Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:In Seattle... (Score 1) 202

You would think Seattle, WA (home of Microsoft, etc) would have a virtual cornucopia (sp) of broadband options??

Microsoft isn't in Seattle, it's in Redmond. Seattle might as well be Forks as far as MS is concerned.

From what I've read about the situation, it's only Seattle that has such horrible internet service. All the other cities there are fine: Redmond, Tacoma, etc.

Comment Re:Less Space than a Nomad. (Score 2) 312

Most people bitch about their cell phone battery life but that hasn't led to Apple doing anything but making their phones thinner and their batteries smaller.

Well WTF do they expect? If they bitch and complain, and then run out and pay top dollar anyway for a device they bitch and complain about, why would the vendor bother listening to their complaints?

Comment Re:Low end? (Score 2) 148

I swear to god Apple is like a "stupid" tax.

Not exactly. Taxes are involuntary: you're required to pay them whether you want to or not. No one is forcing anyone to buy an Apple. People do this entirely willingly, just like they happily and willingly buy or pay for things like cable TV (including premium sports channels), church tithes, horrifically expensive handbags or designer clothes like from Coach or Gucci, Jeeps, or Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

Comment Re:AOL AND Yahoo!!!? (Score 1) 27

I don't know about where you live, but where I live (a more rural area about an hour from DC), Verizon is king, as it is in most rural areas I know of. Verizon has, hands-down, the best cellular coverage in rural areas. Of course, they also have the very worst service, and the most astronomical prices. But people in rural areas happily pay it because they're unwilling to put up with less-than-stellar coverage from the other telcos.

Personally, I have a Sprint phone with Ting and it works well enough. I'm not willing to pay $150/month more just for better coverage. Sprint's service is "good enough", and doesn't cause me any problems.

Comment Re:The few Web 1.0 Sites. (Score 1) 27

While I mostly agree with you, your points about not having any cache among millennials and being a vaguely recognizable name from the past can also be said about Cadillac, which everyone has long been predicting demise for because it's an "old person's car". They were saying this 2 decades ago about Cadillac and Lincoln. Yet those brands are still there, somehow. Cadillac even survived the whole GM collapse, while Pontiac and Saturn did not. Now, how Cadillac manages to stay afloat, I have no idea, but they do. It's just like AOL and Yahoo; I have no idea how they survive, but they do. There must be someone out there still giving them money. And if Yahoo is anything like Cadillac, they could still be hanging around 20 years from now, though people will still be wondering how.

Comment Re:The few Web 1.0 Sites. (Score 1) 27

Advertisers want young people with disposable income for the most part.

They do?

Young people tend to either be flat broke, or rather savvy to attempts to rip them off, especially internet advertising. Young people are far more likely to use ad-blockers. Old people are not; they're more trusting and easily taken advantage of. That's why they even have laws designed to protect against "elder abuse". Advertisers would do much better targeting the old folks who use Yahoo Mail.

Comment Re:Open Office Failure (Score 1) 263

That's why it's better to live alone. My cats don't expect too much, though they can be a little bit distracting when they insist on jumping in my lap. Much better than having a live-in partner who's always whining about having too much housework to do and never has any free time and wants me to do all kinds of house-related stuff and chores, yet somehow when I'm on my own I don't have much trouble keeping up with the laundry and dishes and it takes me a tiny fraction of the time it seemed to take her.

Comment Re:Problem solved (Score 1) 263

I'd like to add to this that one good solution to this (for office workers who spend all their time on a computer) is to allow more tele-working. Encourage or allow employees to spend X days a week working from home. Then sick workers can get work done from home while not spreading their sickness, and healthy workers who never get sick can also work from home some and not feel like the sickly people are getting to do less work (leaving the healthy people to do it) as a reward for not being as healthy, and enjoy being able to work from home and stay out of the noisy open office too.

Comment Re:Problem solved (Score 1) 263

The problem with sick days (separate from vacation days) is that if you're the kind of person who never or rarely gets sick, then you're effectively penalized compared to someone who does, or compared to someone who lies. So places with sick days frequently have employees who lie about being sick so they can use up those days.

Otherwise, how is it fair that you should have to come to work every day because you're healthy, while Sick Sue gets to stay home a lot, and then you have to cover for Sue while she relaxes at home?

Comment Re: The popularity of open offices has exacerbated (Score 1) 263

I've worked in all three too (plus labs). Cubicles are only "amazing" when compared to open offices. Really, they're tolerable, and not bad at all if you're in a group that's quiet AND you're allowed to have "do not disturb" signs to prevent interruptions AND your group isn't next to some noisy group. I had that setup once (plus my cube was next to a window) and looking back, now I think of it as luxurious, even though at the time it was merely OK (but a big step up from my previous cube at the same company where I was seated next to some loudmouth asshole who was on the phone all the time, plus I had a big pole in the middle of my cubicle there).

Offices are the best setup. People who advocate for open offices should, IMO, be lined up and shot for the good of society. I'm not kidding about this; the amount of sheer misery caused by these people is incalculable.

Comment Re:What are we forgetting... (Score 1) 220

Big asteroids are a valid concern, and very long-term I do believe humans should work at establishing a human presence on other worlds (starting with the Moon), however asteroid bombardment should *not* be a factor in driving humans to inhabit other worlds.

It would be far, far easier for us to improve our capabilities for detecting large asteroids, and then deflecting them, than to figure out how to live on Mars. Dealing with asteroids is not that hard: first we have to actually invest some resources into looking for the damn things. We do a little of that right now, but not nearly enough, as the strike in Russia a couple years ago proved. This isn't hard; we just need more probes in orbit, or perhaps in Solar orbit closer to the Sun (to spot ones that we can't see from here because the Sun's light drowns them out). Second, we need to develop the capability of deflecting them. With good enough detection, this isn't hard: you just send a big craft up there with some engines (probably ion engines) and a lot of fuel and run them for a long time to push it into a slightly different and safer orbit. If you have enough forewarning, it's not that hard, because a little movement will make a big change in trajectory over a long time. The key here is having enough forewarning; if your detection efforts are so lame that you have very little warning, then you're not going to be able to avert disaster.

Simply put, it'd be a lot easier and cheaper for us to invest in some space-based telescopes optimized for detecting Earth-crossing asteroids than to develop all the technology and infrastructure needed for establishing a colony on Mars. And the end result is better too: instead of some small colony on Mars surviving while the bulk of humanity perishes, along with the most livable planet for humans, we can keep our planet and the entire human race intact.

But if we're too stupid and short-sighted to invest in some telescopes, then maybe we deserve to be wiped out like the dinosaurs.

Comment Re:People ARE what we are sending (Score 1) 220

Not really.

Hawaii is a really nice place for humans to live: the weather is perfect, it's lush and beautiful, there's all kinds of fun things to do like swimming, surfing, scuba diving, exploring rain forests, etc.

If you found yourself magically transported to Hawaii in prehistoric times, perhaps with a small group of intelligent people, you could pretty easily survive there by living off the land. There's wood for making huts and burning, there's extremely fertile land for farming, there's vegetation that can be eaten, there's fish in the ocean nearby that you can fish, you don't have to worry about freezing to death, the air is clean, etc. Or, in modern times, if you can afford it, it's a great place to live too, especially if you can afford a nice house on the beach.

Mars isn't like that at all. You can't go outside, you can't breathe the thin atmosphere, you'll get radiation sickness, you can't easily grow food, there's no liquid water (humans tend to like bodies of water), etc. Maybe if you really like living underground in an artificial habitat, it'll be a nice place for you to live, but if you like being outside, it'll really suck. I suppose if you could make the underground habitats big enough and Earthlike enough (with giant artificial forests and lakes), it wouldn't be so bad, but that'd be quite a project. It'd be a lot easier to just stop messing up this planet so much.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken