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


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

Comment Deleted it (Score 1) 403

I had Windows 10. Gave it a honest try. Piece of shit. Reminds me of Vista and Me...but slower and uglier. And they had to "move" everything. After 10 months or so I just realized I hated using it. So I deleted it -- last week actually.

I have really only one need (left) to run Windows anything -- accounting & reporting software @ work. Windows for me has just become an annoyance appliance required to run a couple of windows.

My "go to" today would be Windows 7. 32 bit is still faster (?) and 64 bit is problematic for the one 16 bit app __still__ in use. Ugh. I was just this past week deciding if I should just go back to XP to run the required apps. XP is still WAY faster than all of the above. It's not like Windows is used for web access anymore (or even has access to the Internet). It's just a intranet app layer...

iOS in my pocket, MacOS on my desktop, and Linux for literally everything else -- IoT and every damn server I have.

Fuck Microsoft.

Comment Another good product gone (Score 3, Interesting) 238

I find this disappointing. For me the AirPort Express was *THE* choice to use -- and I still use AirPlay on them too.

My biggest problem was covering 90 thousand square feet area (indoors and out). I bought thousands and thousands of dollars worth of various router brands (and returned them all) trying to do this. Key word would be reliably. They all suck. Except Apple's. The AirPort's ability to relay / extend the network wirelessly made it the winner. They just work...

Their form factor made them easy to deploy too -- no ugly antenna's all over the place. Sure, lack of antenna may have limited their range ... I just bought more of them.

Now I'm back to square one again. Ugh.

Comment Re:Dumb (Score 2) 81

> Wireless charging is fucking stupid [...]

I have to respectfully disagree. Yes, you still have to plug something in somewhere (usually usb)... But beyond that it just gets so simple.

I still have to put my phone down -- before I was hunting for a cable, or always had a cable draped over something. Ugly. Now I put the cable away, plug it in (once) and decide where the charging pad is to be. I still have to put my phone down / charge it at night -- now it's easy. I rarely have to go hunting for it either it seems.

The car charger / holding dock has saved me a few times too. There have been nights I forget to charge and in the morning the phone is at 9%. Instead of leaving in my pocket as I usually do -- just dock it in the car and it's almost fully charged by the time I get to work. It's also a great location to hold the phone when using it for navigation (rare for me).

And the other benefit is I've never worn a plug (on the phone) out like so many around me seem to do all the time. Once every so often I'll have the need to plug directly in for iTunes, sure -- then just unplug the case from the phone (good cases won't require you to remove them from the phone IMHO) and plug in for iTunes (my choice :). Easy.

I gone as far as to add Qi receivers to old unsupported iPad's -- they're ugly as fuck stick on the back of the device / one size fits all ... but they sure do work. Just set the iPad down under the monitor (here) and it's charging. iPhone and old iPhone now used as a remote for TV more than anything too.

Ugh -- I'd always be unplugging and plugging shit in all day long. Instead I just set them down [charging]. Too easy.

Comment Which one? (Score 2) 81

I started out using Powermat -- had it on everything. Desk chargers, car chargers, garage, bookshelf, other office, etc.. Everywhere. I got tired of [still] waiting for a case / receiver for the iPhone 6s specific. iPhone 7 is out and still no 6s case.

Just got done switching all devices over to the Qi standard. Depending on what Apple does I could see opting out of their charging [if not Qi] option and ... wait for a Qi case to show up on the market. Or make it myself. :)

Comment Re:Dougla's Adams said it best (Score 1) 689

Plurality voting with single member districts leads to two party systems. It would require seriously amending the Constitution to change that.

Actually it wouldn't take amending the Constitution [which says nothing about requiring plurality or First-Past-the-Post voting], only changing Federal election laws, in order to completely break the plurality system.

First, there are two states (Maine and Nebraska) where the Electoral College vote can be split; increasing which states with this system would then magnify the value of 3rd-party efforts [as each such state greatly increases the odds of a minor candidate earning the one or two electoral vote(s) which might deadlock the EC, forcing the election to be determined by the House instead]. As seen by the fact this system already exists, this change could be implemented without requiring changes to the Constitution or federal election laws, only state laws.

Secondly, change could be instituted within the House of Representatives by revising the laws on how members are elected: Federal law requires the current separate district methodology but we could move towards a state-level proportional representation system. This would grant easier third-party access to Congress and, while not directly contributing to Presidential aspirations, would elevate the visibility of those platforms and policies. Again, this change would not require a Constitutional amendment, but only altering existing Federal election laws.

Because FPTP/plurality voting sustains the current two-party system even in the face of such hatred the electorate shows for Clinton and Trump, saying these changes do not require amending the Constitution does seem to discount the resistance these changes would face... but I believe the unprecedented hatred for those two candidates and the extreme partisanship on display by their supporters together indicate the importance of making them.

Comment Re:Computers and networks in cars are fine (Score 1) 76

In principle I agree with you, but...

Computers + cars, as you've said, is a wonderful thing.
I personally chose my [used] car based on the LACK OF network connectivity (before it was a known issue).

I liked the Chrysler 300 w/ uConnect. So I bought one -- specifically 2012. I wasn't considering any 2013 or later as it was mid-way through 2013 that they added Internet capabilities to uConnect. I wasn't going to muck around trying to figure out when the car I wanted was manufactured during the year -- I just decided to only look at and consider 2012 or before.

We all see how well that played out (w/ Jeep). The exact same system / setup is in the Jeep...

Comment Re:Why bother? (Score 4, Informative) 49

It's the principle of the thing.

Apple is winning against these requests from the government, but barely. Wikipedia says that a judge ruled in their favour in Brooklyn, but in the most publicized case - the case of the San Bernadino terrorists, the FBI withdrew their request rather than have Apple's objection decided on by the judge.

Dragging these assholes into the sunlight and making their methods a matter of public record makes things better for everybody.

Slashdot Top Deals

For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken