Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment The issue isn't (just) speed - it's (also) range. (Score 1) 43

LTE is already pretty darn fast, so losing a little performance isn't going to make that big of a deal. It's not as if you can torrent to your hearts content without killing your cell phone bill.

The issue isn't just speed. It's also range.

At any given speed, the Qualcom can support it at substantially lower signal levels. 6ish dB in a lot of cases, a bit less in some, enormously more in others.

Look at the graphs in TFA. In addition to some specific pathologies that penalize the Intel chip farther, the bulk of the graph has the drop off looking similar but with the Qualcom shfited 5 or 6 dB to the right. (Those squares are 5 dB wide.)

6 dB is four times the effective signal strength, which corresponds to twice the range. That maps into four times the area served at that speed from a single cell tower (important in sparsely-served areas), deeper penetration into buildings and the like (in more heavily-covered areas). It can also map into more data pushed before a given area and channel allocation's bandwidth is saturated. 3 dB corresponds to twice the effective signal strength, 1.4ish times the radius, twice the area served.

If the modems were equivalent and the problem just the layout of the board and antenna, you'd expect the two curves to be the same shape but just offset. The shape is substantially different, so (board issues or not) something else is going on.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 96

To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 96

The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

Comment Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo (Score 1) 96

It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 96

That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.

Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.

Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".

Comment Why we need Distributism more than ever (Score 2) 60

The only economic system the West hasn't tried on a serious level is Distributism and sadly, Distributism is the only system that answers this economic problem of having a faustian bargain of monopolies or government control. When a business has to operate on that dichotomy, society turns over the work to a non-profit corporation that manages the infrastructure as a social good, works fairly with the private sector and is sufficiently powerful to resist undue political pressure.

If that sounds almost feudal, well it is influenced by the old feudal system. Under Distributism, such a corporation would not be state owned. It would be the equivalent of a feudal lord with a letter patent granting rights and authority to operate. That means Congress could still act and force its hand, but it would take Congress acting with a serious majority and mandate.

Comment As long as it is vaccines qua vaccines, that's ok (Score 4, Interesting) 502

When you say we can't trust any vaccines, that's not a sound professional opinion. However, when you jump into attacking people who don't want to get Gardasil (which is far less safe than most vaccines) or Anthrax (many military veterans have had serious problems with it) because we can trust the Polio and MMR vaccines you're even worse than the anti-vaxxers. Know why? Because all it takes to disprove an anti-vaxxer is show the real harm that the core vaccines that are battle-tested prevent. Some science popularizing elitist wingnut who borrows from the legitimacy of those vaccines to hound people who don't accept that vaccines as a category are safe (because no medicine as a category, is categorically safe) is directly tying the reputation of proven medicine to unproven medicine.

Comment Re:stupid managers making clueless requirements (Score 1) 234

First thought:
Not really true, but it could go into a mode where it only operated in a VERY degraded no external connectivity.

Second thought:
And I guess even that could fail if, say, the power went out, so I guess you're right after all.

The problem here is that "network failure" isn't well defined. Computer failure is, though, so if all the computers that ran the software went down, the network would have clearly failed. I'm sure they meant something different, but they don't seem to have been explicit about what they meant. (Betcha that "never goes down" came out of marketing, and they didn't know, or care, exactly what they meant.)

Comment Why we keep raising the amount... (Score 2) 204

Most stores have maximum numbers of cards you can apply in a transaction. It's usually about 5-6. They set themselves up to be seen as white collar criminals. All they had to say was "we bought these a while ago on various gift card sites like and got them like 10-15% off, we're off to best buy to blow them on video games." Chances are good that the guy with the warrant would have been booked and the other guy let go. Cops were looking for a reasonable explanation for why they had such an unusual number of gift cards and they chose a reason that they couldn't back up.

And let's be realistic here, even as opponents of civil asset forfeiture. If you just bought 143 gift cards and didn't have a receipt or even a single activation slip for one of them, that looks pretty damn suspicious. Let's say the average balance was $25 on face value. Who buys $3,575 of gift cards at Walmart, spread over that many cards and doesn't have even the activation slips so they can go back to customer service when inevitably one of them wasn't activated correctly in such a large transaction?

Comment Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 4, Insightful) 204

If cops are personally liable for illegal searches and got prosecuted and jailed, then they would be thinking twice themselves. As it is, they can even jail you on bogus charges without any repercussions - "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride". Unfortunately, cops are not even prosecuted for straight-up murder very often, so thinking that prosecutors would bring charges for illegal searches is just fantasy right now.

Comment Yes. (Score 1) 883

The problem is it needs to be phased in, and various support programs need to be phased out. Handling this smoothly will be difficult. And the transition period probably needs to be about 15 years.

Jobs ARE disappearing a lot faster than they are being created, and the population is growing. This does not augur well for social stability unless there is some universal support system. Basic Income is the universal support system that has the most push behind it. And we need a lot more effort put into virtual reality, so that people without jobs can find something that they will do rather than cause trouble. Of course, that itself will eliminate entire classes of jobs. But virtual reality when properly developed could replace gyms, schools, and many other activities. The "school" replacement could be essentially apprenticeship games.

Think of this as a high-tech version of "bread and circuses", but it needs to be done in a way that's less socially disruptive than Rome was forced into....and preferably before wide-scale civil war breaks out. (Again, check the history of Rome.)

If this is handled right we could be headed towards a utopia...but if it isn't we could be headed towards a profound dystopia. Unfortunately, I see very few signs that anyone with any power even realizes the problems.

Comment Re:The Goldman talks... (Score 1) 312

I'm quite convinced that Hillary violated the law in setting up her private e-mail. I'm a lot less convinced that doing it the officially approved way would have been any more secure.

And if I chose between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Hillary. There's a lot I don't like about her, but it doesn't come close to what I don't like about Trump.

OTOH, I don't live in a swing state, so I'll probably pick Stein. Not because I think she'd be a good president, or because I think her ideas would work, but because they're CLOSER to the ideals I have than those of Hillary. Sanders would have been even better, and his ideas could be made to work if Congress would cooperate.

Additionally, despite my dislike of Hillary, I think of her VP the way I think of Spiro Agnew...President Nixon's life insurance policy.

Slashdot Top Deals

APL hackers do it in the quad.