Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:I thought state and religion were separate in U (Score 1) 1456

It is quite ridiculous. It seems that despite political correctness advancements, it would still be impossible for an atheist (that is, anyone who is not terminally insane yapping about jebus and imaginary sky fairies) to become president in the USA.

With this attitude, you're probably right. Yes, I'm one of the handful of Christians that frequent Slashdot; there are indeed a handful of us. If you don't share the same set of beliefs as I do, that is absolutely you're right. If you are unhappy that there aren't more atheists in government, I completely understand that (to an extent, I'd even agree). If you're going to be insulting and degrading in the process, then you're going to find sympathy pretty hard to come by.

Lets get this straight, people: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!

I disagree. I also know that I cannot empirically prove my stance, and thus cannot and will not fault you from arriving at a different conclusion. Telling me what I should believe, however, is the very behavior your post seems to find unacceptable.

One has to be pretty drooling stupid to believe in that child-molesting garbage

Yes, the Christian/Catholic church has had issues with this in the past, and I do not for a moment defend them. However, molesting children is far from a core tenet of the belief system, and millions upon millions of Christians manage to go through life, pursuing their faith, and are successful in doing so without molesting children. Moreover, a spiritual belief system need not be a direct reflection upon intelligence. A successful heart surgeon who has gotten a Ph.D. is, in all likelihood, a pretty intelligent person. If they also happen to believe in Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, or an faith derived from a tribe of Indigenous Americans, that doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or that I wouldn't let them operate on me if I needed open heart surgery, only that they do not share my faith.

yet in front of the people who are supposed to be running this country they have these retarded blathering idiots going on about their magic sky daddies and friends.

1. So don't watch it? Or DVR it and fast forward the religious leaders?
2. For what it's worth, I'm of the persuasion that this is far more a matter of pandering than an intent to set the course for the country. If the majority of people who voted for the winner were another group, there probably would have been people pandering to them instead.

It is one thing to make a president swear on some 2000 year old book of BS because tradition. But there no excuse for the rest. None at all.

See above.

As an atheist it reminds me that I am not represented and that people would still be happy to come at me with their torches and pitchforks.

Has anybody threatened your life on the sole basis of your faith? If not, are you honestly of the persuasion that the only reason people have not done so is because it's illegal? There's some credibility to the point that there are few (if any) atheists in Congress, but would you vote for somebody on the sole basis that they share your views regarding God (or a lack thereof), even if your views were opposite on foreign policy, NSA wiretapping, gun legslation, health care, economic changes, the educational system, and other things that they would actually be responsible to address and legislate?

Comment Re:This is insane behavior. (Score 1) 130

Every indication points to the entertainment market being completely over-saturated. What makes Apple think they can do better than the existing studios?

They don't have to be "better". Apple hardware tends to be one-at-a-time kit - there aren't *that* many people who will own and use multiple laptops or smartphones at the same time. However, it's entirely practical (and common) for a Netflix subscriber to also purchase a season of a TV series from the iTunes Store. Apple focusing a bit more on services allows them to widen their potential customer base by creating a product whose competitors can all coexist, which isn't nearly as easy for laptops and smartphones. Therefore, they don't need to out-Netflix Netflix, they just have to have a TV show that a million people are willing to spend $20/season on, irrespective if those people are also Netflix subscribers.

Comment Re:cult of mac (Score 2) 168

On top of that, it was expensive, you could not share files over Bluetooth, it did not support 3G, it did not have an expandable storage slot and you needed iTunes for everything. But despite that, and to the horror of its rivals, everyone wanted one.

just goes to show the best product doesnt always win - same is true with the ipod, there were better options at the time. the term "cult of mac" became known for a reason

Oh, the memories that have been lost to history...

Okay, first off, remember that in 2007, iTunes libraries were expansive, encompassing, and well-curated. Virtually everyone had an iPod, which synced with iTunes. DRM had only *just* come off the files they sold, meaning that plenty of users still had hundreds of purchased songs that couldn't play on anything else.

The iPhone didn't do *lots* of things that contemporary smartphones did...but the iPhone wasn't competing with them. The iPhone was competing with Feature Phones - the LG Chocolate and similar handsets that were popular at the time, and shared pocket space with the iPod. Consolidating the two devices into a single gadget was one of a few major things the iPhone brought to the table.

Bluetooth file transfer was used by a handful of people...but keep in mind that Verizon had a habit of blocking that from most of their phones at the time, so it wasn't missed. Even if it was, if Apple loses points for Bluetooth file transfer, Blackberry loses points for making the Blackberry Curve without WiFi. What was sorely needed though, was a phone that did mobile web browsing and didn't suck. Internet Explorer Mobile sucked, horridly. Every attempt it made to lay out a page on a 320x240 screen was basically an exercise in shuffling cards - it never, ever worked right...but miraculously, even it was a step up from the Blackberry browser, which couldn't do anything right. Showing a full website and pinching in and out to navigate it? That really was incredible for the time. We have mobile website *now*, which is nice, but no one cared about cell phone web traffic in 2007.

Threaded messaging was available in BBM, but even Blackberry made it nearly impossible to split longer SMS messages. They made their name on e-mail, but didn't do HTML mail in any meaningful sense. Blackberry did music, but it was the "drag-and-drop MP3s to a MicroSD card" method that negated most of the benefits of iTunes like playlists and play counts and automatically syncing new purchases. The iPhone, by contrast, had beautiful threaded messaging with few functional limits - many feature phones at the time could only store a few hundred messages so deleting old messages by hand was a common task. We take kinetic scrolling for granted now, since everyone has it but it was truly a "wow" moment during Steve's keynote. Visual Voicemail was also something new to the masses and took years for others to implement.

The initial release of the iPhone wasn't about having a massive amount of features to compete with every bullet point on the box of the Curve or the Q or the Blackjack, it was about the ability to go from carrying around two devices to just one, with a solid web browsing experience, in a package far more streamlined and polished than anyone else on the market.

So yes, it couldn't use 3G or map, but I will definitely give credit where it is due. The iPhone didn't do everything, but what it did do was done right, given what was prevalent amongst users at the time of its release.

Comment Who wasn't expecting this? (Score 2) 376

I'm not surprised LG is doing this. Whether it's for raw competitive reasons ("Look Phil! This one has the Wi-Fi and a touchscreen!") or less-than-desirable reasons (acquiring information regarding the use of the product / making it less serviceable by techs without specialized equipment), the fact is that this sort of thing was basically inevitable.

Whether it's worth caring about depends on whether the devices will perform their intended function without internet access. Sure, some people will find it nifty to have an app notify them when preheating is done or to be able to check that they turned the stove off as they drive away (and turn it off if they didn't), but the real question is whether I'll be required to sign up for an LG account in order to set it to 375 to bake cookies.

Internet connectivity as a bonus, I'm fine with. Internet connectivity to do the functions that have been served for the last hundred years with a knob...not so much.

Comment Re: What IS a recommended secure wifi router? (Score 2) 119

Depends on the kind of security you're looking for. I'm generally a fan of the Asus family of routers that support the Padavan firmware - they all support DD-WRT as well if that's your thing.

What makes this router something warranting a slashdot discussion is the fact that it does unified threat management, something that tends to require an appliance beyond a simple router/switch/AP combo. The cheapest ones with integrated Wi-Fi are from Sonicwall, but they're all kinds of awkward to have in a home setting (NAT translation is a pain, no UPnP, etc.). Fortinet also has some prosumer units, but good luck getting one - it tends to involve a whole lot of middlemen and quotes and all that other sales red tape that's quite obnoxious.

If you're cool with a more DIY solution, break it out. A gigabit switch is more or less a gigabit switch; 8-port units are $40 or less now. Most routers can function as a simple access point (aforementioned Asus being among them), but if you're looking for multiple access points, Ubiquiti is my favorite as the $130 access points do AC1750, there's a central configuration utility, they handle roaming and frequency hopping quite well, and they're a whole lot less expensive than most of the alternatives.
As far as the router itself, get a desktop and a second NIC, and you've got choices. I'm an Untangle fan myself, and $5/month for the home version gets you the kitchen sink for your home - virus checking, content filtering, ad blocking, spam filtering, multi-wan, VPN, the whole shooting match, in the simplest configuration console I've used. pfSense (and its recent fork opnsense) is free, and gives nearly all the same features, but in a somewhat more Spartan interface with more manual control required. Sophos has an excellent UTM, though it has a 50-endpoint limit and resembles Sonicwall in its NAT configuration. Other honorable mentions worth exploring would be Endian (simplest past Untangle), Smoothwall (best QoS), and IPFire (runs on a 133mhz Pentium), again, depending on the feature set you're looking for.

Happy exploring!

Comment Fanboys, defend the hive! (Score 4, Interesting) 268

Since this thread is full of fanboys rationalizing Apple's failures, I think I'll eat their mod points by recounting my personal experiences with their failures.

I bought a 2007 MBP. It's battery swelled and had to be replaced. Eventually, it's 3d graphics card died and the only way to use it was to boot into safe mode.

I bought a 2012 MBP. It's trackpad quit working and had to be replaced. The replacement trackpad also failed within a month, but by then it was out of warranty. I quit trying to get it fixed because I use a mouse anyway, and I'm sure those cunts would try to charge me because I didn't buy "Apple Care".

I was given a 2015 MBP. So far it hasn't failed, but it has behavior that is intolerable. With the lid closed, it goes to sleep unless there is a keyboard plugged in. Apple says "Fuck you, software KVM users". And even with a keyboard plugged in, it immediately goes to sleep if the power cord is yanked out. Apple says, "Fuck you, cat owners".

I have no interest in their new crippled laptop and its gimmicky function key overlay. That shit was lame when it was called the Optimus Maximus in 2008 and it is just as lame now. Apple says, "But muh innovation! Muh courage!"

My first laptop, a ThinkPad from 1998, still works and boots to a 2.4 kernel. (Many nostalgia, such rugged, wow.) My other Toshiba, Dell, and HP laptops also worked up until I got rid of them, and they all took way more abuse than my precious, delicate MPBs.

So this year, I bought a cheap laptop from Dell. I'm using Linux again for the first time in a decade, and it is liberating. Buh-bye Apple, you prissy, shark jumping freaks. I can't wait until I retire and never have to touch your shit again.

Comment This is going to be a tough one... (Score 2) 163

A friend of mine told me about VidAngel a few weeks ago, and my feeling is that they're trying to do a tightrope walk, blindfolded, while wearing ice skates.

Their business model hinges on the sell/resell gimmick that solely exists on a balance sheet. It's shaky ground to stand on.

CleanFlicks lost out because they altered the movies, which either fell under "derivative work" or "CSS decryption", either way not a good idea. They lost in court.
RealNetworks (still a thing, apparently) tried having a product that allowed movies to be ripped to one's own computer, but included more DRM than the original DVD. They lost in court.
Aereo distance-shifted OTA broadcasts, limited to one viewing per antenna, and one antenna per user. They lost in court.
Zediva bought DVD players and DVDs, paired them 1:1, and allowed one user to stream a movie from an available DVD player. They lost in court.

Vidangel is walking a trail blazed by dead bodies, forged by lawyers who have no intention of providing a compromise that reflects reality. Once they get big enough, the MPAA will come after them as well. They might win against Miramax and MAYBE Universal, but once the sleeping Mouse is awakened by their family-friendly edit of Rogue One, I wouldn't bet a counterfeit wooden nickel on them willing that court case - Disney will win on attrition alone.

After all, it is power, not money, that perpetuates this behavior.

Comment Re:Why is it the top result? (Score 1) 332

But as the defacto gatekeeper to the internet (at least for millions of non-savvy users), they have a responsibility to stop with the "deep thinking" about how to "imrpove" the algorithm.

"I appreciate the quashing of porn and viagra spam, but punishing racist conspiracy theory SEO is going too far!"

These people are a parody of themselves.

Comment Re:It's not Google's responsibility... (Score 1) 332

But just because the wrong answer got top billing, doesn't mean it is up to Google to fix it.

Stop pretending that you're mad because people wanted it fixed. You're mad because Google did fix it, which is entirely their prerogative.

"But mah unhinged conspiracy theories deserve to been seen! It's censorship!"

Poor little racists, snap snap snap!

Slashdot Top Deals

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos

Working...