Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's time for an Android alternative (Score 1) 151

Cyanogen is all but dead friend. I know I'll get shit but you want a tablet YOU control? Get one of those Windows 10 tablets, nice thing about those is since its a desktop OS you can run something like ShutUp10 and run a nice light third party firewall to make sure nothing gets out that YOU don't approve of. You can also replace all the default apps with any programs you normally use on a desktop, replace the browser with Pale Moon or Comodo Dragon, replace the trial of office 365 with LibreOffice, etc.They have them starting at $47 on Amazon for the 7 inch models but personally I'd spend a little more and get one of the 2GB models because you can never have too much RAM.

I'm just glad I hung onto my little netbook, I can run any OS from BSD to XP on it, was easily upgraded to 8GB of RAM, thanks to the AMD APU I can use it as a 1080P HTPC and even after 5 years I still get nearly 3 and a half hours on a battery. Now I just need to get off my behind and upgrade the HDD with an SSD, its a bit of a PITA to do with one of those EEEs but I've seen vids of the performance gains you get on one when you do it so its worth the hassle.

Comment Re:Raised bar will be bypassed (Score 1) 111

The watermarking will just be removed and life will go on.

Hint: "real time". Can you identify the watermark without comparing your stream to someone else's stream? Can you do that while streaming your copy to a pirate repeater? Can you do that before sending out the first unique marker that identifies your stream?

I mean, if you can, you are indeed l33t. If not, the banhammer, she swings for you.

Comment Re:Misplaced effort (Score 1) 66

We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.

What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 232

There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" with particular attention to why it is valid.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 232

This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 232

It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.

Comment Re: I don't agree that these are "conservative" vi (Score 1) 232

Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).

But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)

OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 98

To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

Comment Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo (Score 1) 98

It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.

Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.

Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...