Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Re:You mean like my 6 year old Atrix (Score 1) 62

The Atrix was exactly where I hoped phones were going and I was so disappointed to see Motorola drop it, and nobody else pick up (I couldn't buy the Atrix because it was Verizon only.) At one point Canonical had an alpha of a Ubuntu/Android hybrid which was intended to be similar, but that seems to have disappeared completely too.

It'd be piddlingly easy to do in hardware to the point I doubt it'd change the cost of the device by more than a few cents - make sure the USB port is bidirectional (it probably is already) and put in an HDMI out (maybe using MHL.) The software... well, as I said, Canonical already had something, Microsoft has Windows 10, there's a few prototype Android desktops out there which, if a community rallied around them, could be made usable.

This is not hard, it's just nobody seems to want to do it.

Comment Re:People don't care because ipv4 works for them (Score 4, Interesting) 48

Almost all mobile phone providers in the US are switching over. They never really offered full IPv4 in the first place, with their networks fully NATed. But they're introducing real, routable, IPv6.

From personal experience, on T-Mobile if your device supports it, you can even use IPv6 only (that is, your device only gets an IPv6 address, not even a NAT'd IPv4.) If you try to access an IPv4 only site, T-Mobile's DNS provides a virtual IPv6 address that can be used to route outgoing TCP connections to that address via a proxy.

Now, some people would be unhappy with that situation if, say, Comcast were to do the same thing. But I must admit, I suspect 99% of the population would never notice, and over time, the few that do would find, say, their employers scrambling to have IPv6 gateways etc so they can use normal VPNs (the gateways to office networks, not the proxies for bypassing Netflix nation blocks I mean), and other applications that require full two way communication.

IPv6 is very nice. It really is a shame there's so much inertia.

Comment Re:Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 201

How does forcing them to use a different communication medium stop them from spreading ideas you disagree with?

If all the newspapers and TV stations in the world refuse to run a news story, then it'll prevent the story from spreading. It doesn't entirely stop it, obviously. Even before the Internet, there would have still been word of mouth. Still, it prevents it from spreading to the extent that it would have otherwise.

It seems to me that giving them the allure of being the 'stuff THEY don't want you to see' only helps promote it, instead.

You're conflating two things. You're talking about something like the Streisand Effect, where trying to hide information paradoxically causes it to spread. That can happen, although if reputable sources of information refuse to acknowledge it, it might still be relegated to the status of rumor. I'm talking about a different thing, which is more about whether credence and credibility are given to speech. Racism, for example, isn't a secret that people are curious about. No one is sitting at home thinking, "I heard something about this white supremacism. No one has ever been willing to advocate lynching, so the idea is so much more alluring now!"

It's more like, there are various people who are racist to varying degrees and in different ways. That's already in their lives. If the people around you who are credible members of the group you perceive as belonging to are all lynching people, talking about lynching, and advocating lynching, then there's a much greater chance that you'll end up lynching someone. If the suggestion of lynching elicits a response of "Hell no. That's fucked up. What's wrong with you?!" then you're less likely to lynch anyone. That's just how people work. If services like Twitter promote and amplify hate-speech, you're going to end up with more people thinking it's a normal and acceptable thing. If Twitter bans it and sends the message that it's unacceptable, then its prevalence lessens.

And yes, I know there will still be some backlash. There are white supremacists who are going to be irate any time you imply that white supremacy is not acceptable. There are some occasional assholes who will say the exact thing that that they think will be most offensive and get them the most attention. However, ultimately most people will generally adopt the social mores of whatever group they perceive themselves to be a part of. A responsible member of society tries to avoid and discourage horrible behavior and speech in order to encourage better social mores.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 380

I was under the impression it is under the FCC's remit, as they regulate telecommunications businesses. But either way, if it's just a "We think it should be under this agency's jurisdiction, not that one" thing, then that's at least not terrible.

Like the sibling post however, I'd like to see evidence the FTC will actually step up to the plate on this.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 380

Because, in my experience, libertarians - both self described, and described by the dictionary - would generally rejoice about any reduction in regulation, arguing instead that somehow consumers and ISPs can just sign contracts that agree to the levels of privacy they want.

In the real world, that's bullshit, because you have to hope that an ISP with a service and price level that's acceptable would consider it worth offering.

Comment Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! (Score 1) 108

Just to be clear: you think the CIA doesn't spy on anyone with modern technologies, and you think this because the media didn't report it?

First: Are you aware what the CIA is? Or the NSA?
Second: Do you really read newspapers? I mean, there's this Manning person, and another guy called Snowden, who passed quite a bit of information to the newspapers during the last part of the last decade, and first part of this one, about how groups like the NSA work. Did you not read those articles?

Look, I'd point you at some links, but why not just hop over to guardian.co.uk, and do a quick search. You'll find quite a bit of news you apparently missed.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 3) 380

Seriously, is there an actual reason for this that isn't corruption or some kind of libertarian ideological nutcasery?

I try not to take these things at face value, but everything looks like blatant corruption from here. It might give me some faith in humanity to know there's a good reason beyond "Ayn Rand would approve, and so does my wallet."

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 446

Well, then you managed to avoid the context given by the preamble to the summary. They're saying Fivvvvvrr.com 2.0 (or whatever the f--- they're called) sucks. It doesn't really matter what they make, because that's not what the article is about, it's about how they're an example of a company that dresses up the fact they shit all over the people they work for them by dressing up Victorian labor conditions as dynamism.

Comment Re:Finally, I can switch to Gnome! (Score 1) 114

The Windows 10 UI would be fine if the latency issues could be fixed (it shouldn't take between two and ten seconds for the notifications area (always) or start menu (often) to appear): the real issues with Windows 10 are the privacy invasion crap and the underlying operating system.

I'd like to see a real effort to build a modern 2-in-1 desktop for GNU/Linux, perhaps using Cinnamon as a starting point. It just takes someone who knows what they're doing, and wasn't born three days ago, completely unaware of what's been done in the past, what worked, and what didn't.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 3, Interesting) 406

The counter point, for me, is that's a very complicated way to produce the universe we actually live in. What is the purpose of the simulation? Is it to be similar to Conway's "Life", in which case why build something so convoluted, and why cheat as apparently the programmer did with 2 and 3?

If not, if the aim was to create sentient beings (well, me at least, I can't speak for you idiots), then, again, why create a system that requires fourteen billion years to actually produce them, with them being around for a mere 50,000, and each having a life span of (almost always) less than 100 years?

And if you're about to argue the universe was created ten seconds ago, well, no, because there's apparently information in it covering about fourteen billion years. To ensure the system is stable, the logic and current state has to fit that fourteen billion years AND has to be stable right now. One off-by-one error and the Earth will go spiralling into space, or get sucked into the Sun, or just disintegrate, or turn into a black hole for a split second, or...

I can explain why John Carmack created a number of "virtual reality" (Doom and onwards) games, but he didn't create some overly complex physics model, just the bare minimum to work for the observer. Our universal engineer, however, appears to have created this enormously convoluted system for no apparent reason. I'm not seeing the reason to assume intelligence when a more likely reason for the things you note is that our universe is more complex than you want to believe it is.

Slashdot Top Deals

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.

Working...