Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Oh no! (Score 1) 405

The Xerox machine broke and someone wrote "Out of Order" on a piece of paper with a Sharpie and Scotch-taped it to the machine.

I found a picture of a Walkman that had been modified to connect to an iPod, but it turned out to be Photoshopped.

I used my iPad to Google for a way to send a box of Kleenex to the Microsoft executives.

Writing this post has given me a headache, but I can't decide if I want to take Tylenol or Aspirin.

Comment: Re:Huh... (Score 4, Insightful) 183

There are so many analogies I could make for that.

Ford Motor Company eliminates Ford brand and replaces it with Edsel.
Microsoft changes Windows 7 to Windows Vista Second Edition.
Cisco to deprecate Cisco trademark in favor of Linksys. *

* Yes, I realize that Cisco no longer owns Linksys.

Comment: Re:reliability (Score 1) 183

Actually, most SSDs support SMART and/or have their own monitoring system. Unless you're buying bargain basement SSDs, most of them have perfectly servicable lifecycle management.

(Purely as an example, here's Samsung's listing of the SMART attributes in their SSDs: http://www.samsung.com/global/...)

That said, yes. When SSDs get the "computer will no longer boot to the OS" point of their lifecycle, you're a lot less likely to be able to recover any information. But, like magnetic disks, by the time you get to that point, you've generally been ignoring other symptoms.

Comment: Re:Gonna get sued! (Score 2) 57

Doesn't Samsung manufacture their own displays? I'm pretty sure that if Samsung had any issues with them incorporating that display, they just wouldn't have sold it to them.

I suppose it's possible that they might actually be buying Note 3's and disassembling them. And I can see that possibly causing a problem for them. But I also can't imagine that being particularly economical.

"This is how you disassemble a Note 3 and get the display from it without breaking it. Any questions?"
"Nope."
"Good. Now do it forty five thousand times."

Comment: Too little, too late. (Score 2) 238

by thevirtualcat (#47466447) Attached to: Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+

My problem with the real name policy wasn't using my real name on Google+. When I had a Facebook account, I used my real name there.

My problem with the real name policy was that if you used Google+, it would retroactively change all your OTHER Google services to use your real name. Half of the people I use my GMail account to communicate with don't actually know my real name. Now, of course, I could get a Google+ account and continue using the same name I've been using on my GMail account for years.

Except that I don't actually use GMail anymore.

At the time, Google+ was sucking up other Google services and forcibly integrating them. I didn't see why GMail would be an exception to that in the long run and I wanted nothing to do with it.

So it's great that they've removed the real name policy and are no longer agressively integrating their other services into it, but...

Too little, too late. I've already left.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...