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


Forgot your password?

Comment Who cares? (Score 1) 510

Posts like this are constantly make me question if I should keep returning to this site. Seriously? What parent wouldn't want their kids to be able to hear things if they have the financial means to do so? Who cares if a culture is killed off because we are enabling people to hear/hear again. Should we complain about eliminating wheel-chair marathons because we helped people walk again? Let's just boast about how technology is improving the quality of life instead of focusing on small and insignificant rubbish.

Submission + - FCC orders Comcast to stop charging customers for equipment as service fees (

An anonymous reader writes: The FCC denied an appeal by Comcast, which argued that its practice of charging customers separately for a DTA (digital terminal adapter) â" a converter box that allows cable subscribers with older televisions to receive digital channels, which the company said would be provided at no charge â" is not subject to rate regulation, because it is a service fee. The ruling was issued on March 19.

Submission + - How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion (

pitchpipe writes:

Using the Internet can destroy your faith. That’s the conclusion of a study showing that the dramatic drop in religious affiliation in the U.S. since 1990 is closely mirrored by the increase in Internet use.

I attribute my becoming an atheist to the internet, so what the study is saying supports my anecdote. If I hadn't been exposed to all of the different arguments about religion, etc., via the internet I would probably just be another person who identifies as religious but doesn't attend services. What does Slashdot think? Have you become more religious, less religious, or about the same since being on the internet? What if you've always had it?

Comment Good to See (Score 1) 47

I'm glad they're supporting them. I just hope this phone doesn't come with a barrage of preinstalled apps that I don't need or want. If the phone is clean and basically a Nexus-like device with some cool Cyanogen mods, I'm all for it. I want better hardware at lower prices (who doesn't), but I also want a good experience on the phone. We'll see what this does to the future phone market.

Comment Looks promising. (Score 1) 44

This is actually very exciting for me. I have a fairly advanced Lyme disease with other related diseases (protomyxzoa). I have a worry for long term health issues because Lyme is consistently linked to Parkinson's in the long run. Seeing articles like this always give me the hope I've been expecting with modern medicine and technology. Joe

Comment Seriously? (Score 0) 203

Wow a company is including a new feature with a service people already pay $60 a year for. How dare they! I like that no one mentions getting 2 free games every month as well. Seems like Microsoft is so awful. You need to pay $60 for almost any online service you do on Microsoft. Who the hell seriously expects being able to stream content online without paying for said service? Oh yeah, the OP. Nothing to see here. Move along... PS: Not a MS fanboy by any means. This is just a biased article that doesn't belong here.

Comment Re:The cloud? (Score 1) 782

I'm not sure why everyone is bashing the cloud. If I have more than one Xbox, which I do, my game saves are on both devices without having to save the file to an overpriced flash drive and then deal with moving it from box to box and worry about losing it. They don't charge extra money for cloud saves because they already screwed you with an annual $60 charge. The feature itself can come in handy for those who use. For those who don't, it currently offers no hindrance on my gameplay or experience. I for one do support cloud saves. Now cloud based gaming is an entirely different animal that I am not too fond of.

Comment Re:Where's the fine print? (Score 1) 128

I do agree with you. I'm simply referring to the simple tasks the general public does. Web surfing, iTunes, emails, etc. These are not heavily threaded tasks. Granted the difference is marginal because any modern processor can handle this with ease. Sure in highly threaded workloads the AMDs offer a better bang for your buck, but the general public does not do this on a day to day basis.

Comment Re:Where's the fine print? (Score 1) 128

I guess I need to provide more information to help get my point across. Intel has 4th gen chips that run on a 7 watt TDP. The performance per watt is pretty remarkable. Intel's i7-3770K has a 77 watt TDP. AMD's FX-8350 has a 125 watt TDP, get's spanked by Intel in most benchmarks, and doesn't have any graphics chip on die to drive a monitor. Translating that down, Intel has an advantage. I would love to be proven wrong though.

Comment Where's the fine print? (Score 1) 128

As usual, AMD is leaving out some key information. What will be the TDP of such chips? I've always rooted for AMD and all my systems were built with them. You can't beat an Ivy Bridge chip for performance for watt though. With the i7-3770K, AMD doesn't offer anything compelling to compete. I like the idea that they're using the GCN architecture to assist with processing, but have they done anything to the lithography or power consumption? Intel's haswell chips come out soon and those are even better. Power is key in the mobile space where a lot of chips are going. -Joe

Comment Who really cares? (Score 1) 268

Honestly instead of a pissing match and comparing highest speeds for bragging rights why don't we focus more on getting gigabit connections throughout our country. What good is a gigabit connection if it's only in a select few spots of the country. Good for Sony, but as everyone mentioned before, they'll find some way to make things proprietary like they always do.

Slashdot Top Deals

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson