Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score 1) 188

Is it good enough? Yes.

Your personal standards being low enough to not mind this doesn't make it any less of a bad thing. Some people care more about these things than you do and they pay a premium for quality. When you sign up for an unlimited plan, you expect it to be unlimited so you can enjoy these higher quality streams, especially when the provider explicitly stated they wouldn't be throttling when you signed up for it. It's a basic bait and switch, customers were sold one thing and now they're being given another, there's no reason you should be making excuses for Verizon.

Comment Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score 1) 188

Why would you sell an unlimited data plan if you can't provide it? Why would you tell customers when you launch an unlimited data plan you won't be throttling video only to turn around and start throttling it a few months later? Why are you asking such a stupid question, when it's incredibly obvious why this is a bad thing? It doesn't have to be a net neutrality issue to be bad, that is not the only thing you should look at from you internet provider to determine if you're being treated fairly. As for your comment about 10mbps being sufficient for a 70 inch television, that really just shows you don't understand the difference between resolution and sheer size. You can watch 480p on your 4k 70 inch television and it will still be an image on a 70 inch television, but it will look like shit compared to anything that's actually 4k. But that's not even the point, the point is you shouldn't sell unlimited data and then turn around and limit it like this.

Comment Re:It makes sense (Score 1) 904

The thing most of you don't seem to be grasping, again because you are choosing to be ignorant of the facts, is that not ever transgender chooses to undergo surgery or hormone therapy. So for many transgenders, there is no medical reason to not be allowed to serve. Now, why do we need to ban them from serving? Please explain.

Comment Re:It makes sense (Score 1) 904

Are you failing to comprehend correctly? Not every transgender undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, many are satisfied just to be referred to as what they prefer. There's really no reason to ban them except out of ignorance. I get that you don't know this, because you are ignorant, but that's why we want the people in charge to make informed decisions rather than basing them on ignorance and prejudice.

Comment Re:It makes sense (Score 1) 904

Sounds to me like transgenders could face the same problems as anybody else. If that's an issue, isn't it already covered in how they deal with everyone else with medical needs? There's nothing really unique about the transgender situation, existing policies to address medical issues and procedures (elective or otherwise) should already cover everything that could apply to a transgender. Is there any actual reason to single them out, or are there just a lot of ignorant and hateful people?

Comment Because they can, not have to. (Score 1) 226

Where I work, several employees do work from home because we have remote logins set up for everybody with a computer by default. We disabled this once and had people complain they were no longer able to do little things like respond to emails from home. While my employer tried to make the case for separating work and home life, remote login was enabled again to appease the employees and has remained enabled since. If you ask those employees, they would say they work from home. If you asked my employer, they would say they don't ask anyone to work from home. My suspicion is many of these people that "work from home" have never actually been asked to work from home and are just taking advantage of things like emails syncing to their phone or being accessible via the web. This might still technically be considered working from home, but it isn't the same as your employer requiring you to work from home.

Comment Re:Hmmmmmmm (Score 2) 163

Sounds like your brain fell out. We're talking about things to do with massive amounts of CO2, not complaining about the tiny amounts you already use. The post you replied to very clearly states that. Greenhouses would not be very effective for that. I think you agree, you're just too stupid to realize it.

Comment Re:America! (Score 4, Informative) 341

In this situation, "their way" (the current way) is to have regulations that prevents competition from entering an area the cable companies aren't expanding into amyway, "my way" (the alternative that got shot down) is to get rid of the regulation and allow a profitable company to expand where nobody has yet at no additional cost to taxpayers...

Cities providing internet does not create a "legislated monopoly," it creates a public service. However, having legislation that protects monopolies by not allowing competition does create a "legislated monopoly." Really basic stuff here, guys, shouldn't be this difficult for this crowd.

Comment Re:Still clinging to iPhone limitations (Score 1) 104

Here, this is what I wrote back when people were saying they want removable batteries because Samsung's phones were exploding. Basically it's never going to happen more than it already does because there's no demand and no real benefit for the vast majority of customers, but have a read:

I see a lot of people saying they'd prefer a phone with a removable battery. Here's the thing: They exist, you have that option, everyone does and nobody takes it. Phones with removable batteries don't sell very well and that's why you don't see them advertised all over the place nor do you see manufacturers trying to pack in more features when it's not worth the effort for them. I know, everyone wants to believe the lack of removable batteries is so you'll be forced to replace your phone due to a dead battery instead of getting a new battery. I am going to tell you what my S/O who has sold this stuff for the last decade has told me repeatedly: They made a lot more selling extra batteries than they do selling replacement phones, there has been no notable increase in the rate at which people replace phones while we've made the move to non-removable batteries, and it's actually less common that people come in with complaints about their battery now than before as batteries now typically work well for as long as the average consumer uses their phone. It's also worth pointing out that, back when replaceable batteries were common, folks would often complain about the short lifespan of their batteries claiming they were being forced to buy replacements just to keep their phone on for a day at a time.

I know, I've been using the same phone for years, too. I could use a replaceable battery as mine is not holding a charge the way it used to. We are the minority, most folks don't suffer many ill effects from not being able to replace the battery in their phone. This situation is a fluke, and even after this you will only see a very small minority of folks talking about the need for replaceable batteries. The vast majority of consumers don't care about replaceable batteries and wouldn't really benefit from them.

Comment Re:If Apple built a Hololens we'd never hear about (Score 3, Interesting) 113

So much this. I was actually really excited for the HoloLens, then I got to try it at a trade show. Excitement gone. The concept is awesome, but the product itself just isn't there yet. The gesture recognition was good, but the viewing area was tiny and hard to see, not to mention the headpiece is unwieldy and almost painful to wear even for a few minutes. I really want to like the HoloLens, it's just so bad right now.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!

Working...