Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Secret government proceedings? (Score 1) 350

Your train of thought is interesting, but doesn't address the poster's assertion (which is absolutely true): The constitution is a limitation of government power, NOT a "grant of rights" to the citizens. One of the problems with my fellow US citizens is that they don't know this, and propogate the idea that the "Bill of Rights" enumerates rights of the people.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 639

>> preferred by the low information crowd
This is exactly what they're suppressing. Certain stuff is actually trending naturally within the FB discourse, but the curators are suppressing that-- in addition to injecting material that isn't really trending at all. So, whatever the "low information crowd" is discussing, when viewed through the "Trending" filter, is actually "liberal low information crowd" stuff mixed with "FB censors" stuff.

Comment Re: good for them (Score 1) 639

I agree that FB censorship isn't a crime. But it *is* misleading to call a list of news stories "Trending" when stories that are *actually* trending are explicitly excluded; and, when stories that have fallen out of interest with FB users (an therefore are *not* trending) are explicitly injected.
It should also be noted that-- regardless of whether or not FB wants to be people's primary news source (which I have a hard time believing)-- the manipulation of the perceived discourse of users is an evil application of peer pressure.

Comment Re:Waste of money (Score 1) 335

I tried to find the actual verbiage of Prop 1 just now with no luck. So, I'm willing to accept that the question was confusing. However, from all of the news coverage that I was able to dig up, it seems pretty clear that it would be nearly impossible to escape the "spirit" of what the question was and what "yes" and "no" actually meant.

Comment Re:Its coming (Score 1) 160

Roku has been offering sports through its platform for a few years now.
I don't think avid TV people do too much serious research about cutting the cable cord unless they really have to. FYI, I've been cable-free (internet only) for 10+ years now, and have noticed the validity of arguments against cutting the cord rapidly diminishing. When I see commericals for Xfinity X1, I actually feel the same way about that as I do about the commericials for "free tv" that are really just selling TV antennae-- disingenuous overselling of underwhelming products. My regular antenna works just fine. ;)

Comment 52.4% Market Share is Bad? (Score 1) 104

My only real exposure to the Apple watch has been reading these types of stories about it, but this is the first time that I noticed their market share. Out of the many entries in the smart watch category, they have more than half? How can that possibly be considered a failure?
I have had a first generation Pebble for a while, and really everything that folks write about the Apple watch reminds me of my Pebble experience: It's neat for seeing messages on your wrist, but--after a while-- remembering to charge it in the context of not really being useful has led me to stuff it in the drawer.

Comment Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score 1) 438

If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.

So, people should work for free, without compensation? Just because the work is "creative" or "intellectual" does not eliminate the value of it, nor does it entitle you to be able to enjoy it. Money does that. Go buy the DVD if a particular movie is such a necessity for you. Or are DVDs unavailable in Canada?

Comment Re:Without Steve Jobs (Score 1) 284

I don't know whether you've ever owned any Apple products; I presume not. What I was most pleasantly surprised to discover when I got my first Mac (Macbook Pro, 2014) was the gigantic support infrastructure that they have built. Between the Apple stores and perpetual OS upgrades, they have built and are maintaining their business on the notion that computers aren't disposable crap; rather, they are worth fixing, maintaining, and expanding. While their products are pricey, it was pretty clear to me that I wasn't just buying hardware and an OS.

In addition, the integration between my Macbook, iPhone, and AppleTV "just works." I have messed with home networking a little bit, and at one point had an Ubuntu media server hooked into my PC and Roku, running some streaming web apps. The Apple infrastructure achieves everything that I spent hours figuring out in minutes.

I would say that "quality" is the concept that they trade on. Wrapped up in that is the fuzzy stuff like UX, and hipster-ness; but I find that, for the first time with technology, I have a "brand loyalty" that grew naturally, and purely from experience. While I'm certain that Steve Jobs handily navigated Apple on the path that led them to market leadership, I don't sense that his absence has diminished Apple quality. All of the recent innovation and financial talk is just "noteworthy static" within the bigger picture.

Comment Re:I'm conflicted by this (Score 1) 766

The consistency is: Grow up. Your examples (which seem somewhat plausible) are, at best, simplistic and-- while they do showcase silly examples of social-just-gone-too-far-- don't really measure up to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is *institutional discrimination* (that is, discrimination enshrined in law).

If you find your viewpoints being bombarded in ways the you find inconsistent, why not take a look at your own attitude? Are you *really* so confused about this? Here's a hint: Those "feelings" that you think should "matter" are *irrational fears* that are carelessly reaffirmed by religious fearmongerers who love people like you (who naively argue while discussing topics like this, "Who, me? I am the rational one.").

Comment Re:Uhhh (Score 1) 198

>> Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.
1. Those running piracy sites collect advertising dollars--> profit.
2. Those who download illegal files started with nothing before the download, and end up with a digital file--> profit.
I do believe that the definition of "friend" in the context of "p2p sharing" is ambiguous, though. Probably there should be some kind of standard in the law with regard to file sharing that allows for "virtual gathering sharing" or something (e.g. the equivalent of playing a movie or music for a private gathering of people). However, I don't think making copies of copyrighted material available for millions of downloaders would meet that standard.

Slashdot Top Deals

"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"