Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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:And the escalation continues (Score 2) 253

The next generation of "trolls" will only be more careful. Hope he feels proud of himself for stooping to their level.

Unfortunately (for the Internet trolls) being "more careful" isn't necessarily an option. What Curt Schilling actually demonstrated is that it's trivially easy to "out" or "dox" most people due to their blindly spewing every last bit of personal information about themselves all over the Internet.

Comment: Re:Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score 2) 165

by rudy_wayne (#49057517) Attached to: Star Trek Continues Meets Kickstarter Goal, Aims For Stretch Goals

The original acting was pretty bad as well. Not to mention the sets, the entire premise (Really, the Captain, First Officer and Chief Doctor of a star ship beams down to $random planet in T-shirts? What Starfleet manual did that come out of?).It was the time and place that made Star Trek what is was. This was 1966. We hadn't made it to the moon but NASA was on a roll. 2001 hadn't even hit the screens.

The stories really don't age well, the characters really don't age well and we sure the hell didn't age well.

Ultimately, that's the problem. I thought the original Star Trek was great. But, it was 1966 and I was 12 years old. In reality, the "good old days" never actually existed and they weren't actually as good as we remember them.

A faithful re-creation of the original Star Trek is NOT a good idea. There simply have been too many advances in the last 40 years. The cheap sets, cheesey special effects and bad acting just aren't tolerable any more.

Comment: Re:There is no hope. (Score 1, Troll) 223

by rudy_wayne (#48981921) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Gaining Control of My Mobile Browser?

"Mobile" is basically a trailer for the cryptographically sealed dystopia after the demise of the general purpose computer. Your options are basically 'consume that content, just the way its creator intended you to' or 'walk away'..

Yes, that is correct. And 'walk away' is exactly what people need to do. .The ADD/OCD stare-at-your-phone-every-minute-of-the-day crowd doesn't want to hear it, but if you're having problems surfing the web on your phone, it's because you're doing it wrong.

Browsing the Internet on a phone is a perfect example of the old saying: "Just because you *CAN* do something, doesn't mean you *SHOULD*." Other than the occasional "I need to look up directions to somewhere" I leave my Internet use to comfortably browsing on a real computer where I am in complete control of what software is installed and how it is configured.

If people would 'walk away', a huge drop in mobile ad revenue just might get the message across that websites need to clean up their act. Until then, you're just part of the problem.

Comment: Re:Why would anyone buy something from those catal (Score 4, Insightful) 65

by rudy_wayne (#48892357) Attached to: Smartphones, Tablets and EBay Send SkyMall To Chapter 11

Smartphones, Tablets and EBay had very little to do with the demise of SkyMall. Long before those things ever existed people weren't buying SkyMall's useless, overpriced crap. It's amazing they held on for this long. They must have a parent company with lots of money to waste.

Comment: Re:Is it really a surprise? (Score 2, Insightful) 199

by rudy_wayne (#48847283) Attached to: Insurance Company Dongles Don't Offer Much Assurance Against Hacking

That most people don't give a damn about security "because it is hard"?

Actually, security is not hard. But, security done properly requires you to commit substantial resources -- people, time, money. And that cuts into profits, so most most companies are not interested.

Comment: Re:Obligatory Onion link (Score 2) 314

by rudy_wayne (#48821823) Attached to: Radio Shack Reported To Be Ready for Bankruptcy Filing

But why now? Even back in the 1980s they were selling random overpriced crap, and there were rarely any customers in the stores. They were openly hostile to the few that ventured in, demanding name, address, and phone number for the privilege of buying a battery. Why is it only now, three decades later, that they are finally going under?

In the 80s they at least sold stuff that people wanted. VCRs, computers and computer components, stereo systems and components (speakers, receivers, turntables, etc). And there weren't a lot of other companies selling those products (at least where I live).

But nobody buys those things any more. As the demand for those products disappeared Radio Shack removed them from their stores, leaving them with nothing to sell. And the few things they do have that someone might want can be bought elsewhere, probably cheaper and with less hassle.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 4, Interesting) 448

by rudy_wayne (#48758221) Attached to: Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For

But this is a weak analogy at best. I now pay for a bunch of sports channels and kids TV that I don't care about. Your example of internet access; if I'm not going to use it on the plane I don't have to pay for it. Same thing for the light snack or entertainment. I don't have to pay for it. Or I can bring my own candy bar. But with cable, if I want Channels X & Y, I have no choice but to get the package that offers Channels M through Z whether I want them or not. The idea that now you have to pay for a lot of things individually on airlines that you used to get for "free" assumes that I cared about any of those "free" things in the first place.

The problem is, getting rid of the things that you don't want and only getting the things you want, doesn't necessarily lead to lower prices.

People want unbundling of cable channels because they have done the following math:

200 channels for $100 a month = 50 cents per channel.
Therefore, if I pick only the 50 channels I might ever possibly care about, my bill will be 50 x 0.50 = $25, a substantial savings.

But there's nothing forcing the cable company to charge the same price for every channel. If you have odd tastes and most of the 50 channels you like are very unpopular, you might actually get your 50 channels for around $25.. But there's nothing stopping the cable company from charging much higher prices for the channels they know are the most popular, so, you could end up choosing your 50 channels and still end up paying about the same amount of money that you pay now for 200 channels.

Comment: Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs (Score 3, Insightful) 182

Is one liable when a bunch of semi-autonomous code goes off and does something bad?

The entire premise here is flawed. The code didn't just accidentally do something bad.

That would be like me randomly shooting a gun and if a bullet happens to kill someone I say "I didn't do it deliberately so it's OK".

Comment: Re:I think its gonna be a long long time (Score 4, Interesting) 105

It's an interesting idea, but getting *TO* Mars isn't the real problem. The biggest problem, that nobody is talking about (because they have no idea how to solve it), is *LANDING* on Mars.

http://www.universetoday.com/7...

The real problem is the combination of Mars’ atmosphere and the size of spacecraft needed for human missions. While the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities. "It’s this ugly, grey zone. There’s too much atmosphere on Mars to land heavy vehicles like we do on the moon, using propulsive technology, and there’s too little atmosphere to land like we do on Earth. Until we come up with a whole new system, landing humans on Mars will be an ugly and scary proposition."

Comment: Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert (Score 0) 78

Worldwide Pants is the production company owned by David Letterman. Looks like he won't be getting a cut of the new Colbert Show. But that's OK. Worldwide Pants owns Everybody Loves Raymond, which is still in syndication and has made a few gazillion dollars.. When Letterman retires next year I'm pretty sure he won't have to get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter to make ends meet.

Comment: Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore (Score 1) 78

Content owners want you to watch on cable TV, not YouTube.

Why? They still get paid regardless.

Viacom and the other "content owners" collect billions of dollars a year from all the cable/satellite companies, just for the right to carry their programming. If I never watch a single minute of TV, Viacom and all the others still get paid.

Comment: Re:Man, am I old ... (Score 1) 173

by rudy_wayne (#48619317) Attached to: Backblaze's 6 TB Hard Drive Face-Off

It's harder for me to listen to users justify their "need" for several hundred gigabytes or even terabytes of storage for their personal archives.

Call somebody a pat rat hoarder in real life and they'll likely become horribly offended. Accuse them of the same thing in virtual space, and they wear it like a badge of honor.

I wonder if the average consumer realizes that when they die, no one will give a shit about going through terabytes of crap.

Hoarding physical objects takes up increasing amounts of physical space. Instead of a basement filled with a hundred boxes, I have 8 TB of archived data that takes up about the same amount of physical space as a single hard cover book.

And I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my terabytes of stuff. it's for me, not them. And when I die I'm sure they'll just throw it out and free up those few precious square inches of 'wasted' space.

Comment: Re:Pretty sad (Score 1, Flamebait) 156

by rudy_wayne (#48613141) Attached to: Dr. Dobb's 38-Year Run Comes To an End

I was a subscriber back in the day. Sad to see it going, but it's not too surprising, given modern trends.

Ah yes. the modern trend of selling out.

From TFA:
"Our parent company, United Business Media (UBM), has decided to sunset Dr. Dobb's."

Like so many others, the founders were happy to collect a big pay day and walk away, leaving it in the hands of some other company who only cares about maximizing profits at the expense of all else. And when the profits can't be maximized to their liking they are happy to shut it down. Oh well, Dr. Dobbs lasted a lot longer than most, so I guess there's that.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.

Working...