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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 1) 362

It is possible to care about your reputation without being obsessed. It is possible to be modded Troll even if you are not really trolling, or just being sarcastic / cynical.

I once supported the idea of anonymous posting. I think I'm changing my mind.

On plenty of sites I've had to create an account once I had something to say, that I wanted to say badly enough to simply create and start keeping track of one more account. (And I never re-use passwords!) If I ever happen to have something to say on one of those sites, I've already got an account.

Also, creating an account doesn't necessarily make you suddenly lose your anonymity.

But I'm thinking the balance has shifted since the early days. Like when AOL poisoned Usenet by getting AOL onto Usenet, but that was before Slashdot. Or when the center of gravity on Slashdot shifted away from Linux users. But things change. Not all of it is trolling. Sometimes there are just different views. Bring up subjects like Java. Or Microsoft. Or tabs vs spaces. Vi vs Emacs. Is ST:TOS The Menagerie a single episode, or two episodes?

But if you have something to say about a topic like those, then sign in and say it. If you have something that is truly trolling (racist, sexist, offensive, etc), and not just something someone disagrees with, then creating an account is at least a minor barrier.

Being able to ignore a user is a good idea.

Comment Re:Homosexuals (Score 1) 413

Yes. That. And let's not talk about marriage. Let's talk about far more basic things like whether homosexuals should be allowed to have employment. Or be allowed to rent an apartment. The fact is, that disagreement usually does equal hate. Usually enough that the exception is so rare that you could just say it does equal.

Comment You're not BUYING anything (Score 3, Insightful) 57

It is a RENTAL. Period.

The only difference is whether it's a short term rental, like 48 hours or somesuch, or a long term rental for a few years until: "we are discontinuing our DRM servers". Or try this: "our licensing with the content provider has changed, and what you bought, you can no longer watch.".

Unless you can download a DRM free copy that you can play on any of your devices, then you didn't really BUY anything.

And if you did buy a downloadable DRM free copy, then you already don't have any problem with your immediate household members being able to 'access' the content.

Will people ever learn. There was Microsoft's "Plays For Sure". Which was then discontinued, and everyone's 'purchased' content became locked to their devices -- which probably don't work any longer. Then there was Zune, and the same fate for all of your 'purchased' content. Certain Disney content on Amazon which people had purchased became unplayable because Disney had new exclusive licensing for some of that content that people had previously purchased. And Amazon has 'disappeared' content from devices before, in one instance because Amazon realized that they didn't have a license to 'sell' it to you in the first place.

Comment Amazon is clueless about phones, tablets and video (Score 4, Interesting) 153

When the Fire Phone was announced, I watched the presentation video live. I thought the tech was interesting. But then I began to notice something as they demoed more and more features of the phone.

Everything about the phone is designed to sell me something. Constantly. Always. In my face.

Hey, Amazon. Here's a free clue. From a customer who actually likes to purchase things through Amazon.

The reason I buy a smart phone and a tablet: TO IMPROVE MY QUALITY OF LIFE.

NOT to serve as your advertising billboard.

Here is a follow on problem that develops from that. Since I therefore use Android, not fire phone, since the purpose of a smartphone is to improve my life, I naturally have a number of video apps. Netflix. Hulu. HBO. PBS. Others. And . . . I have Prime Video with Starz.

BUT . . . in an anticompetitive move, Amazon won't put its video as an Android app in the Google Play store. So I can watch it on my Roku. But not on much else.

I also own a Chromecast. When Amazon introduced the Fire Stick, Amazon stopped selling Chromecasts. And since Amazon Video doesn't have an app on Android, it also doesn't work on Chromecast. This is a strong disincentive for me to pay for Amazon Prime video or Starz. Amazon: you've ruined my trust in order to try to sell me a Fire Stick that I don't need, don't want, and all the while, I am *already* a subscriber to Prime video and Starz. What a dumb move. Make me lose trust in your entire business in order to boost the Fire Stick? Really?

BTW, I hate monopolists or wannabe monopolists.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.

Working...