Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Terms and Conditions. (Score 1) 284

by fahrbot-bot (#49563847) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

Verizon entered this contract with ESPN to be able to sell ESPN content ...

Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc ... basically saying that if they want the more desirable channels Verizon must carry the less desirable channels - because Disney has sunk a fuck-ton of money into ESPN ...

I also don't see your analogy as being the same. Customers pay Verizon for the bandwidth and Verizon is a customer paying Disney for Disney, ABC, ABC Family and ESPN* but with the added bonus of being required to buy them all to get the ones Verizon and its customers actually want.

You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.

Comment: Terms and Conditions. (Score 3, Informative) 284

by fahrbot-bot (#49562719) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

"We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts."

Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.

Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them. Sure, I understand that a-la-carte programming *may* be expensive - at the moment - but I imagine business models and revenue streams will adapt as time goes on. In the mean time, Disney can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Comment: Re:Since when (Score 1) 505

by fahrbot-bot (#49562467) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

All good points, though Aspartame has a pretty distinctive taste, especially in contrast to sugar. Perhaps I shouldn't have lead with the phrase "idiot" as I didn't mean it in the intellectual sense. I have known a few people to exaggerate or get a little too hyperbolic about a (sometimes supposed) food allergy or sensitivity. Like a woman I know who says she's allergic to chocolate (which is actually *super* rare) when I know she's in fact not, but just wants to avoid eating it because it's her "crack" - which is fine, but it would be better if she'd just own up to her chocolate addiction than claiming a medical condition.

Comment: Re:Since when (Score 2) 505

by fahrbot-bot (#49561733) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

When he ordered a drink, he specifically said "NOT diet, I can't have phenylalanine". They brought him Diet Coke. He drank enough that some time (maybe twenty minutes) later, ...

Not to throw soda on your story or that person, but, if true, he's obviously an idiot. I don't know *anyone* that cannot tell the difference between regular and diet soda with one sip. In addition, according to the Wikipedia page you referenced, people with that affliction, at least if severe enough to cause the kind of reaction that guy mentioned, would be on a severely restricted diet and restaurant dining would be problematic:

The diet requires severely restricting or eliminating foods high in Phe, such as meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, legumes, cheese, milk and other dairy products. Starchy foods, such as potatoes and corn are generally acceptable in controlled amounts,

Lastly, there's nothing to indicate that a trip to the hospital would be warranted, especially for such a small amount ingested:

PKU is not a food allergy or a digestive problem. Eating "forbidden" foods does not cause an immediate reaction. The phenylalanine from that food remains in the person's system, however, and as Phe accumulates over time they may experience concentration and mood problems, as well as eczema and other symptoms

I'm not saying your story or his reaction is BS, but I'm a little dubious.

Comment: Re:Unity next (Score 1) 467

by fahrbot-bot (#49549381) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Comment needs funny+insightful, slashidiots give troll...

Thanks. Seems "troll" is sometimes used when someone simply doesn't like what you say (or doesn't under stand it). I don't know whether to be sad or annoyed in those situations. In *this* case "off topic" might have been appropriate, as I was intending it as a funny comment to something in anther post, but not related to the main story, though people sometimes use that mod because they, apparently, simply have a stick up their ass.

In any case, I wasn't slamming systemd, even though I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea or, at least, a bad implementation - hmm, Lennart wrote it, so probably both. (see, that's a slam) :-)

Comment: Re:Women CEO's. (Score 3, Insightful) 194

by fahrbot-bot (#49532261) Attached to: Yahoo Called Its Layoffs a "Remix." Don't Do That.

A company's one thing. Just be thankful there's no chance of one running the country.

Hang on a minute...

No, hang on another minute...

Shit, gimme a beer.

So far, the alternatives are a garden gnome from Canada, I mean, Texas, an ophthalmologist that can't spell "education" from Kentucky, or a really thirsty Floridian.

(That beer is looking mighty refreshing...)

Comment: Re:True (Score 2) 52

by fahrbot-bot (#49524299) Attached to: Protein Converts Pancreatic Cancer Cells Back Into Healthy Cells

While I doubt that's the exact medical terminology used, it's quite correct. The five year survival rate is only 6% although it apparently can get up to ~20% in limited circumstances. If this works as well hoped, it would be a rather big deal because right now it's practically a death sentence.

Although, for some perspective, from Wikipedia for Glioblastoma multiforme (brain tumor):

GBM is a rare disease, with an incidence of 2–3 cases per 100,000 person life-years in Europe and North America ... Median survival with standard-of-care radiation and chemotherapy with temozolomide is 15 months. Median survival without treatment is 4½ months.

Sure, it's *way* more rare, but treatment options suck. My wife Sue died of this in early 2006, just 7 weeks after diagnosis - her only complaint was a persistent headache and mild disorientation. Remember Sue...

Comment: Re:HTTPS Everywhere - 3rd Party Certs? (Score 3, Interesting) 70

by fahrbot-bot (#49508185) Attached to: Chrome 43 Should Help Batten Down HTTPS Sites

"Does it really matter...." is an intellectually lazy argument. Yes it matters.

No it doesn't not for everything or even most things. You're over-thinking things and conflating the important with the unimportant, the big things with the little. Stop sweating the little things.

I used to get more worked up about things, like you apparently are, but then in late 2005, after 20 years together, my wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died, literally in my arms, just 7 weeks later. I heard her last breath, felt her last heartbeat and learned what the word "forever" means.

So, having my NYT or /. connection encrypted isn't really that important - my banking connection, yes, but I try to keep everything in perspective. The scenarios you've described lack some of that.

I'm not "intellectually lazy" I just know what is and is not important - for me anyway.

Also, entities like Google are not encrypting their connection to protect your privacy, it's to protect their revenue stream, so third-parties cannot skim ad/search information w/o paying Google for it.

Comment: Re:HTTPS Everywhere - 3rd Party Certs? (Score 2) 70

by fahrbot-bot (#49506953) Attached to: Chrome 43 Should Help Batten Down HTTPS Sites

The HTTPS Everywhere is a great idea, but how great when so many use self signed certs. This just gives the illusion of security. One of the biggest problems here is that browsers don't recognize legit free third party cert authorities like CAcert.

I disagree that Everywhere is a great idea. Seriously, does it really matter if an NYT article or /. is delivered securely, or 99.9% of search queries?

Comment: Re:privacy? (Score 4, Informative) 275

by fahrbot-bot (#49502419) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Features Would You Like In a Search Engine?

Try google verbatim. Saves having to put quotes on every word.

What was wrong with '+' as an operator, anyway?

According to Google Drops Plus Sign from Search Operators

It has to do with limiting confusion about the search engine’s social network, Google+.

To Baio, “it seems obvious that they’re paving the way for Google+ profile searches. When Google+ launched ... they coined their own format for mentioning people – adding a plus to the beginning of a name... The fate of the ‘+’ symbol was clear: protect a 12-year-old convention loved by power users, or bring Google+ profile searching to the mainstream? It was doomed from the start.”

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll