Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Well, it's nice if they send replacements first... (Score 1) 192

What Verizon doesn't say is that there's a large chunk of users who are just waiting for Verizon to ship them new phones before they send back the Note7s. Orders of Google Pixel XL phones from Verizon are at least 3 months and counting behind schedule.

Comment LOL. You expect MS to fix the problem ... (Score 1) 577

The continual bloat of _registry_ is the cause of the problem. That is not going away anytime soon.

I've got 277 items in my add/remove list, dating back to about 2.5 years ago, yet my system is almost as fast as it was back then. Why? I'm not naive. I have no PUPs, malware, or other unwanted programs, I run MBAM and MBAE instead of a "real" AV (much lighter real-time protection), and I'm smart about what I let run at boot. Registry bloat is not a problem, it's clueless users who cannot maintain their system. The only issue right now is that my memory usage is a bit high after a clean boot, but that's because I'm running Nvidia drivers, Geforce Experience, uTorrent, Steam, three different cloud storage programs, and a file indexer covering 500,000 files (Everything FTW!).

Comment Re:Why do we have screen savers? (Score 1) 349

Why would you use a power saver and just not turn it off?

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. I assume you mean to say that "why rely on the increased efficiency of some devices rather than be more aggressive at turning them off". My point is that as we get more and more efficient with a technology (e.g., large displays), the importance of it's energy consumption pales in comparison to other, more power-hungry technologies, like our forced air AC systems, V8 engines, and deep fat fryers ('Murica!!!).

And why do you think appliance aren't also become more energy efficient? Can you just not grasp more than one thing at a time?

They are, but much more slowly than anything computer-related. Take for example, your standard chest freezer or AC unit. How will it take before we double it's energy efficiency? 20 years, probably more? This is in comparison to modern electronics, which tend to double their efficiency roughly every 5 years (correct me if I'm wrong here), even less if you count modern CPUs in the last 10 years. The point is that our appliances are approaching the practical limits of efficiency, yet we let them draw tremendous amounts of energy without batting an eye.

I mean, there is exactly no reason for your rant.

There is exactly no effort put forth on your part to see and understand the reasons for my rant.

1. The comment I replied to stated that consuming power to display images is "pointless". I refuted this by giving an example of a computer in a home office.

2. The comment also implied that utilizing an idle display for *anything* was pointless. Hence, my example of displaying Linux stats and uptime.

3. I was tired of people championing aggressive energy savings in an small area, while many large areas go unobserved.

4. I was tired of people who shove energy efficiency in everyone's faces without considering that most people are perfectly fine with consuming extra energy so long as it improves their quality of life (including, but not limited to, displaying pretty pictures).

Comment Re:Why do we have screen savers? (Score 5, Interesting) 349

I would ask why we still have screen savers

Although it isn't a hard-and-fast rule, screensavers nowadays are less about preventing burn-in and more about utilizing idle displays. For example, on a Linux-based machine, it's not unusual to have screensaver options that let you display the system load and uptime. Photo screensavers are another prime example. If I'm in my home office for an hour at a time, but only using the computer for 10 minutes, why not have my otherwise idle screen act as a large digital photo frame? You are correct in asserting that power consumption is an issue, but display technology has come a long way, so my 24" monitor draws much less power than my 19" CRT. Reducing power usage is a wonderful slogan, but modern society has a very poor grasp on exactly how much power their devices consume compared to their microwave, water heater, air conditioning, dusk-to-dawn lighting, and other amenities. It's great to hear that your cell-phone charger now reduces it's power consumption by 95% when not in use, but do you have any idea how that compares to an running your AC and heat an extra day each fall/spring, microwaving your pre-cooked meal every other night? /rant

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: Why don't browsers honor "SMB://" URIs? 1

DraugTheWhopper writes: One thing that (I think) irks many tech people is the lack of ubiquity for handling common protocols. For example: a small college campus maintains an intranet website, and wishes to provide its non-tech-savvy students with easy links to files on an NFS or SMB share. It seems there is no elegant solution to allow a hyperlink to open a network address in the appropriate file manager. From my perspective, it doesn't seem any harder than having the web browser pass the URI to the OS, or if the OS isn't capable of handling it, to translate it first (smb://Server/Share to \\Server\Share). I thought the whole point of the URI system is to allow simple accessing of resources? And to all those who cry "But SECURITY!", keep in mind that custom URI scheme names are already being used, e.g., the new LogMeIn client program registers the "logmein://" protocol in Windows, and Chrome passes it without incident after an unobtrusive confirmation checkbox.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!