Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Sick of the hypocrisy (Score 2) 295

Would democrats? Yes, as it would be equally much a publicity stunt.

I guess, by technicality, you are right. There would have to be at least 2 democratic voters who would bash her.
However, to make the assertion that the response would be even remotely similar to this one is beyond delusion. I'm fine with vocal commentators on this site having one bias or another; it is part of human subjectivity. But you don't all of a sudden get to pick and choose which biases you'll acknowledge when it best suits your own interests.

Or maybe you do. Why do I care enough about this to reply? Man, I need to take a break from this place.

Comment Re:All this Glitz but it's still posessed... (Score 3, Informative) 212

If you have even the most basic knowledge of Group Policy editing, it takes around 15 seconds to disable updates from auto installing.

I'm fine with Microsoft forcing its more "basic" users to update. The fact that they didn't do this in the past is THE literal reason why that company still lives with the stigma of being "virus ridden" and "as full of holes as swiss cheese".

I'll never get some of you guys. When an OS doesn't force the user to update, its a security risk. When an OS does force the user to update, its an affront to freedom and choice. If you don't want to deal with forced updates, either don't use Windows or become enough of a power user to stop the OS from doing it.

Comment Re: Lessons to learn (Score 3, Insightful) 87

You aren't wrong, but it can be a little more complicated than that. You ability to get different service is largely dependent on where you live. Since the country is so big, different corners and different population centers can have wildly varying experiences with ISPs.

For instance, I live in the center of Atlanta, GA. We don't have the best selection down here (although, my apartment community is scheduled to get Google Fiber in the next couple months, so...), but there certainly is a "selection". It may be 2-3 choices, and none of them may be great, but there are signs that people are waking up to the need for more pressure on their local legislators to overturn laws and rules that forbid competition.

This is a slight tangent, but a huge amount of the "need" for NetNeutrality wouldn't exist if ISPs could actually be competed with. Startups and municipalities are, more often than not, hamstrung out of the gate by state legislature that all but outright forbids competition against large Telcos from a smaller, more local source. Instead of adding more laws to the books, I am more in favor of getting those anti-compete laws out of here, and allowing for enterprising city councilmen and business owners to create solutions that fit the needs of their communities.

Anyway, bringing this back on point: Yes, we do generally have a harder time "switching", as it were, but it isn't quite as bleak as some foreigners make it out to be sometimes.

Comment Lessons to learn (Score 4, Insightful) 87

As much flak as American ISPs get for their noncompetitive and morally bereft behavior, we do need to be reminded that things could generally be much worse. There is nothing wrong with pressuring large businesses (especially those with government-sanctioned monopolies) to change their shameful ways, but I do occasionally breathe a sigh of relief that, at least for the moment, our biggest concerns (outside of government spying) are speed, price, and general availability of service.

It seems almost commonplace for websites or services to get blocked at an ISP level in the UK, and that fact alone seems more frightening than any increase in price that Comcast could throw at me.

Comment Re:$500 is Shocking??? (Score 5, Insightful) 195

I think what is shocking to the vocally anti-Microsoft (and proprietary software in general, for that matter) crowd on slashdot is that people can get away with charging MONEY for SOFTWARE.

It never ceases to amaze me how, despite the fact that the majority of us on this website make our money in tech or software, the idea of charging money for those services is revolting to some.

Comment Re:Lines? (Score 1) 84

What is the point of this faux-pedantry?
Are you looking for people to stroke your ego because you seem to think "ha, they didn't use the EXACT terminology that I would have used, thus rendering it completely wrong!" or something? If you really didn't understand what they were talking about, you could have googled it and found the answer you sought. However, I strongly doubt that is the case, and instead am led to believe that you just want slashdot points for being an internet old man.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 2) 238

he, like most people, doesn't care.

As someone who worked extensively in a customer facing role for a consumer electronics retailer, I think you might be a little confused with what the term "most people" means.

Believe whatever you want. It is wholly like slashdotters to ridicule mainstream consumer electronics, popularly held opinions, and products that hold form over function. The target audience of this site is anything but the "average consumer". So when the lot of you hivemind and mistakenly believe that "since others around me in a controlled environment believe the same thing I do, i must be right", you move ever further and further away from reality into your own bubble.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 4, Insightful) 238

You're kidding right? OLED is an incremental upgrade? It is fundamentally different from how modern LCD based TVs work altogether. It is a larger change from the Plasma -> LCD switch that happened years ago. If you don't understand the technology change here, that's fine, but don't downplay the importance of this change.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 0) 238

I mean this literally... other than CAR salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new CAR, I go to the CAR store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was SUV, SEDAN, or EIGHTEEN-WHEELER powered. A CAR is a CAR is a CAR.

I mean this literally... other than HOUSE salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new HOUSE, I go to the HOUSE store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was COTTAGE, MANSION, or YURT powered. A HOUSE is a HOUSE is a HOUSE.

I mean this literally... other than DOCTOR salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new DOCTOR, I go to the DOCTOR store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was PEDIATRICIAN, ONCOLOGIST, or SPIRITUAL HEALING powered. A DOCTOR is a DOCTOR is a DOCTOR.

I get the point you are trying to make here, but don't you think your angsty "bah humbug, I don't care about this particular advancement, and therefore no one should!" mindset is a little retarded?

Comment Re:I don't see where the "threat" is... (Score 1) 376

I'm at a loss for why I would want any WiFi on my fridge, or really any appliance.

I can think of one example. Let's say you own said wifi-enabled fridge. Now lets also say that said fridge can detect the presence of small RFID chips that could someday be included on some prepackaged foods (lets say a gallon of milk). Now lets also say that said gallon of milk has a small, cheap, and disposable sensor built right into the packaging that detects a "low milk level" and flips a small internal switch to change its RFID configuration to read as "low milk". Your wifi fridge can detect, for instance, when your 7 year old takes the gallon out and empties it while you're out and about. When the fridge detects this, it can send you a text, update your digital shopping list, etc. without any further interaction. Now, as you're leaving your appointment (or whatever) you see that you need milk, and can stop on the way home.

This is a fairly specific scenario, sure. And I imagine that a lot (read: most) of the people on this site wouldn't want this kind of "invasion of privacy" in the first place. My original point was that this could be pretty cool to a lot of people, and while sure, there are doors open for advertisements and security breeches and all manner of thing, the idea of automating something as annoyingly trivial as remembering to check the supply of milk in the fridge is interesting (to me, at least).

I'm against dystopian "daddy-corp knows all" type futures, of course. But automation and IoT devices don't have to mean that. If anything, I would say we should embrace them sooner than later so that we can voice our opinions and demands now, before the rest of society just takes whatever they're given.

Comment Re:I don't see where the "threat" is... (Score 1) 376

Just more editorial bias. The thought is that embedded wifi will only ever be a security risk, and could never possibly be of use to anyone.

On a slightly related note: I am always surprised (ok, maybe not surprised but annoyed) at how many members of this (ostensibly) "science and tech" news aggregate always seem to be so vehemently against the proliferation of technology into our daily lives. I get that there are inherent security risks and problems, but as someone who enjoys the lightning pace that society is advancing at in the last couple centuries or so, I feel perfectly willing to deal with hiccups along the way.

Comment Re:Why not? Ask Lenovo (Score 1) 161

I do the vast overwhelming majority of my own work on a laptop


I think you misunderstand what kind of company Razer is. It is understandable to think that a large amount of people would do work on a Razer laptop, but they are first and foremost a gaming peripheral company. And people who buy laptops to play video games on rarely have concerns about battery life, portability, compactness, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky