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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score 1) 139

Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?

Steps for connecting my VPN:

  1. Click the "Cloak" icon in my menu bar, then "Secure my connection"
  2. Wait 4 seconds

Alternatively, connect to a Wi-Fi network that isn't my house, office, or cell phone. That also triggers it.

Comment Meanwhile everyone else moves on.... (Score 4, Insightful) 229

According to Google, about an eighth of all their traffic today is IPV6, the percentage is growing, and the rate is accelerating. If you were waiting for a clear sign from the heavens that it's time to finally start supporting IPv6 as at least equal to IPv4, then you can stop waiting. While almost all of those systems currently also have native IPv4, it's absolutely insane to ignore v6 traffic in 2016. Do it at your and your employer's own peril.

Comment Re:Weird society of paranoid men (Score 1) 858

I think that's certainly a possibility. I also tend to respect the 538 gang so I won't quickly dismiss their results (with the caveat that I still haven't RTFA). It just seems to me like there are plenty of unmalicious reasons for the stated outcomes that I'd prefer to see ruled out first before attributing the result to "gangs of sabotaging men".

Comment But what's the cause? (Score 3, Interesting) 858

I'm too lazy to read the article so I'll wildly speculate in grand Slashdot tradition. Did the authors investigate why that's happening? I could imagine at least a few non-nefarious causes:

Maybe men are more likely to vote against a show they dislike than women are, so as many women dislike "Blue Mountain State" as men dislike "Private Practice" but they don't bother downvoting it.

Maybe men are more likely to watch shows they dislike with their partners than women are (and this is certainly true in my house). I'll sit through shows I don't care for because I'm not all that picky and I'd rather spend time with her watching Grey's Anatomy than doing other stuff. The converse isn't true: she isn't likely to sit through COPS with me. I'm more likely to have an opinion and vote on her shows than she is mine because I've seen more of hers.

As a variant of the last one, maybe women generally feel that they have less spare time around the house to watch TV. In households where routine chores are "women's work", the male resident might put in more screen hours than the female who has laundry and cooking and only has time to watch the shows she really cares about. (Note: I am not saying laundry and cooking are women's responsibility, just that lots of households divide work that way, and I think probably enough to sway the numbers.)

Yes, I'm sure there are dumbasses who routinely vote down female-centric shows (as defined by the study) just to be jerks. I'd stake money that there are plenty of women who would go down the list of male-centric shows and vote them down, too: "Batman? Dumb. The Shield? Dumb. Star Trek? Dumb." But are there enough to make a difference, or is it more likely the effect of different TV viewing and/or Internet poll taking habits between the sexes?

Comment Re:Blocking legitimate businesses (Score 1) 84

I hope they sue Microsofts' asses off for restraint of trade and tortious interference with business relationships.

I, too, learned some big words this week. I didn't feel compelled to strut them about incorrectly in public, though.

Back in the real world Microsoft isn't required to do business with anyone they don't want to, barring a short list of explicitly banned reasons for doing so. They certainly aren't a duopoly as they still have less than 5% of the search market.

Are you also against Google dropping ads from payday loans? Or was it from comments on that story that you learned words like "tortious interference", and now you're trotting them out over here to sound clever and contrarian?

Comment Re:No thanks! (Score 2) 166

You could hypothetically make an email app that looked and acted like an IM app. I'd personally give it a shot! But email isn't set up for things like read receipts (admit it: it's nice to know your wife actually saw, then read, your message) or status indicators ("Joe's offline right now", or even "Joe's typing a response"). It's not designed as a realtime protocol, even if message deliver tends to be very quick.

Again, I'd totally try out an IM client that used SMTP transport, but I'm skeptical that it could act as nicely as a purpose-built IM client.

Comment Re:This is why Trump is popular. (Score 1) 474

IMHO we can't blame these companies as they are operating to maximize shareholder value within the current set of rules (laws, regulations).

The fuck we can't. You don't have to implement a greedy algorithm to solve every problem. Apple and Google have been raking in money by throwing huge compensation and benefits at top talent. They could have record profits for a single quarter by cutting all engineer salaries to minimum wage, but the following quarter would be a shitshow and they know it. That's the kind of thing Carly Fiorina did to HP and she damn near ruined it.

There's something called enlightened self-interest that boils down to "be good to your employees, vendors, and customers and they'll be good to you". Good CEOs recognize that and use it to make their shareholders rich. Shitty boards of directors hire shitty CEOs to optimize for next week's net margins, then seem shocked, shocked! when it all comes crashing down around them.

We can and should blame these companies for "maximizing shareholder value" at the expense of long-term viability.

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis

Working...