Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Define "unlimited". (Score 1) 106

I'd expect one either pays for the space used at whatever the going rate was when the year elapsed, or whatever rate was locked in when one entered this agreement, or one chooses to lose data exceeding the amount of space one is willing to pay for. This seems quite straightforward to me and fair.

But what is neither straightforward nor fair is what one always has to look out for -- impossible "unlimited" storage promises because they're always a lie. There isn't unlimited storage available. So it's always a matter of nailing down precisely what limits will be set up to restrict your use. And, as a side note, be prepared to defend your use against anyone who wants to claim you're "abusing" the space merely by making the space hold "too much" or transferring "too much" data when you're buying into an "unlimited" storage space.

Comment Re:Android fans will just compile themselves...not (Score 1) 71

Apple supports their devices a heck of a lot longer than Android has done so far

Actually, there's no company called "Android" so that comment doesn't even make sense.

Substitute "all OEMs producing hardware running Android" and it's still true. We're about to move from being a 100% Android shop to a 100% IOS shop, and that's one of the main reasons.

The Android philosophy is 100% superior to Apple ("Whatever meets your needs" vs "Walled Garden") but the execution has been piss poor.

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 152

Whether the issue comes before the court or not is moot--this isn't a judicial precedent, this is a rule as to how US courts behave. It's ambiguous whether or not Scalia was alive or not at the time this rule was codified--apparently, the Court transmits the rules to Congress "by May 1st" of the year they go into effect, and the rules can take effect no earlier than December 1st of that year. Since Scalia died in February, it's more likely than not this happened after his death.


Twitters Says It Will Ban Trump If He Breaks Hate-Speech Rules ( 1032

Twitter has made a serious effort as of late to limit hate speech on its social media site, especially after Election Day where "biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news." The company now faces President-elect Donald Trump, who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits." Quartz reports: While Trump's deceptive tweets may not violate Twitter's rules against harassment, threats and "hateful conduct," Twitter is still keeping an eye on his account for more egregious offenses. This week, the company told Slate it would consider banning key government officials, even the president, if its rules against hate speech or other language were violated. "The Twitter Rules prohibit violent threats, harassment, hateful conduct, and multiple account abuse, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies," a spokesperson wrote. Twitter confirmed with Quartz that everyone, including government officials, were subject to the policy: "The Twitter Rules apply to all accounts," a spokesman wrote. Trump may not have crossed that line yet, but he hasn't exactly refrained from making incendiary claims. Most recently, he claimed that Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who allegedly carried out an attack injuring 11 students at Ohio State University, "should not have been in our country." Artan was a legal permanent U.S. resident, whose family had fled Somalia for Pakistan in 2007. He arrived in the States in 2014.

Comment Define "unlimited". (Score 1) 106

Seagate claims you'll get a year of unlimited storage just for buying the hard drive

When previous so-called "unlimited" storage systems came out they were canceled and the storage system provider (and their sycophants here on /.) tried to pretend that one could "abuse" said storage merely by uploading too much data. Since this flies in the face of unlimited storage, it's worth asking what exactly does "unlimited storage" mean here?

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 152

Except, couldn't Obama veto it?

It doesn't appear so. The article is poorly written and very short on detail, but this looks like a change to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are controlled directly by the Supreme Court. Congress CAN challenge these rules (the fact that the court has the ability to make these rules at all is a power delegated to them by the congress) but it typically does not. The president apparently has no say unless the congress acts.

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 152

Yet the Democrats voted for it as well. That is how it passed. There is no "side" here.

Republicans have controlled congress since 2010.

The article is incredibly short on detail, but it appears this is the result of changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are made directly by the Supreme Court pursuant to an act passed in 1934 granting them that power. The court, last I checked, was a Supremely partisan (pun intended) 4-4 mix, but they seem to agree on this. While it's true that the congress could have stopped those rules, I don't believe it's something that commonly happens, partisan rhetoric aside.

Comment Re:You imbecel (Score 1) 394

if everyone is doing it. Maybe it is not wrong.

That's a reasonable position, and quite true in many cases (our recent push for marijuana legalization is a good example). However, I'm not sure "grab them by the pussy" rises to that level of moral ambiguity. "Rape the girl while your state trooper bodyguard makes sure no one disturbs you" probably has issues, as well.

Comment Re:You imbecel (Score 2) 394

While they may be womanizers, they do so with consenting adults (alt-right lies about Clinton notwithstanding)

So the idea that Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for obstructing justice and perjuring himself during a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a lie?

Not that I think that gives Trump a pass, FWIW. "Everybody is doing it" isn't a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

Comment Re:Umm what?! (Score 4, Insightful) 387

wow it's almost like depression or other types of mental illness can make people do things that aren't rational.

fucking dipshit.

Mental health issues are not the easiest thing to wrap your head around (especially if you're of a generation that was taught to rub dirt on it/walk it off in response to any injury, physical, mental, or emotional). If you haven't lived through it, or had a family member/close friend live through it, it's likely you just can't comprehend what some stranger is going through.

Just because someone is ignorant doesn't make them a dipshit (unless they're willfully so). Indeed, the AC was expressing empathy in general for the guy who tried to kill himself, rather than the disdain that you appear to be trying to respond to.

Comment Access requires sycophancy. (Score 1) 145

Time magazine, being mainstream American corporate media, would do well to give Trump the nod in order to try and get into his good graces and thus increase the odds of access. Paraphrasing CBS' Les Moonves who told the audience at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference, such a move would not be good for America, but it could be very good for Time Magazine.

Comment Re:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 1) 1424

The situation you're describing could still have happened if a few people in Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania cities had bothered to vote. The main reason why the electoral college might not be such a bad idea in general is what happens in case of a recount. Recounting Florida is already not fun, but recounting the entire country would be *really* annoying.

Comment Re:So (Score 1) 1424

Most political systems have some degree of protection for rural areas to prevent them from being utterly steamrolled and dominated by the cities. This is true within the United States both on a national and state level, and within a number of places in Europe, Asia, etc.

I think it's fair to argue it's perhaps gone too far, but I'd hope we'd keep a political system where the rural has a bit more power than it'd get just by proportion of the population. The electoral college chooses a mix that is mostly proportional-- 435 of the electors are assigned by population, 103 by underlying government.

Otherwise we're likely to get a system of government where flyover states are completely neglected for infrastructure, etc, if it weren't for the senate and the presidency having some degree of per-state representation in them. I'm not sure that even passes utilitarian tests (are we better off as a country if it goes that way?) let alone fairness tests. Rural areas are both have fundamentally different needs because they are physically removed from the cities (and thus may not benefit from infrastructure/spending in the cities) and because they are fundamentally different places (it's natural to understand a different take on gun rights when you probably know lots of hunters and live somewhere where police response can be expected to be literally 45 minutes away and are fundamentally unlikely to suffer from gun violence or mass shootings).

Slashdot Top Deals

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch