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:More like... (Score 1) 227

I'm confused here. It seems like a contract that doesn't mention a data cap would lead to the ISP being mandated to not institute a data cap because, well, the contract. Seems like any lawsuit would be able to get the data cap removed. That makes me think that the data caps are in the contracts, but then, the analogy becomes "you can consume 10 cookies a day up to 30 cookies a week" and then after you've consumed 30 cookies they're like "ok, no more cookies", and again, what's the problem. One side of this is painfully wrong and I just can't figure out who. Having never been under a data cap and not having access to the contract of somebody who has, I'm having a hard time figuring this out.

Comment Re:Bandiwidth is *free* fallacy.. (Score 1) 227

That seems ridiculous to limit them to advertising monthly data cap / billing period, as it doesn't address the thing most people care about foremost, which is bandwidth. Advertising bandwidth and advertising data cap sounds more fair. If they are disclosing the data cap in the contract, then I don't see what the problem is. You seem to be advocating for a totally useless metric. The reality is, regardless of how they communicate it, operating a network capable of handling all subscribers using all of their allotted bandwidth, is much more expensive than figuring out what the real peak load is and operating a network capable of handling that, which is again much more expensive than trimming users back a little bit under peak load. If you were to keep the margins the same, I bet you'd find that most people would opt for a tiered plan that degrades their bandwidth slightly during high usage times and opens them up under low usage times because it would be so much cheaper than the network that has dedicated bandwidth for each subscriber.

Comment Re:Dangerous language... (Score 1) 181

What are you talking about? hate verb 1. feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone). "the boys hate each other" synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; More noun 1. intense or passionate dislike. "feelings of hate and revenge" synonyms: hatred, loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, aversion; More Please tell me in historical terms when hate wasn't a synonym for dislike.

Comment Re:Dangerous language... (Score 1) 181

Why would you assume that? It's a matter of degree, right? Maybe he is intense and passionate about his dislike of Apple. I mean, he's taking the time to canvas the internet about it. Don't try to rewrite the meaning of hate to only apply to certain causes or situations that you think are the worst. There are other words for that such as unconscionable, deplorable, inhuman or disgusting.

Comment Re:Statistical analysis demonstrated this long ago (Score 2) 305

This line of thinking perplexes me. Yes, they may be talking about things that we don't necessarily care about, but we almost certainly can tell them things they would like to know. Such as where danger is. We could possibly introduce new vocabulary and through the power of giving something a name, give them a new concept that they can relate to each other. We can make smarter dolphins to eat.

Comment Re: Elect Trump for Honest Government (Score 1) 528

We also have a legislature which is supposed to be much more representative. It's easier to move congressional districts. If you have a more diverse legislature, you will end up with more diverse presidential options. Plus we have the primary system. It's really just this defeatist attitude that keeps the two party system alive in a society with this much access to information and cheap outreach to constituencies.

Comment Re:So what happens..... (Score 1) 101

It does bring up an interesting point of how people will change their behavior when they know the person driving a car can't just run them over if they block the car. I live in a city where the good parts and the "bad" parts aren't separated by very much distance. If I'm driving from home to work I have to drive by several homeless people. Being at a stop light and having a guy stand in front of my car while another guy tries to shake me down would be very uncomfortable.

I'm not really that worried it would happen, but we also don't know how people will adapt to that. I imagine in the beginning it would take the form of pedestrians being impolite once they know they can walk in front of a car at an intersection and it'll stop. I already experience slow moving pedestrians entering a crosswalk at the tail-end of a stoplight's cycle once or twice a month. That type of person might become more bold in their behavior. The overly aggressive homeless person that won't take the first few "no"s might also become more bold.

Comment Re: Does anybody really doubt it (Score 1) 706

It would be interesting if a serial killer was following the Clinton's around committing all these murders. I hope that kind of stuff does happen. I mean, in the sense that the people are either dead by serial killer or dead by the official explanation, not in the "I wish there was more murder going on" way.

Comment Re:HoloLens vs Vive?! (Score 1) 53

I agree that it's an impressive piece of technology. Sticking with the microwave analogy, I'd say that we're way past noticing chocolate melt near RADAR but not yet at a counter-top microwave. We're sitting somewhere close to a 6 foot tall, 750lb microwave (which incidentally cost around $3000). I love easy mac, and one day, we will have it. My point is just that easy mac provides a different take on dinner than... uh... I don't know, this metaphor is really falling apart... Corn? Is that right? Is that the VR equivalent? I have a reference sheet somewhere for this...

Comment Re:HoloLens vs Vive?! (Score 4, Insightful) 53

I agree $3000 is really steep, especially for the product. It's rather disappointing so far. The field of view just isn't there. However, the implication that VR is somehow greater than AR I strongly disagree with. I think AR is a much harder problem to solve and has really great potential applications. I think people are ready to start moving away from their all-digital worlds and in to something grounded in the physical world a little more. People don't like having their phone in their face all day, or staring at a computer screen all day. There just isn't a better way to get the information they want at the time they want it. VR (so far) is just further isolation from your physical world by moving your body in to the digital world, whereas AR is bringing your digital world out in to the physical world.

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 704

I'd say voting for the person that most closely aligns with your positions is not being a petulant child. Voting against somebody is closer to it, but decent short-term strategy. Let's put this problem of ultra-conservative justices where it really lies, at Earl Warren's feet. Without a massively powerful, activist Supreme Court, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have conservative or liberal justices. Now, things get really complicated. When people have their guy in whatever office, they want that office to do what they want and grow their power. We've seen the legislature get weaker and the executive and judicial branches get much much stronger since the country was formed.

There are many, many more people in the legislature and it being more granular is a better representation of the people than the one or 7 members of the other branches. How did the legislature get so weak? I think it's because of people voting against the other guy instead of voting with the person that most closely aligns with their beliefs. We fall in to a two party system that naturally divides the population in half. That is it's either this guy or the guy most likely to beat this guy. The parties will always teeter around that equilibrium. People only want to give up as much as they have to to get what they want and by this process the 2 parties will always seek towards a 50/50 split of the voters.

I think everybody has a threshold for how many votes a candidate is likely to receive before voting for them. Anything less than that is throwing the vote away. When you disparage 3rd party voters, you lower the number of votes that go to 3rd party candidates and raise the number of votes for the two party system. This is then fed back in to the system so next time an election comes around it's evidence that nobody votes for 3rd parties.

So how do we get out of this? There are lots of complicated systemic ways to address the problem, but the most direct way is to support a legislature that will reign in the executive and judicial branches to lessen the sting of losing the monolithic executive branch to the guy you don't like, then start voting for the person in your legislature that you think will do the best job. This will destroy the two party system and provide more choices. Actually, I think these things are the same thing, just there is a two step process we need to go through. Step one is get the government back under control, step two is use the government to achieve progress. Actually, there is a third step too. Think long term and don't opt for the quick progress that weakens the whole system.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 4, Insightful) 174

Not exactly. You can buy your way out of needing to visit the PokeStops to get more pokeballs and other items you need. You can either drop $10 or hang out in a coffee shop that's close to a pokestop for an hour. That's actually what I really enjoy about the temporary cultural fixation on it. It feels like the first truly social game, not play alone with strangers in the basement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.

Working...