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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:People still use blacklists??? (Score 1) 279

Who posted this interesting? Shaw do not allow mail servers on dynamic IP's. This is for obvious reasons. Spamhaus treat dynamic IP's the same way. Unless you are using your own mail server you will not be affected by Shaw or Spamhaus's policy that the parent is talking about.
Anyone running their own mail server should be using a static IP address.

Comment Re:California Gas Prices (Score 2) 398

You are looking at up to $3.60 per gallon in L.A right now per gasbuddy.com.

California, per the link you provided charges $0.48 per gallon tax PLUS 7.5% state sales tax plus 2% local tax in many areas. "May include" does not mean "does include".


The state tax portion adds $0.27 to the tax and the 2% another $0.07 for a total tax of between $0.75 and $0.82 in California.

Per you link which shows most States with no sales tax to be added and taxes of under $0.30 per gallon, you are validating the grandparents claim that the tax is $0.50/gallon higher....

Comment Re:I hope they ban his ass (Score 4, Informative) 911

Maybe there is a real reason.

He was born in Brazil and lived there until he was 9. He has not lived in the US since 2010. He renounced his citizenship in September 2011 long before the IPO was announced, although I am sure he knew the direction.

He is still a Brazillian citizen. If he has to pay US taxes based upon his citizenship wouldn't he also need to pay Brazillian taxes based upon his citizenship as well?

Comment Re:Ads included? (Score 1) 366

I am not off by a quarter. I linked and pulled my data from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html which is Apples 4th quarter report. So if the data is incorrect, it is Apple data that is incorrect. And I doubt that.

Additionally, I never discussed Apple's net income. "Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion "
Apple profit is $6 billion, again from the same report. Profit is not equal to net income.

All my math came from legally filed financial reports.

You still do not comment on the math. Per Samsungs financials they had $3 billion profit from handset sales.
Apple had $6 billion in profits (total not just iPhone).
So unless Apple loses money on everything but handset sales Apple cannot have an 85% share of the profits. Assuming 100% of Apple profit were from iPhone between Samsung and Apple alone that would be $9 billion profit with Samsung pulling in 33% of the profits.

Comment Re:Ads included? (Score 2, Insightful) 366

You do realize that Apple makes more than just smartphones, don't you?

You quote the same one article that I was replying too.

And from the article I linked to discussing the Samsung $5 billion: "“(While) 60-70 per cent of (Samsung’s) profit came from handset sales this quarter, ... with memory chip prices rising, chips will play a big part in second quarter profits,” said Kim Sung-in, a chip industry analyst at Kiwoom Securities."

So $3 billion alone from handset sales this quarter.
How much of Apples $6 billion is from handset sales?

Apple don't say. But they do say "The Company sold 17.07 million iPhones in the quarter. Apple sold 11.12 million iPads during the quarter. The Company sold 4.89 million Macs during the quarter. Apple sold 6.62 million iPods."
So less then 50% of the devices sold by Apple were handsets.

Per your article, Samsung = 15% and per my link they made $3 billion. That would mean that Apple made $17 billion on iPhone sales and lost enough money on everything else to bring them down to the $6 billion profit.

I don't believe your article is correct.

Comment Re:Ads included? (Score 4, Informative) 366

"Android manufacturers aren't exactly getting rich either..."

Samsung just posted $5 billion profit for their last quarter.


Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion.


Comment Re:So what? (Score 5, Insightful) 1046

I agree.

Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.

Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.

Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:

""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'

She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""

Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.



(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."

Comment Re:don't freelance for free (Score 5, Insightful) 94

They didn't give it away for free. They were paid with exposure.

Toyota (or any advertiser) pays dearly for that same exposure.

Today the Final Four games are on TV. Each of these athletes works for free and for exposure and hopes that they benefit directly from that exposure. It might be the knowledge the scholarship provided them, or it might be an NBA draft day paycheck followed by a healthy career. Ask Michael Phelps how much he was paid to attend swim meets before he found a way to monetize his career.

Nobody owes these people anything and this lawsuit was folly.

Comment Re:Pah! Antisocial network (Score 5, Informative) 396

You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.

Facebooks Terms of Use prevent you from providing your password to another. "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
Anyone using Facebook agrees with this the same as they do any other EULA or agreement. Any potential employer who requests your password is asking you to break the legal agreement that you have with Facebook before you can work for them.

Comment Re:IQ correlates with motivation (Score 2) 203

People at work on locked down computers used IE and kept getting "distracted" and going back to work. Sometimes they got busy enough to not finish the puzzle.
I might play Sudoku at work on a break and get distracted, never coming back (on IE). I play the same game at home on Chrome and quickly finish as my focus is there.

Statistically, that makes me "stupid" at work and "smart" at home. Don't let my boss find out!

Comment Re:We found your privacy feature inconvenient. (Score 1) 202

Read your quote. "opted to see".

Why is a wall blocking someones ability to opt in to a service? If I opt in for any service I would not normally expect a piece of software to use a different technique to add additional walls. Since Safari is the only browser that does that it's pretty obvious were the fault lies.

Comment Re:Thanks Canada (Score 4, Informative) 84

That is not the only reason ads are substited, which is what you are referring to when you discuss "For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy."

What incentive does a Canadian company have to pay for rights to Canadians when half the market is lost to an ad on an American station that is not paying anything to advertise in the Canadian market? How does CTV then afford to pay for content when their ad space is devalued?

In your example, Channel 7 ads are mandated to be substituted to Channel 3 ads. There is an easy way to do that, as in theory, the content is the same, and that is by just subsituting the entire Channel 3 feed over. Sometimes this can't be done - as in one recent situation, where the Super Bowl Canadian ads were substituted over American ones. The entire feed was not substituted as some of the content (play by play or colour guys) where not the same on the US channels as they were on the Canadian channels.

Comment Why the concern? (Score 1) 300

And why the volatile title. Other than that his is Slashdot.

"Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure".

Requiring improved security is not much different than making sure that a company that makes toasters aren't making toasters that burn your house down.
Or cars having seatbelts. Do we say that the government has "power" over privately owned Car companies because they must abide safety or security concerns?

I have not read the full details of any planned law yet, but as stated in the short article, I do not see why this is a bad thing.

Comment Re:Suing the FBI? (Score 1) 260

But it's pretty hard to hold someone accountable when they cannot defend themselves because you tied up there financing so much that the evidence they had to defend themselves has been destroyed.

The only evidence the FBI supbeoned was evidence again Megaupload.
I am pretty sure that Megaupload's lawyers see this as being either good (we will use this as doubt) or bad (how will we defend ourselves without this as evidence) but they will certainly have an opinion. That they aren't talking about this in legal terms implies to me that they will be attempting to use any data destruction to their benefit.

Slashdot Top Deals

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge