Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 321

Taking them to court for $42 doesn't really seem worth it, especially considering in the article that was published he admitted knowing what he was doing (but probably drunk).

Making a joke, even in poor taste isn't against the law unless explicitly defined such as yelling "Fire!" in a theater. The amount should be of secondary importance compared to the principle of standing up to anyone who confiscates your money when you have broken no laws that would give them legal standing to do so.

The rules vary by location and such but in general, getting small amounts of money that are rightly owed to you is precisely what small claims court is for. You generally do not need a lawyer for most small claims suits.

Sadly, on average we have become an extremely lazy and complacent society. The entities that want to take your rights away know this and have gamed the system by purposely making it inconvenient to stand up for your rights. Nothing will change until people stop being lazy and stand up for their rights even if it is inconvenient and requires some effort.

Comment Re:A famous book of literary criticism once said.. (Score 1) 288

No, but I'd sure as hell press one button to make a copy of the car and take that, leaving the original exactly where it was for the dealer to sell at his inflated price.

Don't be a pedant and don't be intentionally obtuse about theft of intellectual property.

Even if you could press your magic unicorn dust button and copy the car, it's still theft. You'd just be stealing the idea since you're not the one who had the creativity to come up the valuable concept of said car in the first place. You'd just be the lazy freeloader who thinks it's okay for the rest of society to work and create things while you steal them.

Comment Re:A famous book of literary criticism once said.. (Score 0) 288

Such a mature, intellectual response...

I disagree, theft really is that simple. The extent to which someone is "hurt" by a theft doesn't what determines whether theft is good or bad. How much or little money an industry makes has no bearing on the moral correctness of theft. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong. Period.

You claim to be disgruntled with "The System" because it is corrupt then turn around and state that theft is justified. That just means you're morally corrupt and no better than the broken systems you rail against. Additionally, theft just proves that whatever is being stolen does indeed have value, at least enough that people are willing to steal it it rather than simply doing without. Theft benefits the "system" by giving them grounds to claim that they have been victimized and need additional protections.

Comment Re:A famous book of literary criticism once said.. (Score 3, Insightful) 288

Some people were taught right from wrong by their parents and have some moral integrity. I know it's a crazy idea, but just because you think it's okay to steal doesn't mean everyone else does. I would guess that most of us did some morally questionable things when we were younger. Most of us have matured enough to realize that we should not be proud of those things and brag about them by the time we graduate from college though.

Cue the "it's not stealing if nothing gets taken" crowd. I'll go ahead and preemptively respond to that, too.

There are different types of theft but at the simplest level theft is taking something that is not yours without permission from the owner/creator. Note that "something" can be a physical item, a valuable idea, an identity, a service, etc.

If you go to buy a car and think the dealer's asking price is too high, do you come back after they close for the day and steal it? The cable TV company spent the money and did the work necessary to provide the infrastructure so they could offer a service. They set a price for this service based on what they thought it was worth. If you thought their asking price was more than the service was worth, you should have done without rather than stealing it.

Comment Re:Because of the endless whiners (Score 1) 151

Meaning less than 15% of the idiots complaining about a removed feature they never used were full of crap because their console indeed never actually supported this feature.

Nice statistic. It's a shame you chose one completely out of context with the issue at hand. Cherry picking statistics out of context hurts your argument more than it helps it.

At the specific point in time Sony released the update that removed support for Other OS, the percentage of PS3s on the market that did have that functionality was much higher than 15% so your point is invalid. Even if your statistic was accurate, what would it matter? If even 1% of the PS3 owners bought a PS3 for the advertised Other OS functionality, the complaint about something they paid for being removed after the sale is still valid.

Beyond that, they didn't actually remove it from the ps3s that shipped with that support, the USERS removed it when they upgraded the firmware, something Sony gave advanced warning about. No excuses.

Again, you're cherry picking facts and using them out of context. Sure, the users upgraded their firmware but they only did so because Sony intentionally made a multiple other features on the PS3 stop working if they did not update to the latest firmware. In other words, Sony forced PS3 owners to choose which of the original, advertised functionality they would give up.

Unless you are the US army building a cluster, you had no use for this feature at all. But.... many butthurt morons were butthurt because they thought, incorrectly, that this "other os" feature allowed for piracy.

Wait, let me get this straight. You are reading and posting on a site known for it's Linux advocacy/fanaticism and you essentially just said you don't see any other uses for the ability to run Linux on hardware that was purpose built for media playback other than military cluster computing and game piracy? Either you are being intentionally obtuse with the intention of trolling or you are incredibly unimaginative and just plain ignorant of the potential the PS3 had as a HTPC running Linux.

Car analogy time. What Sony did to the orignal PS3s would be like you buying a car specifically because the manufacturer advertised electronically selectable driving modes (i.e. normal, sport, track, etc.) as a feature on it. 6 months later, you take the car in for the manufacturer's recommended maintenance. The service department tells you that the manufacturer doesn't like how owners have been driving their cars in sport and track modes, so they have to install an update to the vehicle's control module that disables the selectable driving modes. If you don't install that update, your radio, power windows and locks, and sunroof will stop working after a certain date. You still have a drivable car but it is most definitely not the same car you originally purchased from a functionality standpoint, regardless of which option you chose. I suspect you would be fairly unhappy with the manufacturer at that point.

Comment Re:The future of console games (Score 4, Informative) 249

In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

This is incorrect. Please stop spreading disinformation and/or stating things as facts that you have done no research or testing on.

Yes, there are some games purchased from Steam that require the client to be running in order to load the game, even in "offline" mode. However I have multiple games in my Steam library that do not require the Steam client to be running. I manually start up the Steam client only when it is needed and leave it off the rest of the time and have no problems with certain games.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

Your setup isn't a bad solution. It's pretty good and to be honest it's exactly what I've considered setting up with one of my technically literate friends.

The catch is, this solution only works well for an IT geek who can do it themselves. It doesn't work for the vast majority of people out there. Google would. An enterprise cloud-based solution also has a few less weak points compared to a homegrown one like this.

In summary, when you factor in time, ease of maintenance, and increased risk of failure, however slight it may be, the cost effectiveness of a Google Drive solution at the rates listed in this article holds it's own in my opinion.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 2) 335

You've neglected to consider the technical expertise and time required to implement, update and test such a system. Sure, maybe you can do it, but does everyone you know have the required knowledge? Most people can setup an automated backup job to a cloud provider quickly following a short video or walkthrough. Time's money and I don't value my own at a low number.

Additionally, regardless of what you think about the NSA spying or Google changing the terms of service, said companies will do a better job of keeping it secure, tested and updated than a non-IT geek will any day.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

As long as you live in significantly separate geographic areas where a disaster won't take out both locations, that's a decent solution. Many people are not lucky enough to have someone they trust implicitly with their digital lives who happen to live on the other side of the country though. You're also betting that the drive at your in-law's home doesn't somehow die around the same time something bad happens to your drive. The chances are probably small, but how much are you willing to gamble on that? A Google Drive solution would work for pretty much everyone and Google takes care of the redundant storage with tested, offsite backups.

How much time do you and your in-law spend verifying and testing the backups and restore scenarios? Untested backups aren't backups. In my opinion, when you factor in the time required to setup remote access, secure the remote network, maintain and test restores, the costs of the increased electricity usage, additional drives and hardware, it's not nearly the money-saving deal it would seem at first glance. Personally, I'd rather pay a little more to use Google's enterprise class infrastructure and spend my own time on other things.

Comment Re:Yeah, you can totally trust your data... (Score 1) 335

Are you implying that you can get automated, offsite backups with built-in redundancy so that if/when that your home gets robbed, burns down, gets struck by lightning, or destroyed by a natural disaster that 1 TB of data is recoverable and you manage to accomplish this for roughly $13 per year? If so, please share your plan with us as it's the single most cost effective offsite data storage solution I've encountered lately. If not, surely you're not trying to say that a single, locally stored, end-user spec'd HDD is the same as enterprise class storage with multiple layers of redundancy and geographically diverse storage and backups locations should be even remotely similar from a price per GB perspective...

Comment Re:I imagine nobody cares (Score 1) 107

Your 3G results are low you are on CDMA. GSM/HSPA/HSPA+ 3G networks are much faster. In the past 2 years, I've used a Verizon 4G Galaxy Nexus and a Google Galaxy Nexus (GSM/HSPA) on T-Mobile and AT&T. My Verizon results were similar to yours. With AT&T 3G, I usually get in the neighborhood of 6-8 Mbps. When I was using T-Mobile, speedtests ran anywhere from 10 Mbps to 16 Mbps. So I don't think it's accurate to say 3G isn't "good enough" or "doesn't work". I would agree that Sprint and Verizon 3G is sub-par but AT&T's and T-Mobile's 3G is plenty fast. I can haven't noticed any difference speedwise in my daily use when switching from Verizon to T-Mobile/AT&T.

Slashdot Top Deals

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...