Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Too little too late (Score 4, Informative) 44

Well, with Apple you have a point, but less so with Google. With Apple you HAVE to go through the app store or you have no way of getting on their products. With Google though, if you don't like their app store terms, you can always sell the app as a sideload app. Sure, it's not as nice, but then again if you aren't going to let Google have their cut via the app store what do you expect. The key is though, you have an option to completely avoid Google's app store and still get your app on their products.

Comment Most people don't (Score 1) 507

I think most people (myself included) don;t care about smart TVs. It didn't factor in at all the last time I replaced my TV (about a year ago). I did end up getting one, but that is because any TV that isn't super cheap is a smart TV. I do use the Netflix app on mine, but that is because I use Windows Media Center as my main TV control and support for the Netflix app for that has been dropped. If I couldn't use the TV app, I would have just used my PS4 instead, so it's not like it was a big deal for me. But I would guess 75% of the people with smart TVs never even set up the apps on them.

Comment Re:Lol... (Score 4, Insightful) 819

This is one of the issues with drug testing. With alcohol, you drink it, it is in your system and impaired, and then it leaves your system. It makes it very easy to test for since if it is in your system, you have taken it recently and it is currently effecting you. With other drugs (pot being the most obvious) there is no simple way to test for it. It stays in your system so long there isn't a way to tell whether you just smoked a joint and are impaired or you smoked a joint last night and are fine now.

This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot (I'm not saying legalization is a bad thing, but not everything is being handled). There needs to be a way to tell if people are currently impaired as we don't want people driving/operating crane/whatever while they are high. Currently there isn't a good, standard, scientific way to do that (and yes, I know breathalyzers have plenty of problems as well). Until that happens, the best we have is either blood tests which show how much THC is in the blood, but not if it is actually affecting people or sobriety tests which can be highly subjective.

Comment Re:No. That is not the strategy (Score 1) 428

Kasich isn't a moderate, but he is what passes for a moderate Republican anymore. I'm from Ohio, so I know first hand how bad he is, but given the candidates remaining for the Republicans he is by far the best choice. I'm pulling for him because I want the least destructive Republican candidate to get the nomination because there is always a chance the Republicans win.

Comment Would this mean no electronic only? (Score 2) 188

While I generally agree with him (less for privacy purposes and more for not paying a transaction fee to a credit card ever time), making it right would add a lot of potential problems to it. For example, what about online only transactions? Would Ebay or Spotify be required to somehow accept cash payments? I am all for companies not being forced to go electronic only, but I also wouldn't want to try and force every company to have to accept cash either.

Comment For others (Score 1) 395

The one thing they never ask in these surveys is if they would mind if the government looked at their internet history. People are okay with giving up freedom because they assume it is other people's freedom. It's easy to say the government should look through people's internet traffic because you assume you are a good person so the government would never have a reason to look through your internet traffic. But when you ask them specifically if they are okay with it happening to them they have to actually think about it. They never consider that the government gets it wrong. They never consider that someone from the government may have something against them. Forcing them to think about that means some people will suddenly have a problem with it. It is the same thing when lawmakers suddenly find out they are the ones that are being looked at. All those laws they voted for were for other people, not for them.

Comment Great except for hidden fees (Score 1) 440

I like the idea of this. If we can get our mobile payments systemsup to snuff this would make things a lot easier. My issue is the hidden costs involved with it. One of the reasons I use cash is because I know it costs small businesses money if I use my credit card. I would rather get cash and pay that way for local shops than cost them the percentage they pay to the credit card company even though I may get a few cents back. The only way I could get behind this totally would be for there to be some way to make the payments with the middle man taking a big chunk of the money. IF it was true micropayments where the middle man takes a couple cents then maybe, but as long as it is a couple percent, I will still pay with cash.

Comment This is a good policy (Score 4, Interesting) 523

I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 1) 622

While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited". And besides that, I am told "you have X Mbps bandwidth for you to use" when I sign up for internet. I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited". I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work, not should they need to. If you are told "this is for you and you can use it as much as you want" it is reasonable to assume it is for you and you can sue it as much as you want.

Comment In other words (Score 4, Insightful) 372

In other words, police have no idea how to do their job without being able to assault people, racially profile them, and generally be dicks. If these police are afraid to do their jobs because they might be filmed, the easiest solution is to hire police officers who don't do anything wrong that will be an issue if it ends up on tape. The reason people are taping the police constantly now is because they expect the police to do something wrong because they have shown in a lot of cases they do. If the police get better and stop setting the expectation they will treat people like garbage, then people won;t expect it and won't feel the need to film them constantly.

Comment Re:Well that settles it then (Score 2) 138

While you are probably correct, my issue with this thinking is that they CAN go after anyone for making a replica. If the intent is that they will only go after people selling them, then that is how the law/ruling should read. The law currently gives them the ability to go after anyone creating a replica, even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard (no, I don't think they would ever be dumb enough to do that, but legally they could). We should never rely on companies to do the right thing and not abuse power. If we want that to happen, we shouldn't give them the power to begin with instead of just hoping they would never use it.

Comment Re:Pretty reasonable (Score 2) 235

While in theory I agree, in practice, what else can we do? Someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them. If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then? If someone steals a car, we can try and get them to pay for the car, but they probably don't have enough to do it. Sure, we can garnish wages for the future, but that is just a sure fire way of keeping the poor committing crimes because even when they do make money legally afterward, they won't get it.

Comment Criminal versus Civil (Score 3, Informative) 83

While I agree he should have probably gotten a more severe penalty, comparing the civil cases versus a criminal case is an unfair comparison. The companies could still pursue a civil case against him and they have an automatic win on their hands because of the criminal conviction. He could end up with what he was sentenced to here PLUS a civil case for a huge amount. This isn't necessarily the end of it, it's just the end of what the government can do.

Also, I can't find anywhere exactly what he was convicted of, but I would guess this was felony level copyright violation, which means he now has a felony on his record which in reality is a much bigger deal than losing a civil case and owing the companies a ridiculous amount of money because it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.

Comment Here's a better idea (Score 5, Insightful) 199

Instead of giving Century Link 3 billion dollars to build the infrastructure and then have a monopoly where they can overcharge the customer, let's take that 3 billion and have the government build the infrastructure. Then we let any company who want so use it do so for a small fee. Then not only do we have infrastructure, but we also have competition and at least a small income from the lines, which is better for everyone.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When in doubt, print 'em out." -- Karl's Programming Proverb 0x7

Working...