Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: samsung galaxy gear, maybe? (Score 1) 130

by smellsofbikes (#48629651) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Can I Really Do With a Smart Watch?

My wife has one because she can't fit any modern cellphone in her pockets, and her Veer finally died, so the phone lives in her handbag and she uses her watch. She can answer calls, talk, and hang up without (I believe) even having to touch it, and can send texts ("galaxy, send text. next patient has piece of steel stuck in eyeball, will need more lidocane.") which she then previews visually and tells it verbally to send, again without having to touch it. She's pretty thrilled with it. And it tells time. I'm not sure what else I'd want/need in a watch.
(I haven't gotten one because I destroy everything I touch so it'd be a waste. But I'm quite envious.)

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 456

by Jack9 (#48628811) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

> Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks

In the US, it's was pretty hard to miss. From the media coverage over the last few months to the previews that have been in theaters since March. Not to mention that Seth Rogan has been talking about it since he started filming and James Franco since at least the last Planet of the Apes movie (where his character was barely included).

Comment: Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (Score 1) 169

by Tom (#48624793) Attached to: Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

So you switched from nationalisation of certain industries to taxpayer-funded cronyism?

I don't know all the details, but basically, yes.

The Deutsche Bahn was a state-owned monopolist for long-distance rail transport (both goods and people). During the privatization craze of the 90s or so, the government decided to turn it into Deutsche Bahn AG - a private company, listed at the stock exchange.

After a short transition, the C level started to think and act like C levels do, and - with a little help of big consulting companies - decided that public transport isn't all that interesting and profitable and that they would simply use it as leverage to become a huge, global, logistics company. You can already see where it all went wrong.

In order to raise capital, the government planned to sell its shares. But to make it interesting to buyers, the company first had to become profitable. So all that I've described happened. People in small towns suddenly found out that they were not using the train enough, so train service was discontinued and the station closed. Of course, now they had to use cars more which meant more traffic, roads maintainence costs increased, more roads had to be built - as a singular entity, the government before had included all those factors and decided that train service to this town was the right decision, even if the ticket sales by themselves didn't cover costs - but if you figure in the costs of not having a train service, suddenly it does make sense. As a private company, the Deutsche Bahn AG only considered the side of the equation it owned, and that didn't show a profit.
This happened to hundreds of train lines and stations.

Total damage to the german economy - unknown. Some estimates I've read are in the billions.

Comment: Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (Score 2) 169

by Tom (#48624743) Attached to: Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

The reasons they were privatized and the like was that the other wasn't sustainable

Get a clue before you enter a discussion. Many of the companies that were privatized were doing as good or even better than the private companies that replace them today. That doesn't always mean they are or were profitable - for some things such as public transport or universities or garbage collection maybe the benefit to society should be the important factor and not ROI and shareholder value.

You are repeating the ignorant blabbering of typical right-wing americans who think that anything that's not cut-throat capitalism is automatically communism. The thought that a world inbetween the extremes could exist has never crossed your mind, has it?

The strange truth is that the very america that had McCarthyism was very interested in and actively promoting the social market economy model of western europe, because they realized that if they had attempted to install the no-hold-barred brutality of pure US capitalism, most of post-WW2 europe would have become communist by free choice.

That economic model was the synthesis (to use philosophy terms) between the two equally wrong extremes. It gave us all the advantages of free markets, free choice of jobs, private companies and competition while at the same time protecting those areas where pure capitalism does more harm than good, like health care, public transportation or natural monopolies.

Sadly, the two competing extremes didn't fail at the same time to the same degree, so we've now been janked towards the "winner", and all the advantages are slowly evaporating in favor of higher stock prices and an economy based on bubbles and bullshit.

I'm not in favour of communism at all - had capitalism failed first, the same would have happened in the other direction and we'd be equally bad of. But on almost every metric you choose, western Europe was in a better condition 30 years ago.

Comment: Re:Conservatives mostly don't like the involvement (Score 2) 169

by Tom (#48624705) Attached to: Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

Who said anything about redoing the cabling every time you change providers you complete fucking retard?

I did, because that's what your ignorant argument would lead to.

Situation now, in almost all homes: There is one cable going to the nearest street node. This is the famous "last mile".

You want that cable owned by the ISP, which means for every home where the inhabitants are not customers of the current cable owner, either the new ISP needs to buy the cable, or put down a new one, since these are the only two ways in which he can be owner of the last mile.

If they switch ISP again, this repeats.

If a new ISP company wants to enter the market, suddenly the barriers to entry are much, much higher than they are now. Goodbye free market.

And let's talk about multi-story houses with a dozen or a hundred flats, and lots of different ISPs serving different flats...

Instead of admitting your argument was stupid, let's insult people around you who put you straight.

Going through the streets, you have a similar situation.

Not at all. The office building example is at the other end of the last mile. We're talking about the cable connecting the (office or whatever) building to the telco network in the street. Completely different things.

Comment: Re:Conservatives mostly don't like the involvement (Score 2) 169

by Tom (#48624675) Attached to: Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

Right, because there is no other possible way to lay cable then the way they've always laid cable.

If you actually could re-invent the cable-putting industry, you'd not be posting in /., you'd be busy making your first billion. (you'd already have your first million)

Any place that had frequent changes to the cabling would either have an accessible conduit system or run the cables on poles.

You'd have to install the conduits first, which means digging up all the streets. A hunch tells me that is even less likely to happen in the near future.

Poles are not really practical in the places that the majority of the population in the west lives in. These places are called "cities". Cities are where the money is in telecommunications, so if your solution can't work in cities, it's dead in the water.

Disclaimer: I've actually worked in the telecommunications industry for 10 years.

Comment: Re:How do you do that? (Score 1) 533

by drinkypoo (#48624561) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

You can't take down a full movie theatre with one suicide bomber, you would need several (at least one for each screen, somehow synchronized to maximize damage).

So you attend several ahead of time and plant bombs while you're there, there's loads of places in the average theater where you could hide an explosive. Then you set them off by cellphone. It's not rocket surgery. That nobody has done this already proves just how few terrists there actually are active on merican soil.

Comment: Re:Boycott (Score 1) 534

by drinkypoo (#48624549) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously.

They are acting like they are, so the damage is done. They have promoted kowtowing to terrorists.

What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview

That sounds to me like taking it seriously.

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 329

by drinkypoo (#48624523) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Encryption has a cost, it isn't free.

Thermodynamics, how does it work!@!@@#!!

It increases CPU utilisation and power consumption.

Negligibly for the user; only slightly for the server end if specialized hardware is used.

It interferes with caching

Only at the proxy level.

and reduces network efficiency.

...and only if you're using proxy caching.

This is a dumb idea. A very dumb idea.

It's still smarter than making it easy to intercept your communications.

You say dumb, but some of us have been calling for end-to-end encryption of all communications since forever. If we have a right to privacy, then we should protect it by default. To me, dumb is enabling a surveillance state by not using encryption. In fact, I call that evil.

Comment: Speaking of theft, what about actual theft? (Score 0) 101

by drinkypoo (#48624507) Attached to: RFID-Blocking Blazer and Jeans Could Stop Wireless Identity Theft

These clothes will be easy to steal, because you can just wrap them up in a wad and they will block their own theft tag. And once you've stolen them, you can use them to steal other items, because they will block theft tags. Sounds awesome for theives and like total wankery for everyone else.

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...