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 Uphill battle (Score 2) 27

Unfortunately, it will be an uphill battle getting the major cable companies to support this. The whole point of "TV Everywhere," from the cable companies' point of view, is to make it a massive pain in the ass. Every Apple TV that uses TV Everywhere to watch video is one less cable-box rental fee, and one more person who is a step closer to cutting the cord entirely. It's not in their interests to make it easier for you to use TV Everywhere.

Consider: You need to go through the annoying log-in process even to watch broadcast networks. Anyone can watch the show by using an antenna, but if you want to watch it online, you need a cable subscription. Theoretically, those networks are supported by ads. The live streams and replays in the app have at least as many ads as the terrestrial broadcast—sometimes more. But you still need to pay for a cable subscription to see them online. And that means the cable company has to pay the broadcaster retransmission fees for carriage.

This is why the "true" Apple TV never happened. The TV networks and cable companies have no interest in working with Apple: Apple wants to make it easy for people to watch TV, and the TV folks want to make it hard for people to watch TV without paying a lot of money and using cable-company equipment that can readily monetize their viewing habits.

Comment Re: because Photoshop doesn't exist (Score 1) 317

Well I'm going to assume that the govt mandated speech part is self evident. So I'll elaborate on the second part. If you are voting, excerpting your right to vote, in essence your political speech, I am not keen on the idea that the govt would force you to keep your political speech secret, by statute.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 437

"I don't think even the lowliest serf is ignorant anymore that every media outlet and talking head is campaigning for Hillary." I'm concerned you've missed the point. They are ignorant that this is happening. because they have been convinced by said media that its their own opinion. All media outlets that set out to sway the public do this. There are countless instances of people who complain about Fox News generating a skewed reality for their viewership. At the end of the day, taking apolitical position on a candidate is a matter of money. The more eyeballs you drive to your venue, them ore you can sell those views to advertisers. The more rabid the viewers are the more they will patron your venue. Its just the way it works. There can really only be one rule of caution : Be more cynical.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 3, Informative) 475

You are presuming that he's using the connection of the main Ecuadoran embassy (for which it may have more than one). And, yes doing so would likely cause a diplomatic issue, However I'd like to propose a couple of things : * It does not say which state. If the connection is a separate one facilitated by the Embassy, it does not say that Ecuador did not cut it. * If could be a separate connection not used for official business by the Embassy, but for visitors etc. but on contract facilitated by the Embassy that was then cut by a request to the provider by the UK. There are a number of ways this could be setup, and still be consistent with the published statement. Perhaps notching back on the histrionics would provide, overall, a better perspective on whats actually in play here.

Comment Re:3G? (Score 1) 292

My guess is: They had purchased a 3G cell-site simulator, which is not a cheap piece of kit, so they had one. 4G LTE cell-site simulators are considerably more pricey. Even government-run "stingray" cell-site simulators often force phones to drop back to 3G to make life easier for the device.

What are the chances that the cell-site simulator the group used doesn't support power-saving features that the real cell towers provide? I suspect the chances are pretty good. In the name of "being fair," I think the magazine wound up producing results that bear no relation to the real world, unless you're under constant surveillance by an underfunded government agency that can't afford the latest and greatest toys from Harris RF.

If Which? has a simulator that accurately reproduces the behavior of each cell company's own towers and software, I'd love to see them document that. Until then, I'm going to assume it emulates a generic network, or possibly even a "good enough" network that doesn't optimize power the way a real network does—which we know is true of many "stingray" devices, which command the phones to go to full power regardless of conditions in order to make them easier to locate.

Otherwise, it's like saying "to test the battery life of these laptops, we loaded Jimbo's BIOS and our own operating system on them." The results would not reflect real-world usage where you'd be using a BIOS tailored to the hardware and an OS that supports the hardware's power-saving features. It might give you a certain relative ranking of battery capacity, but it doesn't tell you how the laptop you actually buy and use will perform.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...