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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Is this the internet? (Score 1) 53

Can you see this, am I dfoing it right. Am I on the Web now or the Internit?

Now, wait.. You're jumping in a little too soon. After losing this suit and a troll..err...scroll of other suits, RIM/BlackBerry will declare that it created the Internet as we know it today, you know, because ummm... like... uhhhh..... there wouldn't be mobile-slanted stuff if.. they... didn' uhhh.... and there would Internet *drools*

Comment Re:BB is officially dead (Score 1) 53

Oh Christ defend us from the BB apologists. It has a large pile of cash from ye olden days, and while there's some QNX growth, it's hardly stellar. The company is a shell of what it used to be and has been fucking around with cash flows for a couple of years now by selling off assets.

It is very much indeed well on its way to patent trolling, as was predicted as its hardware sales crashed.

Blah, blah blah. It's so boring when you speak the truth. ;)

Comment Re:*points and laughs* (Score 1) 53

That's like a zombie wanting to eat the brains of another zombie.

Hey now, you wouldn't be able to see what the brains of a zombie look like on your mobile phone if it weren't for BlackBerry's radio technology. They, not the service providers, Siemens, Motorola, etc made everything!!!!!!! Now where do I put the trademark symbol again, after or before the exclamation points? Do I have to use caps?

Comment Because we got nothin'. And... (Score 1) 86

...if you can only release a new "version" of i* devices every year, there isn't enough money coming in anymore. Solution, release the iPhone 8 in December, and the iPhone 9 in February, followed by the iPhone 10 in March to fix all of the annoying but awesome bugs and glitches in version 9.

Wait a minute...

Comment Re:What about data and txt costs? and can they rem (Score 1) 75

What about data and txt costs?

How much do you pay for bluetooth and WiFi on your phone?

This is fascinating, intended for third world use. Do we imagine that the density of cell phones in the third world is really sufficient to meet the 200' range? Maybe in the city, on the streets. Anywhere else, huh?

You only need to be a true shareholder in IBM stock to get the inside company information on how this will work with 100% certainty. *choke*

Comment Re:easy to fix without adding more limits (Score 1) 318

Make H1B an auction, where employers bid for them instead of distribution by lottery. That will make them cost more than American workers and thereby eliminate the companies that only want low wage "guest workers" while still letting the legitimate skills shortages to be filled. Oh look, a free market solution!

That's too good of an idea. It can't work. People will start crying "slavery" as soon as it's adopted, too.

Comment Re:AD shaming (Score 1) 172

Yep. I've discussed similar with people, and seen comedians incorporate that stuff into their acts. The malady that is being treated must be a real sob to deal with to put up with the side effects.

I find it disgustingly humorous how every single medication to "help treat depression" has a known side effect percentage chance (per test group, of course) of development of suicidal tendencies. Well, I guess that gets rid of your depression..?

Comment Re:AD shaming (Score 1) 172

No? What you described and what is allowed in the US are vastly different versions of each other. Drug companies ARE allowed to advertise their offerings, but they aren't allowed to claim they are recommended by doctors and must include all of the side effects, etc. Most drug commercials ere are depressing reminders for those of us who don't suffer from such conditions.

I thought it was more of a "go see your doctor about product x", because the doctor gets a nice little bonus on the side (hush hush, you) for handing out samples and talking people into how great something is, until it's not so great anymore, then they can disavow all knowledge of their initial recommendation. Now I'm curious. I want to go to a slimy doctor who's in bed with the pharma, then check my records a few months later and see if they even mention the recommendation in them. *zips off*

Comment Re:AD shaming (Score 1) 172

I think you've got it. I remember a lot of "Brand X" advertising, esp'ly detergents & other commodities that are all more or less the same. Tide doesn't want to mention, well, any other brand. And it works. ATM I can't think of another brand.

So, I don't think it was ever a gov't regulation. Also, I would imagine mentioning a specific brand could open a company up to litigation in some manner.

I know, right? When I see commercials comparing their product to another, that's pushed rationalization. It makes me curious about this other product that they are trying to overcome because, hell, it takes at least a commercial to do it, right? I then want to check out this other product. I think that's Human. Reverse logic is only effective if the person is oppositional, and we haven't come out with multiple commercials tailored to each personality type yet. I trademark that, BTW. :)

Comment Re: Bull shit (Score 1) 172

Then what would qualify as "unlimited"? Because LTE speeds aren't infinite either. No mobile phone technology has the ability to provide unlimited bandwidth?

I think a reasonable criticism is that they're not using the word "unlimited" in the same sense that T-Mobile is (who will allow LTE access over the soft-limit, but will deprioritize your data when the tower is congested), and perhaps there needs to be a common definition. But it is unlimited in the consumer sense of "I will always be able to use data, and not worry about overages."

Agreed. It would be nice for everyone to hear "limitation = lower priority when tower is congested, but not all of the time". Then they have nothing to bitch about unless they have a problem with heavy data usage, which we would all love to hear an explanation of. :)

Comment Re: Bull shit (Score 1) 172

Ultimately, there is a limit imposed by physical laws, but we don't ban anyone from using the term unlimited due to such restrictions. Similarly, in this context, the amount of data transferred is only limited by speed, and not by any inherent limit in the amount itself. The term is perfectly fine for those who understand English.

Thus, unlimited = unlimited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred, until data transferred > $LIMIT; then unlimited = limited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred

Understood, and us techies get it. To the commoner, though, it would seem that they have word play to work with and DO (probably just to win, even though they don't need to).

When they get unlimited = unlimited speed and data transferred (-natural congestion and system load), they'll do it for a day or two, maybe a week. Then, they'll realize they don't need it and back down.

The exception are people who want to eliminate the charge of their cable co/telecom co/etc for Internet access and use a repeater to set their phone up as a wifi hot spot, repeated for all devices in the house to access the Internet through it. If 10% of the customers did that, the network would be congested to the point of nearly unusable daily.

Comment Re:Theoretically (Score 1) 172

And I'm sure your property value and property taxes reflect your access to services. If they don't, then you overpaid for your home. I live in literally the most expensive home market in the US and have the taxes to go with it. I have reasonable access to broadband and wireless. You want to switch?

This isn't rocket science. It's why homes in urban areas cost more, and why the property taxes in urban areas higher. You are paying for the infrastructure offered by the urban area. And yeah I know this isn't the only factory in home costs and taxes, but it's a big factor.

You're doing "that thing". I don't think that someone who is looking for a home, given the situation they're in or what's going on at the time, always thinks to call telecom companies to ask if service is prime in their area or not. Besides, companies lie to get your business.

Related to that, if I were to call ATT and Cincinnati Bell (the providers I use), they can both say they have service in the area. Caveat - it's hilly and ATT has four towers within range of the home I live in. It can barely find a stable signal from any of the 4, depending on where I am in the house, and if it does find one it's minimal data speed (below a megabit) and choppy voice. One of those "stand an inch to the left... now kneel down 5 more.. okay now I can understand you" things. Cincinnati Bell says there is "fioptics available" to the home. They leave out the part that the it is within a 1 block area of a medium density living area (not rural, not urban) where there is no fiber run. Literally, five houses up the street and I can get fiber with gigabit service. This home, I can get 30mb/s max via copper from the nearest FDH (can look at it from the house, less than a block up the road). For some reason they decided to run fiber up one side of the street and from the other side (east-west and west-east), but leave out a block. What the hell?

Also, what world are you living in where utility poles and what's run on them, by whom, are paid for/subsidized by taxing? I haven't seen one place where that's the case - the utility companies have the right because they purchased said right and pass that cost on to their customers. The city and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it, "it" being the directly relational cost to the homeowner. It's the provider that passes their fees on, and BTW I also know people that work for the telecom company that can't explain why they didn't include my block in the fiber build-out, and those people have had conversations with me where I pulled a bit of info and they say laughingly that the cost of heavily dense areas is so much lower because the build-out and equipment generate loads of income for them, versus a non-dense area where said build-out generates little income.

These aren't things that you can expect every home buyer to check out in detail before they purchase a home, and their financials could even be a limiting factor. Availability of open homes might be a factor. Sure, I look at things like this when I'm considering moving, but they don't affect the decision; the cost of the place to live and other taxes (meaning $$$) determine the decision. If I were a multi-billionaire, then it wouldn't matter because I could be picky and choosy, but I could also pay the telecom and utility companies to build whatever I want them to to get what I want at my home. I'm not, you're not, mishehu is not.

Comment Re:Theoretically (Score 1) 172

You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.

You are very right but that also, on the other side of the proverbial coin, allows another company to set up service in that area and nab all of the business, creating a mental image in peoples' minds that the company providing the service is the "savior". Even if their service sucks, it's more than nothing. That company wins all business in an area. If another competitor moves in, they can offer an upgraded service that is beyond the competitor's "we're here" snatch'n'grab of previously "enslaved/trapped" customers. As long as you aren't raping a customer for high profit in an area with no competition, your increased cost will benefit in the long-run.

In this context, Verizon and AT&T get the overall award because they are the buyers of one of the two "Initial A/B Cell Service Companies". Their lack of service in an outlying area just makes them look bad to anyone with a brain because it's not hard to do basic business math. I have lovely ATT service everywhere, except where I travel to visit a relative. The "WTF" enters my mind every time because there is a big old 200-500 foot tower on a nearby hill (hard to tell because that hill is so high) and the company that built that tower has the working business (Verizon, it's called these days). Another company was also given allowance to install on that tower (T-Mobile). ATT either decided not to pay the rape pricing for colocating or Verizon somehow kept them out. I'm not up to speed on the laws governing usage of existing tower/rack space in wireless telecom and government intervention to the same (if there is any) so I have no idea why ATT decided not to provide. This area is by a big lake, BTW. This lake sees heavy "business" all year 'round. I'm not sure how other ATT customers feel about having no service in this wonderful lake area while on a rented houseboat, while someone's talking on their mobile in the houseboat right next to them...?

Anyhow, the point is that lack of service provision, or provision of shitty service in an area with other providers with better service is stupid. It will hurt in the long-run in many ways. Just fucking provide up-front and watch your profits climb slowly over time. Wait, what am I talking about? That's not "today thought". Heh.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.