Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Same model NAME! (Score 1) 27

Latest phone supported is the international version of the Galaxy S III (I9300) ... Note: The U.S. version of Galaxy S III is a different motherboard and chip - the same model number on a different device.

The same model NAME on a different device. Model number is different, which is how you tell for sure you got the right one.

Comment One word: Replicant (Score 1) 27

Replicant

Android. Fork of Cyannogen Mod that is fully Open source. Even the drivers and firmware. Latest phone supported is the international version of the Galaxy S III (I9300) (2G and 3G but no 4G LTE). (Note: The U.S. version of Galaxy S III is a different motherboard and chip - the same model number on a different device.)

Stable release is a couple years old (4.2) due to thinning of the development crew. But the project got new blood (post-Snowden) and a 6.0 port (for the 19300 so far) is in alpha.

Some devices (WiFI, Bluetooth, user-facing camera) require closed firmware, which you can load separately. (It's supported but not distributed with the base distribution.

Some (3-D graphics acceleration, GPS) are just not supported. (Use 2-D graphics and, if you really want your phone to know where you are, a plugin GPS device based on a different chip.) GPS is not supported because the phone's GPS chip also requires a proprietary CPU-land driver, which is an open-source no-no.

Comment I remember farther back. (Score 1) 53

Sigh, I remember when Slashdot used to be a news place for Nerds and not this stupid political bull crap of pointing fingers at one another.

I remember farther back. (Note that I have two fewer digits in my I.D.)

It's always been like this. We may have a few more professional grass-roots trolls now that we have a couple orders of magnitude more eyeballs. But come politics season people's political leanings come out.

Face it: Politics IS "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".

Comment And individuals should have no limits either. (Score 1) 53

Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United.

And ordinary citizens shouldn't have limits for the same reasons - but didn't have the big pockets to argue that in court like the organized lobbyists do.

Campaign spending limits are a bait-and-switch. They pretend to level the playing field by cutting down the big spenders' power. But instead they block the grass-roots' influence - individually or when organizing - while leaving the rich able to circumvent them, and (by building a complex paperwork maze to navigate) give incumbent politicians a further massive advantage against upstart challengers.

What they're really about is helping those currently in power STAY in power.

Comment Is this Project Fi? (Score 0) 48

This Google Fiber they're talking about has nothing to do with the Project Fi wireless service, does it? I've been using Project Fi after dumping AT&T, and I'm really liking it. But then, after AT&T, I'd probably be really liking two tin cans connected by a string, so the bar is pretty low.

Comment Re:$70K sounds pretty low (Score 1) 53

I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low.

Part of the POINT of government corruption is that the cost is low compared to the benefits.

If using the money to actually build something consumers wanted to buy had a better return - and politicians didn't gate-keep and demand ransom ("rent-seeking behavior"), businesses wouldn't spend a dime bribing politicians - or at least those that did would be out-competed and driven out of business by those that didn't.

Politicians know this, and set their prices accordingly.

Comment Huh? (Score 1) 53

The more that ISPs seek to rewrite the rules in their favor, the more likely it is that the citizens will ignore those rules.

I give up. How do we ignore those rules?

Start our own ISPs - and get everything seized by the government for failing to play by their rules?

Hack the infrastructure - and get busted for "stealing service" or "unauthorized access to a computer system" - and get everything seized by the government, plus a felony conviction and the resulting revocation of constitutional rights for the rest of our lives?

Did you have something else in mind? I'm really confused about what you mean.

Comment Lots of cores doesn't mean shit (Score -1) 17

I've been hearing about massive number of cores for years ... the problem however is they are great for demonstrating that you can put a bunch of 'cores' on a chip ... not that they are actually useful for anything.

Connecting 8k of these things together? You've just proven you actually don't understand how the real world does things.

If you have 8 million cores that can add 20 super floating point numbers a second ... thats WORTHLESS because I need to do things other than add two numbers.

If you have 8k cores that can be interconnected ... that must be one awesome bus if those interconnects are useful because the congestion on that bus is going to be insane, oh ... you've got a solution to that problem? funny how that solution kills the theoretical performance

Sorry, but I've heard this stuff so many times over the years that I just get annoyed when some professor tells us about this super awesome CPU he has that is utterly fucking worthless outside of theoretical land.

And by the way, 25 cores is on the tiny side for these silly academic projects.

Blah blah blah I made this awesome processor but it only works for one tiny problem domain that can't even be used for that problem domain because of the constraints on it that allow you to make so many cores.

Not once has one of these things actually been useful in the real world, and I know thats not the point of research but the only reason you list something about so many cores is pure clickbait. No one with a clue believes you've built something useful when you make such ridiculous statements.

No, I didn't read the article. I don't have to. These papers are only about getting grant money by making ridiculous statements, not about producing anything useful and 9 times out of 8, its done using methods that the real world (read people who actually get shit done) has already deemed don't actually work outside of academia and theory.

Yes, I'm bitter. I hate useless people wasting money that could be spent doing real things, not reiterating something intel and amd knew in the 80s.

Comment Re:Democrats too (Score 1) 53

Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later.

Challenge accepted.

You're misdirecting the reader away from the important point. It's #17 in the Rules of disinformation.

The real point is that corporate cash flowed to the politician in return for favours.

A lot of the analysis of HRC as SoS shows that these decisions benefited companies while at the same time made the country less safe (by enriching and/or strengthening a potential enemy), did not benefit the people of the US in any way, and gave Hillary more cash to work with.

The point was cash => politician => favors, not the details of any one deal.

Which was the actual point.

Comment Re:Do it, why not (Score 1) 61

I'd do it, but then I'd advise people who want to assist in such a way to unplug all their computers, including turning off wifi on smartphones etc., and disconnecting NAS storage in the forum of a USB drive attached to a router.
Although there's a concern for the security of the router itself.

Or have your AP publish a public SSID that only routes outside and a private one that routes inside. You then don't need to do anything special in the event of an earthquake other than avoiding falling rubble.

If your AP doesn't do that, you might want to consider a different vendor.

Comment The 1% told us that in the '60s and '70s, too. (Score 1) 541

Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity.

And we boomers have heard all that before. Back in the '60s and '70s the ruling class told us that we were about to be buried in a population explosion that would have us all starving in a toxic waste dump by the '90s and that technological improvements would only make it worse.

They even formed an organization called "The Club of Rome", which put together a computer model that cranked out these predictions.

So lots of responsible people held off on having kids - many until it was too late, even with major medical intervention. Enormous resources were diverted from production of material wealth to reduction of pollution. Costs went up, quality went down, resources were locked up, movement was restricted. Government power over everything, and the amount of money/value they pulled out of the economy grew and grew and grew. Anyone criticizing the paradigm or expressing a different view (especially a pro-technology view) was demonized - by activists, "leaders", and both the "establishment" and "underground" press.)

In the '50s, coming out of a depression and a World War, a family could live well supporting itself on a single income. Now it struggles with two or more full-time employed parents, or survives on a government dole. "There's a labor shortage!" - so the government imports more voters^H^H^H^H^H^H people from the more southern American countries to fill the blue collar jobs and from India, Aisia, and other places for the white-collar positions - and pretty much all of them from cultures where big families are the norm. So much for responsible self-population-limitation. (Think of it as evolution in action.)

But they made the mistake of publishing their software model. Computers got cheap, and programming became less of an arcane ritual practiced only by a tiny clique. Eventually skilled programmers took a look at the model - and found both flaws and gimmicks apparently designed to make it produce the gloom-and-doom, empower-governments, we're all going to freeze in the dark but that's better than extinction, predictions.

And the time came and went. And the disaster didn't happen. And technological improvements made things better, not worse. (And not just because of pollution controls: It turns out that pollution is INEFFICIENT, and as the cost of process control technology comes down and capabilities go up, reducing it can INCREASE PROFIT!)

So the "population bomb" turned out to be a dud. (But a convenient one for the rich and powerful, making them more rich and powerful.) And looking back at history we saw that this was just the latest in a long string of such operations:
  1. Predict disaster.
  2. Get everyone panicked.
  3. Increase power and control to "take action to head off the disaster".
  4. PROFIT!
Over and over and over again.

And then came "global warming" (replacing "here comes the next ice age".) Complete with computer models and lots of "scientific data" - from government scientists funded by billions from agencies that somehow only gave follow-on grants to scientists who predicted doom (or made some tie-in to global warming in research on non-climate-related subjects).

THIS time, though, they kept the raw data and models to themselves, handing out only conclusions and "adjusted" data. And after YEARS of digging, some outside the peer-review cliques found some evidence that the adjustments always seemed to increase the signal of warming, possibly by enough to create it out of nothing (or even out of measurements indicating global COOLING), and that this may have been deliberate.

But instead of opening the data to all, it was (and is) STILL kept largely hidden (or claimed to be lost), while a propaganda effort is raised against anyone questioning the conclusions, or the race to take over resources and wealth, and increase control of the general population, to "fix" this "disaster".

It all looks very familiar. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So expect skepticism from those of us who lived through the "environmental movement".

Maybe this new result IS a convincing signal. It sure LOOKS like one. But the "Hockey Stick" graph looked like one, too. (Very much like this one in fact.)

Any such results will need to be examined, and found to be completely open, honest, and based on a well-designed methodology, before even those of us who are truly interested in what's REALLY happening to the Earth, but got bitten by a previous pseudo-science movement, are convinced.

Meanwhile, there are a LOT of steps between "It looks like things might be warming up a tad since the Industrial Revolution." and "The government has to take over everything RIGHT NOW or WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"

Comment Democrats too (Score 5, Informative) 53

[Republicans are] all owned by corporations and do their bidding.

Have you been avoiding the news recently?

Google Clinton and "pay for play", or Clinton and "foundation", or Clinton and "Wikileaks". (Or just wait a week or so for that last one.)

Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling Uranium to Russia.

Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology (private and military uses) to Russia.

Here's $17 million that disappeared from the Clinton Foundation.

We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.

Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...