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


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

Comment Here's a better idea (Score 5, Insightful) 196

Instead of giving Century Link 3 billion dollars to build the infrastructure and then have a monopoly where they can overcharge the customer, let's take that 3 billion and have the government build the infrastructure. Then we let any company who want so use it do so for a small fee. Then not only do we have infrastructure, but we also have competition and at least a small income from the lines, which is better for everyone.

Comment Until they can't (Score 3, Insightful) 527

Sure, FedEx can tell you exactly where a package is, until they can't anymore. It's not like they don't lose packages. The only reason they can track them as well as they do is because they are going to a limit number of areas where they are scanned going in and out of each. And they still lose them sometime. Unless we are going to have immigrant get scanned in everywhere they go, there isn't a way to track people the same way we track packages.

Comment This is how it will go (Score 4, Insightful) 253

Assuming I believe them (which I do for places that have someone else offering gigabit but less so for other places), this is how it will go. If you are in a town with a competitor offering gigabit speeds, it will cost around $100 a month. If you are in a town without a competitor offering gigabit internet, they either will not offer gigabit speed (although they will probably add the infrastructure for when a competitor does) or they will charge $300 a month for it and it will have to be bundled with cable to get that price. Comcast has no real interest in offering better speeds and are being forced to because other companies are. That is the bottom line.

Comment Re:Not all workers are equal. (Score 2) 430

Why are we assuming the other employees are not capable of understanding this? When they ask, the company says "Joe makes more because he has specialized skill X that the rest of you don't have". They may then learn that skill and be more useful to the company in which case they should make more or they don't learn the skill and stay where they are.

And what of the more real life version of this? A company needs to hire 3 people and find 3 equally qualified applicants that they want. The company has budgeted $50000 per job for salary. They offer the first $40000 because they only made $40000 at their last job and they accept. They offer the second $40000 and he counter offers with $44000 and they accept. The last comes from a high paying company so they offer him $55000 and he accepts. You now have 3 equally qualified candidates doing the same work making 3 completely different salaries and overall, the company is coming out ahead because they aren't spending as much as they thought the jobs were actually worth. When they compare salaries and see the difference the lower 2 should demand an increase since they are doing the same job as the highest paid one for less money.

Comment A mixed bag (Score 2) 490

I can definitely see where this could become a problem. A lot of the "girl" toys are playing directly into the gender stereotypes to get girls interested. If you want girls to like it, make it pink and put flowers on it. Instead of working to actually make it something that would actually interest girls (or god forbid both boys and girls) they just slap some paint on it and give it a girly name.

The bigger issue though is that they have to make "girl" things because most of them are specifically geared towards boys. That is why the answer they come up with is to make it girly. There is no reason we need special Legos in a pink box with cats and houses specifically for girls. Just stop specifically targeting boys with your marketing and girls will want to play with it (see the ads from the 70s that have both genders in the ads). More stereotypes are not the answer to the current stereotypes.

Comment the danger isn't immediately afterwards (Score 2) 117

You won't see a huge influx of successful attacks right after support ends. I doubt people are sitting on 2003 vulnerabilities and not using them, just waiting for support to end. If they have them and they work, they would use them now when there are more targets and before someone else uses it and it gets patched. The issue will be when new cross platform vulnerabilities are found that work on 2003. Since those won't be patched, they will continue to remain vulnerable to them. But I don;t imagine there will be a bunch of attacks on 2003 just because ti leaves support.

Comment That's because there is nothing to do (Score 1) 113

Unfortunately, there isn't anything really to do to increase your privacy unless you want to give everything up. Sure, I could start using PGP and encrypt all my emails. That would work great until I actually wanted to send and email to someone, because no one else I know uses PGP. I can use a "secure" search engine, but there is no way to tell if it is really secure or if I am just using an inferior product to make myself feel better. Sure, I can avoid Facebook and Twitter and everything else, but again, I then give up easy contact with those that do. The government has back doors into everything, so unless I avoid anything they might be able to access (which frankly is pretty much everything) there isn't anything I can really do.

Comment Re:danger vs taste (Score 5, Insightful) 630

I never understood this type of reaction. Yes, they are eating a boatload of calories through everything else, but at least they are cutting out a few hundred with the diet coke. Yes, it won't make them thin, but at least they are doing something to try and get healthier and possible lose a little weight, which they should be applauded for. You are probably the same type of person that goes to gym and tells people they should just quit because they aren't lifting enough weight or only doing cardio. The fact is, they are doing something, which is more than some people do and should be encouraged.

Comment One and done (Score 2) 138

Passwords are not a perfect solution, no one denies that. But overall, they are a good solution, especially when combined with something like and RSA key or Google authentication. Biometrics seems easier and more secure, and on the face it is. The issue with biometrics is that once there is a way around it, there is no way to change it. So you fingerprint is secure today. But tomorrow someone comes up with a way to fake your fingerprint. You are now stuck because you can't change you fingerprint. With a password, if it is hacked you can change it. With biometrics, if they are hacked you are entirely screwed because it can't be changed (which is the point of biometrics). Sorry, I'll stick with passwords for now.

Comment Re:hmmm (Score 5, Insightful) 135

I can see the revised police procedure manual now.

"When a suspect resists, but them in a "warm embrace" by placing your arm around their throat and squeezing."
"If a suspect does not follow your instructions, give them a "gentle scalp massage" with your night stick."
"Once a suspect is down, form a "cuddle pile" of 6 or 7 officers on top of them until they stop struggling."

Comment Re:Half way there (Score 1) 119

While this is a great idea that works in the rest of the world, there is no way it can work here. Our tax system is too screwed up for it to work in the US. Most other countries don't have different taxes for different types of income, tax deferred income, tax deductions, tax rebates, and any number of other things to deal with. It would work for people with very simple tax returns but our system is too screwed up for it to work for most people.

This is the same reason a flat tax would never work in the US. No one wants to give up their loopholes and deductions and the only way a flat tax works is if all that goes away.

Comment Re:Accounts (Score 1) 227

While it is true this is what they say, it doesn't make it illegal. Think about it for a second. They are basically saying that without their express permissions, Jimmy Kimmel can't say "Did you see the game yesterday? Can you believe the final touchdown play where Joe Blow ran past 6 defenders to score?" That would be a broadcast of a description of the game. Just because you are broadcasting your retelling of the game doesn't make it any different. The NFL can't stop you from describing what you watched.

Do you suffer painful elimination? -- Don Knuth, "Structured Programming with Gotos"