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 Re:Hey Slashdot: (Score 2) 131

When you trade money for news, you tend to get the news that makes the most money. It's human nature, unless controlled by regulation. Just as corporations, utilities, colleges, all mostly get financially out of hand unless regulated, because people are mostly naturally greedy. There's scant sense of fairness, and gross excess of "take the market for all it can bear."

Look, news is all mostly biased anyway. Biased by what they cover and what they choose not to cover; by the editor's influence; by the publisher's influence; by the advertiser's influence; by the stockholder's influence; by ridiculous "equal time for superstitious nonsense" policies (because the news consumers are bewildered, so in order to get their money, they are pandered to), etc. I'm just not going to actually pay for more bias.

It's a complete waste of time to put a paywalled link in front of me. Not going to click it if I know what it is; not going to stay if I am snookered into clicking.

For news, here's what I want: facts and relevance to actual news. Not the Kardumbians, not some actor's opinion, not breathless reporting of some lab result as if it was tech coming down next Friday, Politics, cover the candidates and what they say. Even handedly. Don't leave some out (Sanders, cough) don't over-cover some (Trump, cough), don't report bland, content free remarks as if they were incoming legal doom (Clinton, cough)... you get the idea.

Simple enough, you'd think. Just do a good job. But they don't. Okay then, fine. But expecting me to pay for that crap? Not happening. They oughta pay me for having to fact check every goddam thing they write and speak about.

Comment Re:Issues (Score 1) 158

First, the amount of time spent watching stuff is a poor metric by itself. What you really want to know is the amount of enjoyment people get out of the service. Admittedly that is very hard to measure accurately, which is why they want to use "hours spent watching" as a more easily determinable value.

One of the things that I think is important to keep in mind is, a lot of people just turn on the TV when they get home. They just turn on *something*. They might take a nap or leave the room. They might be reading things online. They still just have *something* playing on the TV.

So it's not just a question of whether or not they're enjoying the TV show they're watching, but also a question of whether they're really watching the TV show that they're streaming.

Comment Re:too much segmentation (Score 1) 158

In a monopsony, there are many suppliers, but one customer who will buy it

Do you mean "many suppliers, but one distributor"? Because that would be more accurate. The issue that I'm talking about (and also Apple iTunes) is not that there's a single "customer". there are millions of customers. But one business that has taken over resale and distribution.

Movie and TV studios took note, and vowed they would never be controlled like that so they are ensuring that no one service will become dominant and be forced to acquiesce to whatever terms they provide.

I agree that part of the reason for the things I describe is that video content owners have been trying to avoid the situation the record industry created with Apple iTunes and Spotify. Spotify has done the same thing, to a degree, in that you can stream almost any music you want for a single subscription fee. As a result, the role of music in our society has drastically changed. Recorded music is almost a commodity. People don't associate the same value to the product that they used to. Record companies make a tiny amount of money from each song on Spotify, and they're trying to make it up in bulk. Studios don't want the same thing to happen with movies and TV.

Streaming is reshaping the way we view movies and TV anyway.

Comment Re: what about not giving a printer an public IP (Score -1) 83

If you want to be a technical asshole:

Telnet has 0 authentication built into it. It just connects you to a port and has some extensions to relay environment variables such as term type to the remote end. The remote host MAY use something like 'login' on most UNIXes to authenticate you after the fact, but it has nothing at all to do with the Telnet protocol.

FTP (by RFC) supports any authentication type, which is why you can use FTP securely when you use proper authentication protocols like say Kerberos. If you use plain text password for FTP on an unsecured network, yes it's unsafe. Kerborized FTP? At no point will you get my password because I never send it to the server! And if you DO get my ticket ... It's time sensitive and only valid ONCE ... Since you had to get it when I was using it ... That means the ticket you stole from me is worthless.

Now stop for a second and look in the mirror,. THAT is an epic fail. Wipe the arrogance off your smug face and you'll probably stop getting schooled by people who have forgotten more about security than your entire total sum of knowledge.

Comment Re:Fake news? (Score 1) 405

No one is shouting anything. I just don't care to debate someone trying to redefine already poorly-defined, loose categorizations. I'm just happy now that absolutely anything can be described as "strongly right wing".

Perhaps we can all stop taking that nonsense seriously and talk about ideas rather than which box those ideas belong in -- they're all "strongly right wing" and "left wing" and probably also "moderate".

Slashdot Top Deals

"Paul Lynde to block..." -- a contestant on "Hollywood Squares"

Working...