Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Thank globalization & guest workers. (Score 1) 493

While blaming others

Since they are at fault, it's quite proper to call them on it. It is indeed truth and not some "big lie".

Importing people is hard, as is off-shoring jobs.

It's only hard when you have to figure out how to:

* create a criteria and interviewing protocol that excludes all citizens
* hide it from the affected group, much less anyone who could stop it
* coerce the affected group to provide (effectively) involuntary services under financial duress
* make a PR statement that explains why their actions were of any good.

After that, it is practically easy.

You only do it if there is something really wrong with the local workforce.

The only thing wrong is that they're US citizens, which are harder to control due to legal protections. A minimally competent US citizen could run circles around the offshore help - but is avoided for not being someone that can be easily controlled.

Well, you may do it for a while just because it is hyped up, but that does not last.

Yet companies have done it for decades. No company has ever been stopped in its tracks for anything beyond a token "punishment" (which I've not even seen).

Comment Not really. (Score 1) 532

Every single indicator from history disagrees with this sentiment.

Except for the ones that precede the deleterious effects of globalization. Never mind that the United States' economic/geopolitical status as a hyperpower tends to nullify precedents set by other countries.

Approximately 75% of the [amorphous construct redacted] market (by consumption not population) is found outside of the US so if our country tries to rely [redacted].

Nothing says that the US market can't be served by itself and friendly countries, while others can be localized to serve *their* own.

Given the proper reward, companies will step up and employ as well as serve US customers - as well as those in friendly (read: not recipients of abuse/fraud against US citizens) foreign countries.

Comment Re:Nice Job HTC (Score 1) 205

Sorry, dude, but these people know where their bread is buttered and while I don't see a ton of value in removing a headphone jack they're not going swayed by a handful of neckbeards threatening to buy whatever. Every time tech takes a jump there is a cry from a couple dozen people like you about not wanting the new tech for any number of reasons (many better than what you're presenting here) but in a couple years even you will be on the bandwagon.

I live in two different worlds. I am a geek, so I do tech stuff but I'm also a gun guy.

Do you remember when Smith and Wesson signed a deal with the Clinton DOJ to get preferential treatment on government contracts? The backlash was so swift and severe, the owners had to sell the company to stave off bankruptcy and the new owners had no intention of honoring the deal. To stop this trend, there has to be this kind of a revolt among HTC's customers.

This one feature might not be a bridge too far for most buyers but I suspect that there's some cell phone maker out there cheering because they know that their sales are going to get a bump from the people who won't ride this wave.

But, I'm not opposed to tilting at windmills. I'm still continuing my 20+ year one man boycott of Nintendo. I stopped using Opera when they removed the menu bar and I won't use Chrome for the same reason.

LK

Comment Re: Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

Small cells negate the "limited amount of spectrum" argument. It's a financial + logistical + political/regulatory limitation, not a technical one.

Technology will eventually advance to the point that the financial consideration is less important. We're already working with beam-forming -- a technology that's existed for decades, in radar applications -- for instance. Wireless is the future, no matter what the naysayers think, and if you're still thinking of "spectrum" as the limiting factor you're behind the curve. Makes me think of the folks who deploy IPv6 for the first time and start worrying about the "waste" of addresses.

Comment Re:Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

There's no technical reason why an LTE network can't be engineered to provide truly unlimited data with acceptable speeds in most instances. There is, however, a financial reason, plus the usual regulatory/political concerns that get in the way of new cell sites. It's worth noting that T-Mobile manages to offer unlimited with an asterisk (video throttled to 1.5Mbps) and in many cases delivers superior speed than Verizon, so it's clearly POSSIBLE and PROFITABLE to use as a business model.

In rural/fixed-wireless settings LTE is actually cheaper than DSL/cable and the favorable contention ratios (i.e., low population density) make unlimited possible with today's network. It's a mystery to me why they won't offer an unlimited product for this market segment at least; it would be the death blow for satellite internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam

Working...