Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: CDMA Carriers (Score 5, Insightful) 256 256

by ZildjianKX (#43072421) Attached to: White House Urges Reversal of Ban On Cell-Phone Unlocking
" should be able to use it on another network". Outside the scope of unlocking, but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you? This seems worse than cell phone locking. Both Verizon and Virgin Mobile both told me I couldn't use an iPhone 4S (CDMA/GSM phone) on their network unless they sold it to me.

Comment: Tethering (Score 2) 138 138

by ZildjianKX (#39190363) Attached to: AT&T Should Be Investigated For 'Fraudulent' Data Policies, Says PK
I love how now that they have data caps, they STILL charge for tethering, even though they have no justification for doing so. I also love how if you put a smartphone on their network, they will add a data plan and charge you for it, even if you have data BLOCKED on your account.

Comment: Good and bad (Score 1) 261 261

by ZildjianKX (#34194054) Attached to: When DLC Goes Wrong
There is a whole range of DLC. Some of it really needs to die. GREAT: Wipeout HD Fury: Doubled the length of the game and added new multiplayer modes for $10. TERRIBLE: Oblivion horse armor. Assassin's Creed 2 sequences that were clearly cut from the game due to time restraints. All overpriced map packs. I really wish people would stop buying this crap so companies would stop making it. While we're talking about DLC, I wish retailer exclusive DLC for pre-ordering would go away.

Comment: Re:Charge for tethering is a complete rip-off now (Score 1) 514 514

by ZildjianKX (#32464850) Attached to: Mixed Reception To AT&T's New Data Pricing Scheme
I agree with you 100%. Also, isn't this a violation of net neutrality? As I see it, they are discriminating against the packets originating from my laptop, and charging $20/month for the right to transmit those packets. We're already paying for the bandwidth, so they can't use that as an excuse.

Comment: Re:Sony has dealed with this before (Score 2, Interesting) 396 396

by ZildjianKX (#31872234) Attached to: Sony Refuses To Sanction PS3 "Other OS" Refunds
This brings back some bad memories. My PSP had 18 (yes 18) dead pixels and Sony refused to warranty it and ebgames refused to exchange it without buying a protection plan (Sony explicitly told them they wouldn't take back PSPs with dead pixels). $25 later (from buying the protection plan), I swapped it out after a year when the systems had better build qualities. The new unit had a perfect screen. I bought a slimmer model later and the screen was fine. Maybe the launch units were the only bad ones, but still... Sony handled it horribly. I guess I forgot about that when I bought my PS3...

Comment: Tethering... (Score 1) 110 110

by ZildjianKX (#29474281) Attached to: FCC To Propose Net Neutrality Rules
So... why exactly does discriminating against packets sent from a tethered device not violate net neutrality? Why should I have to pay more to tether my laptop? If you want to argue that tethered users use more bandwidth, then clearly set bandwidth caps and let me use my bandwidth however I want to.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.