Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re: Cue the idiots (Score 4, Insightful) 154

seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.

Trump himself has said that he will make decisions in the Oval Office based on "what he knows beforehand" and "his common sense" not based on pulling enough information from people who know better than he does. In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it. Even setting my policy disagreements with him aside, the idea of a President who would make decisions based on the first thing that pops into their head instead of based on getting all of the available information is scary - no matter what party they belong to.

Comment Re:No surprise (Score 1) 211

As a counter-point, I've worked with companies who contacted my wife and I because they wanted to use a photo we posted for an ad campaign of theirs. We agreed, they paid us (not a lot of money, but a decent amount for one image), and everyone walked away happy. It makes it all the more infuriating when you realize just how easy it is to do the right thing and credit/pay photographers for their work. It's sheer laziness coupled with a "we won't get caught and if we do we'll lawyer our way out" attitude that leads to companies thinking that they can abuse others' copyrights - often while complaining about how people abuse their copyrights.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 4, Insightful) 1004

The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate. Those are held to different standards than the media. And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers to instigate an attack on a government server to get material - they published the results of the hack. Legally grey? Probably, but it could be argued that this falls under the leeway that is given to the media to help keep government honest. An active Presidential candidate calling upon a foreign power to target his opponent by attacking federal government computer systems, though? That's much, much worse.

I'm not sure if this rises to "treason" levels of bad, but it's certainly very bad.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 5, Insightful) 1004

This is one of the most dangerous things about Trump. He says a ton of things. His supporters filter out the things they don't like and just say "Oh, he was joking. He doesn't really believe that." You can pick and choose from Trump's statements and pretty much build your ideal candidate no matter what your political views if you're right of center. However, the stuff that gets ignored as "That's just Trump being Trump" isn't throwaway material. It's a pattern of reckless speech at best and advocating some really scary proposals at worst.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 5, Informative) 1004

He's also said he wants to change libel laws so that he can sue reporters who say bad things about him - even if those things are true. So if President Trump would have his way, press reporting on him negatively could first get their credentials revoked and then wind up being sued into oblivion. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if, after the election if he wins it, he declares that criticizing the President was grounds to be tried for treason.

Comment Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score 1) 192

I like streaming for content that I only plan on watching once or twice. For example, the latest episode of a TV series that I like. I don't need to buy the entire season of every TV show on DVD/Blu-Ray and then have it sit on my shelf collecting dust after watching it once. I'll just stream it. However, if there's a movie I really like, I'll buy the DVD/Blu-Ray so I can watch it over and over whenever I want.

Comment Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score 1) 192

Man, 10 years ago, Netflix used to actually be good.

You do realize that Netflix only introduced their streaming service in 2007 (9 years ago), right? Before then, you would manage a list of DVD titles and Netflix would mail them to you as they became available. They still offer this service if you'd prefer DVDs to streaming.

The difference here is that nobody needs to get permission to rent DVDs. If you go to your local Walmart and buy every DVD on the shelf, you could then rent them to anyone you want for any price they're willing to pay. The media companies can't stop you from doing this. So Netflix was able to rent any DVD that they could buy. They did enter into some deals to get DVDs at reduced prices in exchange for some concessions (delaying when the DVD would be available to rent), but these were terms that Netflix opted into. The could just as easily have told the media companies "no" and rented DVDs anyway.

When they moved to the realm of streaming, though, Netflix needed to get permission from the media companies for the rights to stream content. They can't just take a DVD/BluRay, rip it, and put it online. Not if they don't want to face multiple lawsuits. Instead, they need to ink deals and many media companies are withholding content because they see "Internet = piracy = we lose money." What they don't realize is that making the content available via Netflix (and similar services) is they best defense against piracy. (Why pirate Random Great Movie if you can just view it on Netflix instead?)

Netflix would put all of the world's TV shows and movies on their service if they could. They just can't afford to pay every media company for every show so they have to make deals where they can and figure out how to manage their costs versus content offered. It's a much different game than their DVDs-by-mail of 10 years ago.

Comment Re:That's Right (Score 1) 74

It's a double-edges sword. On one hand, social media means that an establishment that controls the news media (e.g. the government, big corporations, etc) can be bypassed to get the truth out. On the other hand, it can be used to spread falsehoods around the world even faster.

Social media (like anything on the Internet - or pretty much any other source of information) isn't total garbage which should be junked but neither is it a savior to be trusted all the time.

Comment Re: Fake (Score 2) 185

As you said, for the "Moon Landing Was A Hoax" theory to be true, NASA and the US Government would have had to silence thousands of people who worked on the project, the Russians who were our bitter enemies and who we were trying to one-up for putting a man in orbit, and thousands of amateurs listening in. Also, this silencing and cover-up would have to be both: 1) So iron-clad perfect that it eluded the detection of thousands of people over the decades and 2) So full of holes that a guy sitting in his basement looking at a video on his computer monitor could spot the forgery. Meanwhile, the conspiracy itself would need to be both so effective that they could keep all of these thousands of people who "knew the truth" silent for all of these years (through everything that the world has gone through in the past 40+ years) and so incompetent that they can't stop hoaxers from blurting out "the truth" all over the place.

This is the standard plot-hole of nearly all conspiracy theories: The conspirators need to be both highly effective and totally bumbling at the same time.

Comment Re:It's A Bargain (Score 1) 460

I should have clarified. We cancelled cable TV. Unfortunately, we're stuck with cable for Internet access. Our only other options are DSL (slow and Verizon's looking to ditch it ASAP), mobile (which we use for on-the-go browsing, but isn't good for streaming a household's worth of video), and satellite (slow and expensive with low caps).

Our cable company (Time Warner Cable) hasn't pulled the "Internet Alone costs more than Internet+TV" garbage, but I know that other cable companies (*cough*Comcast*cough*) have. It's all part of their dirty tricks to keep people subscribed to cable TV so they can claim higher subscriber numbers and fend off questions about cord cutting taking off.

Comment Re:It's A Bargain (Score 1) 460

Cable news channels do provide news. The problem is that they feel the need to fill up 24 hours with "breaking news coverage" and wind up with 20+ hours of filler (speculation, talking heads, etc) and 3-4 hours of actual news (on a good day). I get the same news content minus the filler from various sources on the Internet in much less time.

Comment Re:It's A Bargain (Score 1) 460

News I can get from other sources - either OTA or from the Internet. I don't need 24 hours of "in-depth" news coverage of an event when 20 of those hours are talking heads speculating about things to fill the time.

As for sports, we really don't care about that. Certainly not enough to pay $70+ a month for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam

Working...