Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Here's a thought... (Score 1) 119

Say I'm being unreasonable, but here's my immediate reaction: infrastructure providers, whether they're fiber or cellular, should just provide the infrastructure. Voice service should be decoupled from the physical infrastructure. It should be competitive VoIP products based on open standards. The expectation should be that I can get a phone on Verizon's network, but my phone service might be through services like Google Hangouts or Skype, but that Google Hangouts and Skype can talk to each other the same way that Gmail can send email to Office 365. Same with video calls and messenger apps, frankly.

If you start from that viewpoint, then it's not about forcing Verizon to filter calls. All the questions boil down to "What should these open standards look like?" and "How do we get people to agree to use these standards?" If you have a set of good, secure standards, then you should have better luck verifying the identity of the source of the messages, and thereby identifying abusers. You'll still have some of the same problems we have in filtering spam, but (a) if you're building these standards from the ground up with modern knowledge, we can do better than what we've done with email; and (b) if you don't like your spam filtering, you can easily switch to a different provider that does a better job, and providing a good spam filter becomes a competitive edge.

Of course, this isn't going to happen. Everyone wants to lock their users into walled gardens. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are all trying to strong-arm users into using their services rather than giving them a free choice to use the best provider. If the web were being designed today, it would all look like the early AOL, with everyone walled into the garden that they signed up for, completely unable to access content or services unless they are offered by their ISP. It's absurd.

Comment Re: Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1, Troll) 442

The only difference is that democrats want a safety net that they can't afford, whereas Republicans simply want their roads, their military, and their Medicare and want to live tax-free, apparently paying for the programs with manna from the sky.

So Democrats want a safety net they can't afford while Republicans want tax breaks they can't afford. Meanwhile a lot of the Republicans also want to have our government run as a theocracy, having our laws based on morals gleaned from their experience handling snakes and speaking in tongues.

Comment Re:Pokemon Go to rake in nearly $13 Billion (Score 1) 78

These games always disturb me a bit-- the "free" games that let you buy some sort of credits. I haven't played the game, so I'm wondering what you can get with "PokéCoins".

Because it seems to me that a game where you buy credits would fall into one of two groups. Either (a) the game developer intentionally included some game mechanic that is unpleasant, that most people would not want to spend time on, and is selling the credits as a method for bypassing that mechanic; or (b) the game developer intentionally made some portions of the game impossible without additional assistance, and then sells you credits as that necessary assistance.

Now I'm not going to buy those credits, which means that in scenario A, the developer has made a boring/annoying game. In scenario B, the developer has made an incomplete game. What's the deal here?

Comment Re:License to work (Score 2, Informative) 637

From South-Central Nebraska here, and you are massively full of crap. Sure, there are some mega-corp farms, and unfortunately more each year, as the smaller farmers ( 2000 acres) are getting decimated by things like this.

Sure, there are some rich farmers, but most are not.

But to say most are rich is complete crap.

Comment Re:Cloud and cloud, what is cloud?! (Score 1) 465

Take my love, take my land
  Take me where I cannot stand
  I don't care, I'm still free
  You can't take the sky from me.

  Take me out to the black
  Tell them I ain't comin' back
  Burn the land and boil the sea
  You can't take the sky from me.

  Leave the men where they lay
  They'll never see another day
  Lost my soul, lost my dream
  You can't take the sky from me.

  I feel the black reaching out
  I hear its song without a doubt
  I still hear and I still see
  That you can't take the sky from me.

  Lost my love, lost my land
  Lost the last place I could stand
  There's no place I can be
  Since I've found Serenity

  And you can't take the sky from me.

Comment But why so small? 5GB? (Score 1) 212

So they complain about abusers uploading 75TB, but then chops everyone down to a measly 5GB? That's ludicrous. 5GB is 1/15000th of 75 TB.

And I got 15 gigs (Still measly) when I bought my Windows Phone, and they are chopping that down to 5GB as well.

I'm done with OneDrive. Pulled off all my stuff and put it on my Google Drive which still is 15GB. (Of which I'm only using 2.5 GB) I've got 10 TB on my network at home, really don't need these third party services. I'm not a typical use case, I know, but it's still really shitty of Microsoft.

Really not liking the Satya Nadella era of Microsoft.

Comment Re:PC gaming is not hard (Score 1) 726

I honestly feel like $1000 is going overboard.

Well here's the thing, later on you say:

So every 18 to 36 months you spend $200 for a new card, and can likely sell your old one for a bit of cash. And every 4.5 to 6 years you buy a new mobo,CPU, and probably RAM for $250.

So if you spent $200 every 18 months, that's about $650 over 5 years, let's say. Plus $250 every 4.5 to 6 years. So let's just say $900 every 5 years. If you want to (or have to) buy a new hard drive over the span of those 5 years-- let's say your hard drive fails, or you decide to upgrade to a flash drive-- suddenly that gets bumped up to $1000 or more. It's basically the same thing.

Comment PC gaming is not hard (Score 5, Informative) 726

The author of the article claims that for one to build a gaming PC, they need an "unreasonable" amount of disposable income, and also have an unreasonable amount of time to "research, shop around, and assemble parts" for their computer.

Or they could just buy a pre-made gaming PC. You might be able to save a few dollars by putting one together yourself, but if you're worried about all the time and effort spent, and having "sausage fingers" that can't seat a motherboard, buying an already-assembled system is an option.

It's not necessarily that expensive, even-- the Alienware Alpha, for example, starts at $500. It's not the most powerful system ever, but it'll play an awful lot of PC games.

The author adds that a person looking into making one such gear also needs to always have to keep investing time and money in as long as they want to stay at the cutting edge or recommended specifications range for new PC games.

Well yes, if you want to stay on the cutting edge, you need to spend money to stay there. Not necessarily time, since there are companies who will build you a pretty cutting-edge system for a price. But money, yes, you have to spend money to stay on the cutting edge. However, you don't need to stay on the cutting edge. You can buy a $1000 system and play games on it for several years. Even a $1000 gaming rig will play most mainstream games at medium or high graphics settings, at playable frame rates. It might not play the most demanding games on "ultra high" at 100fps, but honestly, you can do it. My pattern for the past couple decades has been to buy a $1000 system every 5 years, updating the video card to whatever I can get for $200 halfway through the lifecycle. I haven't really had trouble playing games.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry