Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment This is why emissions testing should actually test (Score 3, Interesting) 125

Who thought it was a good idea for any part of emissions testing to rely on a query to the entity being tested?

"I'm doing everything very efficiently, I promise!"
-Everyone

The only way that this would possibly be ok would be if the emissions testing system being queried was from a 3rd party that was forced to be installed in the vehicle. But I can see problems with that, too. If you are literally testing to see if a part is breaking the law or not, why the hell would you ever ask the manufacturer if the part is breaking the law?

Comment Active Glasses Killed It (Score 1) 434

There are two primary techs for 3D-at-home. The first is passive glasses, like the RealD glasses at the movie theater. It is polarized. This is the tech used by many LG televisions. The second is active glasses. They are battery powered. They cost sometimes > $100 per pair. This is used by Samsung and other manufacturers.

A single viewing of a 3D movie on an active system is enough to make anyone want to never view 3d again. The glasses are heavy, uncomfortable, and the flickering causes horrible headaches above and beyond anything a person might have had from the stereoscopic effect. However, most users think their headache was from the stereoscopic vision, not the horrible shit tech shoved down their throats because a marketing executive wanted to sell $500 worth of glasses to a family of four on top of their $1500 television.

If you have a high-quality 3d film like Avatar, or anything from DreamWorks Animation, etc -- the stuff intended from the start to be 3d, watch it on an LG system that supports the polarized glasse. The glasses are the exact same polarization as the RealD glasses from the theater -- you can take them home and use them on the tv. The experience is so much better than the active glasses as to be almost incomparable. The only trade-off, and this is only something I have read in articles with samsung adverts and from people spouting what they read in said articles, is that the resolution for passive displays is noticeably lower. That is because on a passive display, half the lines of resolution are used for one eye and half for the other. However, having worked in the industry, viewed by styles of TV, and now owning a passive 3d system, I can tell you with authority that you will not be able to tell a difference in image quality and that most people will report a significantly higher picture quality from the passive system since they don't pick up on the flickering.

Comment Is this supposed to make us mad? (Score 4, Insightful) 93

Ok, hold on a sec. You have summertime actively under investigation. The FBI hours to the court and tries to get a legal subpoena/warrant/whatever to get information from a service provider. That is how the system is supposed to work!

It's when they get the data without going through proper channels that's bad. Holy shit, you do know that allowing the FBI to actually investigate terrorism is a Good Thing, right?

Comment These stories make me feel sick to my stomach (Score 2) 462

I hate stuff like this. I hate it because it is crooked and evil. I hate it because there is very little recourse for the average citizen to make against an attack like this.

Contact your congress reps, local and federal. Try to get them to change the law. What is happening in these stories should be illegal.

Comment Won't win this fight with philosophical arguments (Score 1) 248

As bad-taste as it is to post another submitted story in a front-page story, here is another whitehouse.gov petition story that addresses net neutrality from an angle that is actually winnable:

http://slashdot.org/submission/3512823/whitehousegov-net-neutrality-petition

That links to this: http://wh.gov/lfOKl

In order to win this fight, we need to make people understand that net neutrality is a services-paid-for issue. They paid for something, but they are being robbed out of getting what they purchased. To win net neutrality, you MUST sell that point to people.

Submission + - Whitehouse.gov Net Neutrality Petition (whitehouse.gov)

Tanman writes: There is a new whitehouse.gov petition that addresses net neutrality from a different angle than covered by most of the media — it portrays the charging of content providers as a protection racket and seeks to outlaw the practice based on contractual obligations to the customer. Please take a look!

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
make it illegal for ISPs to lower customers' data rates below the advertised amount based on the content being accessed.

Internet service providers (ISPs) currently engage in the practice of charging customers different rates for different levels of internet access. For example, a provider may have 5mb/s, 25mb/s, and 50mb/s plans. If a customer has a contract with their ISP for access at a premium speed, then the ISP should not be allowed to reduce the customer's internet speed based on what content is being accessed. Doing so amounts to a breach of the good-faith agreement between the ISP and the customer. The ISPs practice this policy to engage in a protection racket in which they charge content providers additional fees to ensure that the content will reach the customers at the speeds expected by those customers. There is a huge incentive for content providers to pay up to avoid losing customers.

Comment Re:One of life's great mysteries (Score 1) 251

When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters. If someone makes $50k/yr and gives $5k/yr to charity, and someone else makes $5,000,000/yr and gives $20k to charity, do you really consider them to be more generous since they gave FOUR TIMES the amount? No, they are less generous. They would be giving 0.4% of their salary vs. 10.0%. The impact on their lives would be non-existent. The point of charitable giving is that you are giving up something for other people -- you are saying "my life will be harder so that other people's lives can be easier."

But yeah, I guess you could say they gave quadruple the amount to charity, if you wanted to be disingenuous.

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...