Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: What do you mean by "can"? (Score 1) 259

I'd actually given that some thought -- if I wind up in one of the smaller counties, the population is small enough that if I ran for public office, I could campaign literally door-to-door to every household. (And if I did -- I figure my duty as a representative is not "this is what I'll do for you", but rather, "what do you need?")

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 147

cmon, seriously?

soundgarden/audioslave? siouxsie and the banshees? the pixies? david bowie?

some great late 80s and early 90's shit there. Faith no more?

are you even trying?

And aside from Bowie, exactly which of those groups do you hear from anymore....hear their "great" songs still being played on radio or other places...played by cover bands?

How many of those (aside from Bowie) have > 1 song that most people know if you even played it for them?

I think you helped prove my point for me. Thanks.

Comment Re:People are dumb panicky animals (Score 1) 373

Could you seriously justify ending another person's life yourself, if you didn't believe in an afterlife for them?

If that person is trying to kill me? Yes. If necessary in self-defense or the defense of another innocent person, ending an attacker's life is justified. And I teach people how to do it.

I don't believe in an "afterlife" (in the usual sense of that term).

I don't see any relation between these two concepts.

Comment Re:RAID (Score 1) 552

Oops. Brain fart. It was the "Vista International" (at least, until Marriott bought it at some point after I was in Middle School). It's what happens when you grow up in a state like Florida with hotels literally everywhere, and your brain ends up using lossy compression to (somewhat) remember them. Occasionally, you'll remember a hotel whose name is partly right, and partly random fragments of other hotel names you've seen over the years.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 147

That's my point. And yet, every time a new iPhone comes out, inventories are depleted within a few weeks.

How do they "sell-out"? By turning you, the consumer, into the consumed. You're not buying their product, you're what they're selling. Their real customers are AT&T and advertisers and the strategic deals they have with their content providers.

Hell, they could give away their products and still make money.

Comment Re:Same old song and dance (Score 5, Insightful) 332

You think for one minute that Verizon and Comcast want a "free market"?

Is it a free market when there are only a very few players? Are you old enough to remember when there were hundreds of ISPs in every city? When there was actual competition?

The problem is, we're not really Verizon or Comcast's customers. None of us choose them because we like those companies or the services they offer. We choose them because there are no other choices. So now Verizon pays $130billion (with a "B") for Vodaphone, and the only reason they do is because interest rates are near zero (look at the bond prices, not the prime rate). Forget for a moment that if we actually had any enforcement of the law, that merger would get laughed out of court. For that to be worthwhile, interest rates would have to stay near zero for 20 years. But Verizon sees the writing on the wall. They figure they can take out another competitor and then just soak the people who pay them for service (not customers mind. the customers are their "strategic partners", production divisions, advertisers, and the people who they sell your information to).

You're not a consumer, you're the commodity. You're what they selling. You're trapped. Go ahead, move to Comcast and Comcast can say, Go ahead, move to Verizon. They don't give a fuck because they're gonna get paid either way. 'Cause where you gonna go?

Welcome to Corporatism 2013: End-stage Capitalism.

Comment Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 1) 332

You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using.

I know how much bandwidth I'm paying for.

If an ISP cannot supply the bandwidth it has promised, if it has oversubscribed, than it should be prosecuted for the fraud it has committed.

Comment Re:Its fun to read comments on this kind of topics (Score 1) 524

I'd be willing to bet money that 90 percent of you would wilt like a daisy dropped in Death Valley.

Maybe so. One never knows until one's in that position.

OTOH, I do know that when the "Communications Decency Act" passed, I and a whole bunch of other people got pissed off and engaged in civil disobedience (strong language NSFW) at the (small, but we didn't really know at the time) risk of federal prosecution. I was younger and more full of fire then, perhaps; but I like to think that if I received a "National Security Letter I'd still have the testicular fortitude to post it far and wide, snail-mail out as many copies as I could, stand on the street corner handing them out to passers-by until they came to get me.

And then? Go out in a blaze of glory, or let them drag me off to prison in hopes of being a continual embarrassment to them? I don't know. Maybe that's when I'd wilt and say, "ooh, so sorry." But I hope I'd still stick a thumb in their eye first.

Comment Re:would have been awesome had this happened -- (Score 4, Interesting) 56

would have been awesome had this happened a year or two ago when the company was on the upswing, not shortly-to-be-passé.

Part of the problem with tech industry is that company lifecycles are shortening even faster than product lifecycles.

If it takes two or three years between the decision to go public and the actual IPO (plus another 6-12 month lockout period afterwards), and a company can only exist for 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete, the time between the decision to exit and the actual exit takes up a huge portion of the company's arc.

The VCs who backed GRPN and ZNGA made bank. Almost nobody else did. Sometimes you get lucky, like GOOG and LNKD, who raised enough capital to wall themselves off from competition. Sometimes a company can re-invent itself, like AAPL, AMZN and NFLX. Sometimes, you can find a sucker willing to pay top dollar for a worthless asset - MySpace had a good exit and left someone else holding the bag.

But those are the rare successes. Most of the time, the founder rides the rocket all the way up and all the way down to the ground, and even he ends up getting a fraction of what could have been made if he'd only shopped the company out earlier.

It's incredibly difficult to build a sustainable business in this industry. If you catch the big industry cycles: mainframe to micro, micro to client-server, client-server to cloud (mainframe), you can do so. Get out of sync with the industry fads - whether you're 1-2 years early or 1-2 years late - and your company will not outlast the pendulum swing. The optimum strategy is to find a fad, slap something together for $X, and try your damndest to get acqui-hired for $2X in a 1-2 year timeframe. Lather, rinse, repeat. If it's so important to be a CEO, sell the damn company anyways, and use the money you made off the last one to start the next one.

Comment In the end... (Score 1) 332

When it comes down to it Verizon can shit in one hand and charge in the other and in the end they will have a hand full of shit and no customers.
Historically , there have been loads of schemes since the inception of the internet to charge extra, they are all as successful as flapping your arms really hard to fly.
Usually this is the seismic activity that occurs just before a company hires a fleet of "consultants" to streamline....
Sh'long Verizon, we hardly cared for ye.

Comment Re: For those of you that don't RTFA... (Score 1) 378

Who said anything about demo charges? If you know a nutter is gonna crash a plane into X and you just...ohh...say weaken the supports some? You still get the results you want and you even get some nice nutters to blame it on. I think where they fucked up is the third tower, i have NO doubt, none whatsoever, that the plane the passengers crashed in PN was fated to hit that tower and somebody said "Oh shit, now what? Well the supports already weakened, plenty of flammable material put in the janitors closets to help spread the flames, set a fire and we'll say the second plane took it out"

But lets hear your brilliant explanation of how you take out THREE unconnected buildings with TWO planes, because this should be good. remember the Empire State building got hit by a fully loaded BOMBER and that sucker didn't drop, you telling me some flaming debris from a thin as tissue paper passenger jet managed to take out a tower more than a fricking block away? And what about the fighters? what about the air defense? you telling me that the POTUS has ZERO protection from attack? Does this not strike you as unbelievable, even in the slightest? That plane came within blocks of the fricking white house for God's sake!

I'm sorry but ONE irregularity? yeah that could happen, two? Possible, but you have event after event that frankly would either mean the POTUS has NO security AT ALL, even less than some banana republic, our buildings are made of cheap rebar and crap, or something was fishy...your choice but considering this is the same government that only recently admitted that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a "non event", AKA a false flag that got over 58,000 Americans sent home in body bags? Well WTF makes you think the same kinds of guys that would rack up that big a body count would have any problem with three thousand nobodies?

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 246

Uhhh...I think you missed where the conversation was going friend as we were talking about wealth and NOT about population. Here let me illustrate...if we have 100 people in the room (100% of the population) and $100 that is to be divided up among those hundred people and I get $99 dollars of it right off the bat that does NOT make me 99 people, that just gives me control, complete control, of our wealth while YOU and the other 98 guys get to kill yourself fighting over a couple of cents of that last dollar...understand it now?

I'm sure you were confused about the usage of the "1%" moniker which is really just shorthand for the elite, the ones that control more than 80% of the wealth? Actually more like 0.01% if you wanted to view it as relative to the population. Since 0.01% just doesn't roll off the tongue the phrase "1%er" was used instead but reality its more like 0.01%er. Sorry if I caused confusion.

Slashdot Top Deals

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir