Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers (Score 1) 225

I believe the Nexus phones get updates far before third-party branded phones, no?

Not always. the galaxy nexus was left out this time around, and it wasn't b/c of performance or anything, it's working quiet perfectly with an AOSP build of 4.4.2. The official reason was : it's more than 18 months so fuck you very much.
The point is, if you don't like the phone of X or Y company? simple, don't buy it. And if somehow you're forced to, there's always a way to get rid of the original software and install something else (AOSP builds come to mind as they are what you seem to be looking for), and that is due to the "openness" of android (notice the "").

Comment Re:Google already has a noose on manufacturers (Score 1) 225

.... My phone (a VZW Galaxy Nexus), on the other hand, is crap because Google ceded some of its control to Verizon. So I can't tether or get timely Android updates or clear off the Verizon crap unless I install a third-party ROM, and even then I have to jump through hoops to get the latest Google Apps, and I will always be months behind on Android version updates. If Android were closed to begin with like iPhone was, Verizon could not have done that -- but they also probably would not not have taken Android in to begin with.

That's why, my GSM galaxy nexus is running the latest official google version of android -4.4- (which, it is perfectly capable of running). Oh wait, there's no such thing.
What there is, is AOSP, openness (in a way), that openness gave me (and many many others) the possibility to to get updates, tinker, add features (caller name display comes to mind, there was none for a long time, and it wasn't free).
You want the "Google experience"? Fine buy a google phones from the google play store using your google wallet, not available for your carrier?? well, that's just too bad (not all phones are available for all carriers, this isn't new thing, been like this as far as I can remember).

Comment Re:low cunning, not clever (Score 1) 229

Don't know about comcast, but i'll raise you one bell canada.
sometime ago they went crying rivers to the CRTC saying that they need to impose limites on every single DSL subscriber (a customer of BELL or not, irrespective of the total aggregated amount transfered for a given ISP. Independant ISPs were paying for that bandwidth), b/c simply there's too much congestion (which they absolutely didn't prove). At about the same time they introduced a new TV service, that uses IP multicast on the same (supposedly congested) lines. Guess what that? didn't count at all

Comment Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score 1) 419

No, they are (I suppose, as I have no allergies, nor does my direct family for whom I buy things).
When there is the possibility to ask (allergic people will ask) no need for "mandatory" label. But in my experience if a question gets asked most of the time, it is more efficient to answer onces and for all on a big enough display device (be it a screen, paper or anything that might serve that purpose).

GMO labelling though is a different issue. Much more political than a health issue.

indeed, what I said in my previous post seems like a solution to the labelling problem (without forcing anyone to do anything).

Comment Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score 1) 419

not baning, (I'm for anyone buying- procuring- anything if they feel like it) but merely labelling. This product can contain this and that and let people make the decision to consume or not (someone who's allergic will probably not, someone who doesn't like either -- I don't like hot sauce that contains sugar, usually I look for it on the label, if it weren't on the label i'd have to taste the thing before buying it, which is impossible in the store, before buying it --)
saves lives, and no liability in case of a big incident (lack of information might kill in this instance). The one thing I don t get though in regarding the GMO labelling, if this or that company refuses to label, let them. Then those are not using any GMO in their product, should stop bitching and start advertising that on their boxes. From that consumers should assume that by default GMOs are present. What they do with that info is up to them
-- that said, the fact that GMO are dangerous or not is really irrelevant, as many people stated above and below they avoid GMOs for "political" reasons --

Comment Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score 1) 419

Don't know, but what's done is done. he's stuck with it! all he can do is avoid at any price any contact with anything that touched peanuts. And for that he has to know -it's a matter of life and death for him-
. I know some kid (neighbours) that has never lived in a bubble and I know for sure that he's mother has no fascination for Lysol or anything like that, but he has a mild allergy to shrimps and stuff like that (inconvenienced if he eats any, but that's it).

Comment Re:GMOs feed over a billion people (Score 1) 419

And the peanut allergy scare,

wtf man? it's not a scare, it's a real problem.I have a cousin that is so alergique (I'm not kidding) that the mere presence of peanuts in the room provoque a reaction (a call a freaking ambulance, reaction), it is not an anecdote, I've seen it with my own eyes!
there are people out there that are intolerant to diffrent things, labeling is something that helps them make INFORMED decisions!

Comment Re:DRM (Score 1) 94

on the other hand of the person trust the person you're sending the image to, you can assume safely that they wont keep it. By that an ecrypted *insert any trasport medium* would be enough as you know for a fact (since the receiving party is a trusted one) the pic/msg will be deleted!
services like snapchat will just induce false sense of security (for those who don't understant what you said), and eliminate the only requirement needed which is trust in the persone receiving the data!

Slashdot Top Deals

Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... - Percy Bysshe Shelley