Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Seagate (Score 2) 159

by Spamalope (#49105441) Attached to: Nvidia Faces Suit Over GTX970 Performance Claims

nvidia did much more egregious deceptive marketing well over a decade ago in the GeForce4 MX,

Really? I had one of those cards, what was wrong with it?

No. The idiot chump who made the purchasing decision and bought the card even though it did not have programmable shaders and didn't say it had programmable shaders is the one who did the company real financial damage. The GF4MX never claimed to have programmable shaders. Are you that idiot? Or did the GF4MX just touch you somewhere? Can you show us on this picture of the internet where nVidia touched you?

The GeForce 3 was a new processor core supporting DX8. The Geforce 4 line was marketed as an updated GF3 core supporting DX9, but Nvidia sold warmed over Geforce 2 cores supporting only DX7 labeled as Geforce 4 without making the switch clear - in fact burying any disclosure of what that meant in terms of performance and compatibility.

At launch at retail from what I remember, the posters and pamphlets touted the GF4 cores supporting DX9. The box for the GF4 MX cards didn't contain any information outside the shrink wrap to let a customer know it was really a GF2 with a higher clock. If you advertise 'Buy GF4 for Direct X 9 capability' then your GF4 parts need to deliver that or you're being deceptive. It's not acceptable to require consumers to learn processor architecture to know the marketing material aren't true, rather the marketing mustn't contain out right lies.

Comment: Re:Close, but the answer is encryption. (Score 1) 239

by Spamalope (#49023775) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Will It Take To End Mass Surveillance?

The ONE think they fear is effective encryption.

Yeah. It's soooo tough to, just for example, go grab the information at Apple servers directly after Apple announces end to end encryption. They already know where to get the information in the clear, and that's assuming they don't already have a secret court order compelling Apple to turn that information over. They don't -say- it's safe from oversight, just that it's encrypted in transit.

The public noise about encryption is more likely a ruse to get people to keep putting information in the cloud where it can be taken easily. After being caught at cointelpro, what actually happened was rearranging the deck chairs while not stopping the illegal spying for one moment. If you think you're getting something even tamper resistant from an Apple or Google you're the sucker born every minute PT Barnum talked about. Their encryption is to keep your cable/phone company from snooping and getting the same creepy stalking marketing information about you that they collect. It's there to block the competition, not the NSA.

For cloud safety, the data has to be encrypted with keys only you have on your side. You'll also have to use tools not provided by the cloud service, or compromising the tool is too easy an attack. Then only sync the encrypted blob onto the cloud. (and be very careful with that key)

Comment: Re:no super zoom (Score 1) 422

by Spamalope (#48997089) Attached to: What Happened To the Photography Industry In 2014?
Yes, they have F8 lenses. Ebay is full of them. Parent is referring to the manual focus fixed aperture mirror lenses. Those use a telescope design that renders out of focus areas in an unpleasant way, and out of focus highlights terribly.

In the real world, they're one trick ponies only useful if you can contrive a scene where everything is in focus to avoid the poor bokeh, you have time to manual focus and there is enough light to use F8 and still have a reasonable shutter speed. Those lenses exist on the market only because proper full frame 500mm lenses cost thousands of dollars. It's more useful to get (bright light only) budget 500-600mm by adding a small sensor superzoom camera to your collection. You'll get image stabilization, lighter weight and (slow) autofocus too.

Comment: Re:So what? (Score 1) 412

by Spamalope (#48975951) Attached to: Major Retailers Accused of Selling Fraudulent Herbal Supplements
Yep. Valerian root is a great sleeping pill too. (FYI: The capsules smell like they'll taste terrible, but are tasteless) I used that and benadryl in place of Ambien, which needs to be take off the market. Everyone I know who's used Ambien had memory problem side effects. (recall, memory fixing, amnesiatic episodes)

Comment: Re:Things (Score 2) 619

by Spamalope (#48970189) Attached to: Google, Amazon, Microsoft Reportedly Paid AdBlock Plus To Unblock

Tough shit: if those companies hadn't tried to ruin the internet in years past with popups, popunders, flashing banner ads, ...

You forgot serving malware dropping ads they claim they're not responsible for, while shaming users as thieves for blocking those infection vectors. Flashblock + Adblock edge dropped our employee's infection rate to 1/3. When I can recover damages from website who infect my systems, I'll review the decision to ad block.

Comment: Re:= $912,000,000,000 (Score 2, Informative) 247

by Spamalope (#48883779) Attached to: Dish Network Violated Do-Not-Call 57 Million Times

The law of unintended consequences would kick in... because the minute the government goes around taking companies, everyone else sees this...

Then the government discovered what a great money maker this is, and goes after all companies for anything they might be doing wrong...

---

What you are suggesting has actually been done, in other countries... it isn't pretty...

Countries like the US with asset forfeiture laws creating a special interest group and cottage industry around the legal fiction that your assets are a person and you have no legal standing if they're 'incarcerated'. My introduction was while I was renewing my sales tax license. I overheard a conversation next to me. The person had been pulled over and arrested on invented drug charges which were thrown out in court because they were baseless (it sounded like friends pooled money for a defense lawyer). In the meantime the State had seized and sold his car, and taken his life savings from his bank accounts. The clerk was explaining to him that 'It's our policy to retain those funds after trial'.

So the state got paid, and the lawyers got paid - and now we know why he was pulled over for 'waste of time' charges...

Apparently just taking everything is only a good idea if you're too small to make large political contributions.

Comment: Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers (Score 2) 368

by Spamalope (#48667879) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

But if they only reduced their violence output by 60%, why the 90% fall in reports?

The police were more likely to act as we expect them too, and the criminals were less likely to make false claims they knew would be futile. I'd be suspicious if there was any other result.

Comment: Re:Fire all the officers? (Score 5, Insightful) 515

by Spamalope (#48581633) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension

This animal farm 'some animals are more equal' 'police union approved' punishment that we've actually been doing needs to stop. Any normal person caught on camera illegally committing assault, battery, and theft while armed does not get a strongly written letter as a reprimand. Police officers are citizens a need to be treated no better or worse than anyone else.

If you feel that a video record of your actions will be so damning that you consider an armed attack on anyone you spot with a camera is the best option really gives us an idea how you act the rest of the time, doesn't it?

Comment: Re:Getting trolled (Score 1) 716

by Spamalope (#48332063) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

The troll could have nothing to do with the "gamer community." Just write one nasty tweet and watch the neckbeards and SJWs scream at each other. Much lulz.

It'd be even better if the troll was a fake twitter 'follower' bot herder. Troll from a fake account with tens of thousands of followers and declare that you're a serious commentator because of your audience, then use other parts of the bot net to either agree, disagree or both to fan the flames.

Comment: Re:makes no sense (Score 1) 182

by Spamalope (#48299467) Attached to: Australian Courts Will Be Able To See Your Browsing History

The thing is, the Australian court doesn't give a fat rats clacker about your personal perversions in a divorce proceeding. They only care about your financial situation.

Perfect. There's no way the soon to be ex will visit off shore banking and brokerage websites from your PC for 6 months while planning to divorce you, then claim you've hid money in court to get their half and yours. Nope, that'd never happen again.

They certainly wouldn't try to frame you for child porn to make the custody battle a slam dunk either. Everyone is always reasonable in a divorce. It's a bit like giving government bureaucrats unlimited spying powers. It's just never abused and always ends well. Just ask them.

Comment: Re:don't use biometrics (Score 1) 328

I wouldn't be at all surprised. They'll find none. Don't assume everyone is like you.

I see you have hundreds of communications regarding Viagra in your email. That's inconsistent with personal use. Have you been illegally distributing prescription medication, or only conspiring to distribute it?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

Working...