything with.

Or what about existing or yet-to-exist distributed networks that might benefit from truly massive throughput? What would be possible with faster interconnectivity across great physical distances? Say 10Gbps. 100Gbps? 1Tbps? 2Exa bps?

Sure, none of those speeds even mean anything today let alone would be feasible in the current market, but hopefully you get my point, which is that the as-yet uncreated future technologies that would evolve and flourish under much faster and reliable Internet throughput can't be known in advance.

And like any resource rich ecosystem, you can bet that once those resources are there, someone and something will use them.

Yeah it'll be used for higher fidelity porn, more unwanted spam, and larger cat videos. But such a network will also be used for cool things like better medicine, more accurate physics, and more efficient manufacturing, in addition to stuff we can't know about yet.

Stop holding back the future by asking for comparisons from today.

Comment: Re:standard operating procedure for monopolies (Score 1) 182


you're a moron

not baseless insult. an objective description of the quality of your thought

what you wrote is hilariously solidly wrong. you blindly and blatantly deny basic facts of a subject matter you inject your puerile ignorance into

you're deluded uneducated wackjob and if you had any shame you would stop lying and making yourself look like a feeble crackpot to anyone who actually understands the simple basics of this subject matter

just shut the fuck up about what you clearly do not understand you dumb ignorant fuck

Come on. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

; )

Comment: Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score 0, Troll) 517

Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.

Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.

Comment: Re:Offsite (Score 2, Informative) 446 do it yourself. I cut sentence short there. Slashdot should implement an edit button.

Most users don't know it, but Slashdot actually has had an edit button since 1997.*

It appears after you click the "Preview" button and has the label "Continue Editing".

(* It's actually an anchor, but you get my drift.)

Comment: Re:This is stupid (Score 1) 191

If the authorities already know about a bomb that is going to be phone detonated, they will have caught the terrorists already, or the FBI has probably set up some patsy to try it.

If an event like this happens after an emergency (like a second bomb after a first bombing), almost all cell phone lines go down automatically because everyone tries to call or message loved ones and clog the system up already.

Not going post 10 obvious work arounds because I will wind up on some watch list.

The great thing about parallel construction is that everyone is always already on a watch list.

Comment: Re:Bummer (Score 1) 326

by MisterSquid (#49351105) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

It cuts both (multiple) ways.

If $person1 is aware of sexual attraction on the part of $person2, it would not be too difficult for $person1 to manipulate $person2.

This is why it's important to behave respectfully, thoughtfully, and openly when dealing with other people. Men, women, what-have-you.

Comment: Re:"Pretends to be online"? (Score 1) 305

by MisterSquid (#49262053) Attached to: Prison Program Aims To Turn Criminals Into Coders

they post snarky comments in their web browser which dumps them to dev/null and notifications with static text like "love u 4 ever dog" keep popping up on their desktop.

The real tragedy will happen once they've finished paying their debts to society and they get full access to the Internet with no one having told them not to read the comments.

Comment: Re:Accessibility is still a sad joke! (Score 1) 79

by MisterSquid (#48947615) Attached to: How Blind Programmers Write Code

Please correct me if I'm wrong but OSX has no high contrast - white on black themes. Also I couldn't find an easy/comfortable way of using the magnifier, I greatly prefer Win8's magnifier - it has a few limitations but I found OSX's one annoying.

From your descriptions of how you use of Windows accessibility features, it sounds like you've figured out highly efficient usage patterns and your facility with navigating the UI seems (to me) a bit higher than even many expert users. So, manipulating a different set of accessibility interface may not be comfortable or as useful for you, which totally makes sense. To answer your question about contrast:

OS X does have a separate slider and checkbox for contrast.

I don't use these regularly so can't comment on their usefulness. When I manipulate them, they do noticeably affect the display contrast, so much so that when the contrast slider is high enough, font edges of text and other UI elements start to wash out.

OS X does not implement themes and, like you, I would be ALL OVER a system-supported dark/professional theme. (With the latest version of OS X, Apple has introduced an extensions framework which opens a path to vendor-supported UI theming. But even if this is the direction OS X is headed, I would not expect custom themes for at least a couple more years.)

I have good corrected vision, so I don't use the magnifier regularly. I occasionally do fiddly UI work and it works OK enough for me in that instance. It has some customizability but not a whole lot.

On the customization front, I use a third-party piece of software that I sort of think of as my personal API for the UI (as well as much of the command line and UNIX layer). That software is Keyboard Maestro. It is definitely worth checking out if you regularly use a Mac-like machine ; ).

Comment: Re:Accessibility is still a sad joke! (Score 1) 79

by MisterSquid (#48947309) Attached to: How Blind Programmers Write Code

Not trying to troll (honest), but you but have you looked into Macintosh systems? The visual accessibility features are invoked at the level of the graphics layer (Quartz, I believe) so there's no futzing with colors as such.

For example, inverting colors (which is how I compute 99% of the time) cannot be overridden by third-party software. (The current trend for "professional" UIs, which avoids the black-text-on-white-background usability nightmare of most software and websites, makes me glad I can toggle this setting using a keyboard shortcut).

For your use case, there is an adjustable contrast setting that can be customized to the point of making your computer look like a Warhol painting if you want (thankfully, there is also the option to desaturate colors so the high-contrast display all black and white).

If you absolutely have to have particular Windows or Linux software, you could run those OS'es as VM guests, which is not ideal but at least you'll have access to the accessibility features in your host OS.

One of the things Apple gets better than many other software companies is accessibility. It's not perfect, but in my experience it's very good.


Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.