Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Oh give me a fucking break already (Score 1) 262

I am not a Trump supporter but the facts are clear. No new conflicts started by Trump.

By request: list by the conflicts other presidents started. Most inherited some conflict or another. There are many others that were deemed 'coalitions' but were started to further US interests

Obama
          Libya
          Syria
          Uganda
Bush II - OK.. lots of them
Clinton
      Haiti
      Sudan and Afghanistan
      Kosovo
Bush I
      Panama
      Bosnia
      Somalia

Per the parent post, looking at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
confirms 100% that no new conflicts have been started by Trump.
     

Comment Re:Bipartisan, huh. (Score 0) 330

Were I an American citizen I would likely vote democrat, but...

https://www.texasattorneygener...

If the state or federal government wished to have that stricken as a false statement by the Attorney General wouldn't that be news? Wouldn't it have succeeded after a few months of activity?

How about not ONE.. but 95000? Still not enough to make much of a dent in big 'ol Texas but could swing a country or two. That's a lot of electoral votes.

Comment Then eat different species (Score 1) 144

Right away I noticed this report talking about a decline in certain species yet generalized it to a risk for seafood dependent diets so I figured I should look to see which species are winning in the new environment.

According to this Science magazine article, the changing temperatures and increasing acidity of oceans is a boon for Octopus, squid, and cuttlefish.
https://www.sciencemag.org/new...

While I believe wee may see increased prices and decreased consumption of certain species, I am certain other to-be-determined species will thrive in the changed environments as well, and that like Octopus, squid, and cuttlefish, we will find them both delicious and nutritious.

Comment Not comparable (Score 1) 268

How you can compare the hardware or software of a video game, used for entertainment, to things like light switches and other parts of a functioning home is beyond me. I've been holding back from making purchases in this particular growth area of technology and the attitude of the market leader tells me I should continue to do so. This is a total crock.

Comment Re:Why such crap? (Score 1) 263

Here's the wikipedia reference if you want to understand more about what is actually going on. The answers to your questions are pretty easy to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

It's fairly clear the critical flight operations are not allowed to be carried out on those devices. Once reading that article, does it change your perspective? This seems like 'something didn't work right, people were inconvenienced' and 'American should do a better job of QA and change management'

Comment Perceived Performance (Score 4, Insightful) 106

I dislike the separation of 'Perceived' vs 'Actual' performance. If I perceive it to be slow, it's slow. This reminds of of the Firefox devs that spent years saying how if an add-on makes their browser a memory hog and a slowpoke, it's not their problem because their performance is fine.

Devs.. If it's slow, it's slow. Call it perceived, call it actual, call it the Pope for all I care. It's a Slow Pope.

Comment How is the list controlled? (Score 1) 170

An opt-in system may make sense, but when it comes to material some find objectionable the opt-in list itself becomes and issue. Who controls the publication of the list? Will employers or political enemies use the list to smear or block people? Opt-in lists provide a chilling effect.

When one goes to buy a porn mag in a bricks and mortar store, one can pay by cash and remain anonymous as the store may check identification but is not required to make record of it. Not so with an opt-in system.

I for one do not like an opt-in for censored material system.

Comment Wikileaks says he's wrong (Score 1) 241

Wikileaks did some things that may or may not have been illegal in the United States. Wikileaks ability to do business and collect funds was taken down as it was 'in the cloud' and the provider was more worried about their own behind. The network connections were still up as the FCC and other regulators would go medieval on a provider who did this without just cause. This isn't the case for contracted services. An service that is 'unpopular' to a large entity can easily fall victim to this. For example in a large vs small company thing. Imagine Apple taking down thinksecret because they pressure thinksecret's provider threatening to eliminate any exisiting business with said provider. Same thing. It's why I have recommended to the ownership of our company that we do not outsource to the cloud. Instead I have recommended that we implement cloud-like technologies within our own network where it is still powerful.

   

Comment Re:Same happened to Sirius, but they negotiated (Score 1) 254

Record companies aren't at the table here, or are you implying the copyright board is in the pocket of the record companies and just a 'vendor'?

The copyright board of Canada serves more functions than mere disbursement back to record companies. A significant portion of the percentage paid by new licensees (broadcasters) is for Canadian Content Development.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon/r_support.htm

Companies such as Pandora and Sirius have ways around Canadian content regulations, therefore their expected cut of Canadian Content Development is significantly higher.

An artist that is semi-successful in Canada makes less than a McDonalds employee due to the small number of Canadians to whom to sell their music. A similar level of moderate success for an artist in the USA means you get to see them on 'Cribs'.

Canada's copyright board is not a 'vendor'. Canada's copyright board exists to keep Canadians making music, to put money back to the rights holders ('vendor') and to protect the existing players through essentially a punitive tariff. I would agree that parts 2 and 3 are not so great, which supports your earlier post. Ultimately the copyright fees are a cost of doing business and have shown to be negotiable.

I certainly would not call that a 'non-starter'.

Go back to the shareholders and tell them 'Sorry, we walked away from a deal that would add several million annually to revenue because we'd only get to keep half' The cost to Pandora to sell here is minimal, so does it really matter? They are throwing away revenue as every Canadian that I know that understands how Pandora works would probably sign up.

Pandora needs to get off the horse and get down to business.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...