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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Ya that part always seemed like total BS to me (Score 1) 173

His claims that if he went to Sweden they'd send him to the US. Ummmm, really? Because if there were a nation I would be worried about handing me off to the US clandestinely, it would be the UK. The UK and US cooperate to a ridiculous extent on international matters. So I have trouble believing that you could go there and feel like they'd protect you, but be worried about Sweden handing you over.

Comment No, because he skipped bail (Score 3, Informative) 173

The validity of the charges in Sweden aren't his only problem. They could drop the case, he'd still be in trouble with the UK because he fled bail. Bail is an agreement between you and the court. You agree to appear as ordered, and they let you out of jail. Often there is also a monetary component to try and ensure your compliance. However regardless of the details, you are legally required to present yourself in court when ordered.

So when Sweden said they wanted him, the UK arrested him. In the EU there's some pretty strong extradition rules so even though the UK had no issue with him, their extradition treaty with Sweden required them to arrest him. He was granted bail, and the monetary component was paid for by supporters. At the point, he had to wait for a court date when the UK courts would determine if the extradition request was valid. At that point if they did, they'd hand him off to Sweden, give back his bail money, and would be all done as far as they were concerned.

They did find it was a valid request, he challenged that finding, and so on up to the UK's high court. They ruled that yes, it was a valid request. Remember this has nothing to do with guilt, they are not interested in that. Their only interest is if the extradition request is a valid one per the treaty. It was, so they said "Ok, you have to turn yourself in and we'll ship you off to Sweden." He decided not to, and instead fled.

Well at that point he become a criminal in the UK. They now had a criminal interest in him since he'd broken UK law by skipping bail. Doesn't matter anything about the original charges. This is a separate crime, and it is an ongoing one, so no statute of limitations.

That's how it works basically everywhere. If the court says you have to how up, and you don't, that by itself is a crime.

Comment EA makes a lot of games (Score 1) 108

Comparing EA and Rovio is silly. Rovio has one product and a couple of other tiny ones. An accurate comparison of Rovio would be to one of EA's development studios, not to all of EA itself.

260 people is a ton for a studio. Even if you look at the really big studios working on the really big titles for EA and Activision, it is usually only a couple hundred people at most. That's to produce things like Battlefield (and it's associated engine, which is quite advanced) not to produce a silly mobile game where you fling birds at pigs.

It sounds like Rovio had way more people than could be useful.

Comment Have you? (Score 1) 254

That describes none of the grocers I shop at. Most of them have the cheese up front with the deli. The trend seems to be various cheeses at the deli you can get sliced, and then a separate display of a bunch of other block cheeses you can browse. As I said, they like to locate the deli up front.

Milk varies. At Safeway it is directly back from the deli. You have deli, liquor, bakery, milk heading back in a straight line. At Sprouts it is at the other corner of the store, as far away from the deli as it could be. At Target, it is in the front, along with the other refrigerated foods (meats, produce, cheese, etc).

Most places seem to lay their stores out based on themed isles. A given isle will be devoted to like items. So you walk along the isles until you find what you are after, then walk down one to find the item you want.

Comment No, it really isn't (Score 1) 253

Comcast are real dicks about their cap in many locations. My boss got charged $10 for going over his 300GB cap. That is a stupidly low cap and a stupid high charge (only gets you 50GB more). On my Cox connection, which is a similar speed, I get a 2TB cap (and no overages charges if I exceed it).

While data caps are needed to keep people playing nice, since all network resources are shared at some point, Comcast are real jerks about it and keep the caps very low, and charge a stupid amount for overages.

If it was about limiting use thy'd do it like Cox. With Cox, when you exceed the cap nothing happens, it is a soft cap. Depending on how much and how often, they may call you and yell at you. Particularly if you have a lower tier service they'll call and encourage you to move up to a higher tier one (which has a larger cap). They reserve the right to cancel your service if it becomes a problem, but I am not aware of this happening in any cases.

Comment Because most gun control people are strange (Score 1) 688

For a great many of them, the motivating factor isn't making society safer. It is not a reasoned position of "Firearms cause too many injuries and deaths, however research indicates that by implementing X, Y and Z controls we can reduce that number significantly and thus we should to make things safer. Usually it is an emotional "Ahhhh! Guns are scary! I hate guns, I hate the people who like guns, get rid of them!" type of reaction. They've done little to no actual research and study on firearms (or other weapons) and just want it to all disappear by magic.

Unsurprisingly this leads to a lot of bad and ineffective laws.

Also for some it is a statist type of position: They want more weapons control because they believe the government should have more power. It again isn't about safety, it is about control. They want the government to have all the guns.

Hence you get things like trying to ban Tasers and other laws that vilify less-lethal weapons as much or more than firearms. It seems strange from a public safety standpoint, but you have to understand that for those behind it, public safety isn't the concern.

Comment Both (Score 1) 112

T-Mobile has gained a lot, and those customers have largely come from the other three carriers. There's not a lot of room for pure growth, everyone has a cellphone these days, so they mostly steal customers from each other.

T-Mobile's marketing was effective. Also their voice over WiFi proved to be a winner since it is a way to extend coverage without needing to buy a pico cell.

Comment No, not at all (Score 3, Interesting) 112

T-Mobile's plan is $50/month to get unlimited talk, text, 1GB of high speed data, and the ability to have 1 phone. Back when Verizon was doing contracts it was about $90/month from them for the same. Now, if you get an expensive phone from T-Mobile and take the 24 month finance, the plan ends up being around $90/month with the payment and taxes.

Here they thing though: You pay off the phone, your rate drops down to $55ish/month (base plus taxes). It'll then stay at that rate as long as you keep your phone. Also, the rate is less if you get a less expensive phone. Get a cheaper phone, either used or less features, and you pay less because it cost less.

You save money so long as you are willing to keep older hardware, or buy cheaper hardware. It costs about the same only if you buy expensive hardware. Even then it is cheaper, because whereas T-Mobile wants about $90/month with an expensive phone, Verizon wanted that plus $200 up front.

Looking at Verizon now, it looks the same. $50/month (they divide it as $30/month for the plan, $20/month for the phone) gets you unlimited/unlimited/1GB. If you buy a phone up front, that's your rate. Finance it, and it depends on the phone price. That's much lower than when it was subsidized.

Comment Re:No kidding (Score 1) 105

We don't pay a whole lot, we have multiple generation stations, and sell power to California. Also cost of living is generally fairly low in Arizona.

Solar is becoming fairly popular. Most new houses have it, and many businesses do. Older houses are not as often retrofitted though, due to cost.

I live in a condo, so I can't just have it installed, it would have to be a thing the association does.

Comment No kidding (Score 1) 105

I live in Arizona, which is one of the very best places to do solar since it is very sunny, very hot, and a significant portion of your electrical use is for cooling so the panels generate the most when you need it the most AND shade your roof. However they aren't available in this area. Really? I'd the the desert of the southwest would be the first place since, well, that is THE place for solar. I mean ya solar can be used and have some benefit anywhere in the world but the hot, sunny, dry places are where it really works well.

Comment Gaming aside it would probably be harmful (Score 5, Insightful) 170

People just cannot remain 100% focused and productive 100% of the time. It doesn't work that way. Never has in human history, never will. Thus if you try to force that, all you'll do is burn people out. So in the long run, it'll just decrease productivity over all. Better to have people able to goof off, take breaks, and then get back on task then just getting frazzled, working at low efficiency, and staring off in to space.

Comment Same here (Score 4, Insightful) 519

I am willing to play fair and tolerate some advertising, but it finally got too invasive and so I got adblock. I am fine with ads, but only so long as they don't disturb me using the web. No autoplay video/audio, no popups, no interstitial. When they start pulling that crap, well sorry but I'm going to have to opt out. If it kills a site off, too bad, maybe you shouldn't have been so annoying.

Advertisers are going to have to learn to keep it reasonable if they want me to stop using adblocking. As it stands now I block by default and only whitelist sites I know aren't bad about it.

Comment Pretty much (Score 1) 145

The pro industry can get on whatever they like, it doesn't matter as to what people will use. That'll be whatever the big streaming services go for. Youtube, Netflix, Twitch, Amazon, these are the places that matter.

Hardware makers will get on board too. If Youtube needs a certain kind of acceleration to work well, smartphone processors will get it. Doesn't matter if the media industry says it should be something different, they want to sell new phones and something that'll do that is it working well with the streaming services people want.

Also there's the simple issue that they are fighting against existing codecs that already work well. H.264 gives a "good enough" result at speeds that modern Internet connections can cope with. So if new shit costs a lot more and/or has unacceptable restrictions, people just won't use it. Connections aren't getting slower. So you'll have a hard time convincing people to switch to save bandwidth if their bandwidth keeps going up and what they have now is "good enough".

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...