Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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:Far from reality (Score 1) 49

Though I wonder how Europa Universalis would do it.

My guess is that Russia would form and Kebab would start gobbling up the Balkans. A fractured mess of power would persist in the HRE while Castile inherits Burgundy. England would sit around and not do much except colonize, sip tea, and munch on carpets I mean crumpets. Consequently, Poland would do jack and shit and remain split from Lithuania.

Meanwhile Ming explodes like usual and in an uncommon strange turn of events Japan fails to unite and instead you only see the Tosokawas.

Comment: Re:The big thing that is missing (Score 1) 623

by Talderas (#49141385) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Once again, this is about logical net neutrality, not physical net neutrality, which is a whole other ball of wax. This is about making sure that Comcast doesn't charge you extra for access to NetFlix or Twitch.tv, and then turn around and charge NetFlix and Twitch.tv more to access you. Because prior to Title II classification, that was entirely possible.

Possible but unrealized.

Comment: Re:Can't be enforced. (Score 1) 623

by Talderas (#49141311) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Yeah, I'm getting annoyed at this whole "years in court" thing too. Title II is NOT new. It was established in 1933-4? and lasted until the late 90s I believe. Title II is very well tested. Further, we've had several DC circuit court cases in 2014 where the judges said that the FCC had the authority if they reclassified. They have. Done Deal.

What judges ruled was that the FCC couldn't regulated the ISPs because the ISPs weren't classified under Title II. The judges did not rule on whether classifying the ISPs under Title is actually legal. The latter is part of the cases that will be brought up over the next couple years.

Comment: Re:Or... (Score 0) 593

by Talderas (#49126503) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Comcast and Verizon never throttled Netflix and the evidence that was put up to show that throttling occurred combined with Level 3's response to Verizon indicated exactly what was going on. The links were just congested and that's the problem.

Actual throttling is easy to prove intentional throttling. Putting it into place is enough to show intent. Congestion is a whole different beast and you need to get into a very nuanced reading of the regulations to see what intentional means and whether it would even apply in these situations. My gut feeling is that it won't because the traffic is being pushed to them which would mean the regulations are useless at preventing the sort of "throttling". Comcast isn't charging Netflix $1,000,000 to not have their stuff throttled. They're charging Netflix $1,000,000 to have a direct access to their network.

Comment: Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? (Score 1) 431

by Talderas (#49126395) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

I agree with the grandparent. It doesn't make sense to build to Gulf coast, if you're just shipping to China. Better to make a second pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is easily the closest shipping to China.

The only reason you wouldn't ship it to the west coast is if you lack ports capable of servicing the tankers and I'm talking the depth of the ports and not whether you have the facilities themselves since the latter can be built up at the same time that the pipeline is being built.

Comment: Re:If I were a publisher, I'd definitely agree (Score 1) 256

by Talderas (#49126317) Attached to: The Case Against E-readers -- Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading On Paper

People here look at the functional benefit of e-readers without realizing the intangible benefit of paper books. It has nothing to do with the books themselves. The fact that you're reading a book is mostly a mild diversion to the true purpose of reading a book, which is to get laid. Just like everything involving getting laid, the book is a prop that demonstrates certain things about you and given some of the more common traits among millenials these days the right type of book can set you heads above others. This is a drastic change from the past because things associated with being a nerd or intelligent weren't always as highly prized in the past but such things are now considered in vogue.

To a woman, reading a book gives you a sense of aloofness and makes you appear disarmed and less threatening which is good in a society where we seem to be constantly bombarded with men being predators. The construction style of the book (hardcover vs paperback) is one of the indicators they can use to identify your financial stability. People also know that hard covers take more space so if you do keep multiple books and prefer hardcover, a fact you should bring up, it's going to indicate taht you have the space to own and keep multiple hardcover copies, again another financial indicator. The type of book (nonfiction vs fiction) can further reinforce the security of your character. Reading a hardcover of Song of Fire and Ice isn't as good as reading a hardcover version of War and Peace but reading a paperback copy of War and Peace, if that even exists, is still better than reading a hardcover of Song of Fire and Ice. Reading a non-fiction book that is current politcal topic is usually a bad idea. You're going to alienate some women if their political views diverge from the book regardless of your personal views. So I would recommend avoid taking any books on a political figure that has been actived since about 1980. Most of the political figures from before 1980 aren't significant enough factors that ostracize millenials. I'm sure these other advantages that I'm missing but those are just the more obvious signs that can be picked up from books.

e-Readers provide none of these benefits. At best you might get the financially stable bit because you purchased the device but the ebooks themselves are equivalent to paperback in the monetary value of hardcovers is simply not present. Though I really just look at how many women have ended up in my arms because of hard cover books and e-readers and I can say that based on my experience the hard cover book is vastly superior.

Comment: Re:Boring (Score 1) 286

by Talderas (#49111613) Attached to: An Evidence-Based Approach To Online Dating

Well, having talked with a number of people who are divorced with children I found two interconnected central themes to most of them. Money and stress. Two young people dating living a high life because both have their own incomes, then they get married and within two years a child is born. The mother, typically, stops working to care for the child and then another child comes along a bit later. This eventually stretches out into 7-10 years where the family has gone from living high as DINKs to adding three dependents (1 adult, 2 children) onto a single income. Often times the extended vacation from working is justified under the pretense of "day care is just as expensive" and "let's me stay home with the kids". Which is fine but the motiviation for the parent that quit to seek out new work 7-10 years later once daycare shouldn't be needed and the children are more capable can be significantly sapped. Thus, try going from a high lifestyle to sustaining a lower lifestyle while a lot of your financial plans are pushed back and delayed and see how much stress you undergo and that stress is partially caused by the non-working spouse.

Comment: Re:Perhaps it wouldn’t pass today’s .. (Score 1) 286

by Talderas (#49081273) Attached to: 1950s Toy That Included Actual Uranium Ore Goes On Display At Museum

Primarily because the poster in question used the phrase "radiation poisoning". He dropped a line about similarities to Gulf War Syndrome then doubled down on the radiation poisoning by later discussing the long half-life of uranium. I have seen numerous posters who will readily admit that ingesting or otherwise having uranium inside the body is toxic and poisoning. It's a heavy metal and like other heavy metals that's not good for the body but it's not radiation poisoning. He may have a valid point regarding heavy metal toxicity, not that he would have recognized that was what he was talking about, but it's lost in a bunch of lunatic nonsense.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...