Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Old ways work (Score 2) 185

They should definitely keep using the old stuff until they figure out how to build something that is actually a useful replacement. I've never managed an aircraft carrier flight deck, but I imagine it would be pretty useful (and probably have some good knock on effects) if you could see more than just the deck RIGHT NOW. What if you could see it ten minutes ago, yesterday, trend out what moves where and when, have pre-loaded configurations (including least cost pathfinding) to respot equipment...

Yeah, I don't have any trouble believing that whatever LockMart delivered was a piece of shit, but "nuts and bolts on a board" is not the end all be all.

Comment Re:It's a way of pointing a finger (Score 3, Insightful) 79

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

FWIW, the finger needs pointing. There was an issue with Viacom vs Dish a couple of years ago where Dish stopped carrying CBS. Huge screams in the media and from customers, finger pointing by both sides, but in the end it comes down to this:

In the past, the FCC mandated that cable and satellite companies carry broadcast stations in the local markets (not too big a problem on the cable side, but a big PITA on the satellite side). The deal was mandated carriage vs no license fees, and it was (in general) a fair one. Fast forward and the networks decided that since they were now entrenched, it was time to get paid by the evil cable/satellite companies "free riding" on their content.

The fact that it's a hidden fee is bullshit (the total should match the advertised rate + tax) but the fee definitely needs to be broken out separately, because charging to rebroadcast an advertising supported network in the very area they're giving the signal away for free is also complete bullshit.

Comment Re:One word: competition (Score 1) 879

I just looked. It's $0.30/bottle at Wallmart. That's much better, but still a bit pricy compared to the actual cost.

If you want a link, Sam's Club. Local supermarkets are in the $0.10-0.15 range, but I can't link to those.

So what's the excuse for $0.50 cent shirts going for $50 and $5.00 shoes going for $100?

Gouging. :)

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 879

Thats 3 K after 2 car payments for cheap sedans
Thats 1 K after buying food , non food Groceries and clothes at Costco

Not that I'm jumping into the middle of your argument, but if you're spending $2000 a month on groceries and clothes, that's your problem right there.

Comment Re:One word: competition (Score 1) 879

Water costs a buck a bottle in a convenience store, where it's nice and chilled and waiting to be consumed right now. Water costs less than $0.10 a bottle when you buy it by the case at the supermarket. It's even cheaper when you buy it in 2.5 gallon jugs.

It's convenience pricing, and nothing more.

Comment Re:Groping (Score 1) 394

And he's trying to cause election day violence.

I'm not saying to go violent, but we have to watch, folks, because our democracy is being stolen by the media, by the government, by a bunch of lying whores too ugly to grope, by SNL, and by illegal aliens who get airlifted from Mexico to the inner cities so they can vote five times for Crooked Hillary! It's all rigged, the system is totally rigged, folks, totally rigged, and you know it's true because if Trump loses, believe me, everything is rigged, I can tell you that much.

Comment Re:Groping (Score 2) 394

Conservatives seem to be more concerned with hypothetical scenarios than things that actually happen. Hypothetically, a good guy with a gun might shoot a bad guy with a gun, a guy might put on a wig and enter a women's restroom to leer at girls, a Syrian refugee will show up in Chicago and vote 10 times for Clinton or set off a fission bomb, etc. The fact that these things never happen doesn't matter- if they can *imagine* it occurring, that's enough.

It's amazing how many people are convinced of "voter fraud" without actually thinking about what it means. Voter fraud means someone stands in line, votes, then gets back at the end of the line and votes again- thus risking years in prison in order to get in one extra vote! Which is believable if you're utterly incapable of putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining what they might be thinking.

Ever since voter fraud paranoia took hold, governments have been policing for voter fraud more vigorously. And so far the only offenders have been conservatives trying to prove how easy voter fraud is.

Comment Re:Drake Equation == 1 (Score 2) 258

there are many ways to skin a cat.

While that may be true in the literal sense (one could use a knife, or a vegetable peeler, or a melon baller, etc) in the general sense, I'm reasonably certain there is only one (removal of the epidermis from the underlying muscle, bone, etc).

<insert "The More You Know" star here>

Comment Good enough for me (Score 4, Insightful) 14

Yahoo knew, and didn't disclose. Presumably, they also didn't disclose the NSA stuff, either (though something tells me that, being a telecom, Verizon wouldn't actually have a problem with that one). The email platform (and associated user base) is one of the few things that Yahoo still has that is worth anything, and its value has likely been irreparably damaged. Verizon should definitely be able to walk away clean from this.

Comment Re:Has Wikileaks jumped the shark? (Score 3, Insightful) 269

The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

Welcome to the real world. Wikileaks has ALWAYS had an agenda, but that was fine for some people when Assange was targeting those they disagreed with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly a problem.

In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.

You're kidding, right? If you're leaking data, you should redact it before you give it to someone else to do with whatever they please, because who is to say that the non-redacted data won't accidentally leak, much less purposefully?

Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.

See point one above. There are plenty on the right these days cheering them on, because many of those people are hypocrites, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson