Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"The good news"? (Score 1) 196

Maybe, but consider... Movie studios don't make money on movies that get bad reviews. So if they make it impossible for people to find reviews of a new release, they can sucker more patrons to the theater before word gets around. How many movies do you go see after finding reviews with one and two stars? And given the utter unimaginative crap that Hollywood is passing off for entertainment lately, this may actually be a reasonable business move for them.

Comment Re:Don't use iOS (Score 1) 573

I think what they are trying to say is that you still have to get it from somewhere, sideloaded or not. If the ugly patent people do their jobs, they would send legal takedown notices to any place they find has the software. 10 minutes on Google would cover 90% of them. I suppose those places could ignore the notices, but why would they risk that? Alternately, PRC, SCS could simply send a cease and desist to the app maker, preventing any further updates at all, anywhere. Which is what the GP was speaking to in the first place. The fact that it's on iOS remains irrelevant.

Comment Re:Sony MDR 7506 (Score 1) 448

Honestly, I would be quite surprised to find a decent pair of headphones (sound and comfort-wise) for less than $100. For less than $50 you can probably get something light and comfy, but it'll be crap for sound quality and isolation. Or you can find something that isolates well, but squeezes your brains out your nose and sounds like the inside of a garbage can. But once you hit the $100 mark, then you start to have some real choices. I've had three pairs of MDR V6's, and for the money, I have yet to find anything close in terms of sound, isolation, and comfort. BUT - Sony has turned the physical *quality* of these headphones into utter garbage. The first pair I had lasted 10 years with pretty hard abuse. The second pair made it 2 years before literally falling apart. They also changed the material used to make the spiral phono cord into that horrid Sony patented TangleMatic crap that got so bad that I finally chopped the damnable thing off and put on my own shorter straight cord, as any 'studio monitor' should have in the first place. My third pair is already dying (cushions) after less than a year, and the cord is getting snipped this weekend.

The sound range on the V6's is incredible for the money, but damnitall, Sony has dropped the ball on quality and that alone makes them a poor choice today.

Comment Re:Why Sync at all? (Score 1) 239

Any serious photographer is probably going to be shooting camera RAW format, which, with any modern digital camera is going to be at least 16 megs an image or more. This guy says he's shooting 200-300 images *a day*. So 3.2 gigs conservative, to 6.3 gigs with a 10 megapixel sensor. Per day. Upload. On WiFi... And all that while he's out someplace with an unfamiliar/restricted network (hotel, internet cafe etc...).

Yeah, that'll work.

Comment Does cable internet count? (Score 1) 648

Or just a cable TV subscription? Seems like it would have to be the TV side to make *any* sense at all for them.

Why is the government not splitting cable companies in two? One side for TV, and one side for internet - since the two are now in competition with each other.

And when did cable companies start *making* content? Aren't they distributors of content?

Comment Re:Why does Apple hate America? (Score 1) 599

Corporations aren't "moral" or "immoral". They are machines for profit. Always. This is why Citizens United was such an outrageous mistake. We gave corporations all the protections and benefits of "people", without the moral regulation that usually comes with them. Corporations like Apple are only doing what corporations do. It's a little like bringing a wild animal into your home and then being angry at them when they bite you. Is biting you wrong? Sure, but that's what wild animals do.

Comment Re:I have no real problem with DRM on my ebooks (Score 1) 299

I think what they mean is that it doesn't really change anything. You still can't give your book to a friend, or even lend it out without risking that somewhere along the line it could be pirated and leave you at the sharp end of the law. We *hope* our friends are trustworthy enough, but shit happens. Someone steals your laptop, or a college buddy uses your computer and uploads the book to TPB with your name on it, whatever. Watermarking is dangerous because it makes *you* liable for protecting the copyright of a purchase. If someone steals a physical book from me, then I'm just out a book. If someone steals a watermarked ebook and then distributes it, I could be liable. The problem is that I *shouldn't* be. Theoretically, you can't *prove* that it was me who infringed, even though my name is on the book.

This is a serious shift in copyright. It takes the onus of protection off of copyright holders, and puts it on the reader/user. That seems like a really bad idea from the consumer's point of view.

Comment Re:I don't understand the case... (Score 1) 279

"learn to logic"? Learn to speak.

Let me "logic" it out for you...

"And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases.""
- false. There's no "pushing" here. If anything it's enticement. But just for the sake of argument, let's say Apple is being accused of this and continue.

  "Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store."
- true. Focus on the word "control" here.

"And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions."
- Oops. This is where the poster steps off the logic train. This is complete assumption. I'm sure you could read through the TOS on the App Store and find numerous paragraphs specifically releasing Apple from all responsibility for the use and content of the Apps they sell. The "control" mentioned earlier applies *only* to the choice to sell or not sell a given app, NOT it's use. That stays completely within the realm of the account holder (notice I did not say 'app user').

I'm sorry you can't keep *your* kids under control, but mine do just fine, thank you very much.

Comment Re:I don't understand the case... (Score 0) 279

"Exercising control" of all apps, and being "responsible" for the ethical and moral content of those apps is *totally* different. They can allow whatever the hell they want, even selectively. If you sign up, then the onus is on you to decide if the content is morally and ethically "responsible". If said games were targeted *only* at children, you might have a case, but as far as I am aware, Apple makes no distinction other than to possibly rate content upwardly, ie: may contain adult language, etc, which a parent can restrict, even back when the case was filed.

The plaintiff's failure as a parent, does not make Apple guilty. The very act of having an iOS device requires that an adult is involved with a credit-card, and as such, is responsible to monitor said device should they put it in the hands of a "child" who wouldn't know better. You wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a child and then sue the gun manufacturer when the kid blows away your neighbor, or maybe you would.

Slashdot Top Deals

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn