Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score 1) 247

You'd lose of you went to court over this. The AT&T lawyers looked over that contract long before yours ever saw it. It's cheaper to pay the fees than the Lawyer...

The fact is, I just spent some time on the AT&T Website looking for data speeds, and can't find any. So unless they have mention of their speeds in your contract, they don't guarantee any level of service in regards to speed, from what I can see. No guaranteed speeds in your contract means they can throttle you whenever they feel like it. Which means their definition of unlimited data is what matters... they don't even advertise what they'll throttle your speeds down to.... If they want to give you 1kbps (kilo bit per second) down, they can...It's technically a connection... The only argument you'd have is at that speed, you can only download 316.4 Megabytes worth of data at those speeds in a month, if you're phone went non-stop at the throttled speed....

Mathematically, an 80 kilo bit/sec throttle speed is approx. 25 Gigabytes of data non-stop. that's 5 times more data than what their largest tier package is, and most of their customers on that plan don't even hit that... If you include the fact that they'll be able to download even more with the extra 3GB at faster speeds, It's as good as unlimited.. At least in the eyes of marketing and legal. Who cares that you don't download non-stop... The fact is they'll argue that they gave you the capacity to do 25GB or more, and you were unable to use it due to your personal traffic patterns, thus unlimited..

Comment Re:IPv6 (Score 1) 260

I think the conversation would continue a little more like this...

"Yeah, well Not EVERYONE is going to be on the internet.... This is DARPA. Only the government is going to use it. Mostly Military. What do you think the D stands for?"

"True. Well, I don't think the politicians see the point of what we can do with this. I think they're going to cut our research funding soon."

"OK, lets get some schools and scientists on board for funding. I don't mind if we let a few schools use this thing... We can handle over a thousand people from there. It's not like the whole world will be on this thing. This is America!"

"Yeah, you're right. It's not like people are going to connect directly to the internet with their Apple II... Besides, you are going to need Mainframe or Minicomputer access. Where are they going to get access to one of those?"

"Good point. Nobody has enough money or room for their own mainframe or Mini. 4 Billion IP's sounds almost excessive..."

Comment Re:It is not so simple (Score 2) 316

Not exactly... What he's saying is, bring the information to public over the same amount of time for the inappropriate transgressions to occur, so their impact isn't minimized by the short release time. Hearing the methodical nature and time consuming preparation that a serial killer takes, and showing the pain he caused over years of activity, will have more of an impact on readers than stating "Hey look, this guy killed 30 people. Here's a list of his victims". Both sound bad, but saying "This guy killed 30 people. This is his first victim" today, and a week later, stating "This is his second victim", until the killer is caught... Its still a conveyance of the facts, and by putting a spotlight on the victims, it shows how heinous his crimes were.

Manipulating the speed of release to match the nature of the crime, is not wrong... It keeps it to the forefront, so people give as much a damn about it as if it were happening in front of them. It keeps the issue relevant.

Having said that, it also gives the opportunity for the transgressor to come clean, and own up to what's been going on. Slow release can help or hinder the organization based off how they respond. If they own up to more than what was leaked, and show that these actions have led to reform, then whistle blowers have done their job, and they can stop releasing information. If the transgressors LIE to the public, then the whistle blowers can lay the smack-down on them.

Comment Re:Not to mention.... (Score 1) 131

I've never understood why anyone would work at a scripted call center if they have any inkling of technical knowledge. That's why I love my call center job. I'm encouraged to develop my own "scripts" or not use one at all, because where I work, they realize, EVERY CUSTOMER IS DIFFERENT. The company doesn't supply many scripts. They hire people who have some understanding, then train in the rest. You're hired because you know how to wire stuff, and know how to set up computers. They tell us what we do and do not support, and give us the freedom to use whatever options the operating system allows, so long as we don't threaten user data, or use unapproved third party programs.

Yeah, it takes a while to speak to us... But you actually get someone who KNOWS what they are doing. Because it's more important to FIX the problem than it is to worry about following a script...

Comment EA either misses the point, or get it too well... (Score 1) 184

In Syndicate, the idea is you are the head of a corporation, that kidnaps people, and turns them into mindless zombie/cyborg terrorists, which you control from your office. By making this game a FPS, you lose that aspect of the person in the field being an automaton to do your bidding.

Then again, they could have taken a lesson from the game. Put "Syndicate" on the box, and watch the mindless automatons go to the store and buy it...

Comment Re:It seems good (Score 1) 591

If so, why would you want to use it then? If my internet connection goes down, I lose my ability to work? screw that... Why do you think people aren't switching in droves to ChromeOS from Win/Mac/Linux? because it relies too heavily on Web access.. Probably not to the extent you mention, but I choose to keep some things out of the cloud...

Comment Re:I blame Counterstrike (Score 2) 186

IRT the realism of graphics vice the mechanics of gameplay... If you RTFA, it solely concerns itself with graphics because gameplay has been perfected, as if these are the two major factors in a game... I disagree. The story and the stylistic choices are two major contributing factors that make this argument irrelevant...

Realistic graphics are just a tool. Realism is by no means required, but realism can make introducing the surreal that much more impacting.

Take the horror FPS genre... You use realistic and gritty scenes to set the tone... You slowly (or abruptly) twist it on its ear with small surreal aspects (ghosts, shadows rushing by, strange noises) to make people feel uneasy, and then start an assault. Good gaming with a high (although not perfect) level of realism results. But because the world and storyline dictate some unreal occurrence, this is forgivable. If your ghost is a flickering translucent spectre, then it adds to the realism. If it looks like a ghost from Pacman, or a guy with a sheet over his head, well, you've ruined the game with surrealism...

Or in war FPS games... Realism lends a certain credibility to the chosen mechanics of game play. If you want to relive storming the beaches of Normandy in WW2, then semi-accurate maps along with realistic looking environments, period and situation accurate decor and dress, and accurate weapons and vehicles, are what is going to make that experience fun.

On the other hand, if you want to relive storming the beaches of Normandy, and you do it in a cell-shaded world, then it doesn't FEEL like storming the beaches of Normandy... I'd expect (and want) it to be more "arcade"-style game play. Likewise, if you throw in railguns, jetpacks and other things that weren't part of WW2, it wouldn't be as fulfilling an experience for a game set in World War 2. (And before I get flamed, Wolfenstein was never intended to simulate WW2, and never really had much realism to begin with).

Basically, if your game's level of realism is consistent with game play, story, and style, then realism is perfectly justifiable.

Comment Re:The rioting almost made sense this time... (Score 1) 397

I agree. Most Vancouver FANS actually would have rioted against Gary Bettman, Colin Campbell, and the refs in Boston, for some of the bullshit calls. 4 game suspension to a Vancouver player for a minor concussion to a Boston player, but no penalty or suspension to Boston for what should have been a hooking and/or an interference call that broke a player's back...

True hockey fans realize that It's a problem with the rules as set forth by the league, and the inconsistent application of the rules that pissed Hockey fans off enough to allow them to get angry enough to be persuaded by Rioters. While Game 7 had a "Hands off" approach to reffing, earlier games had quite inconsistent calling of penalties, and the FAIR loss in game 7 did not reduce people's anger for unfair losses elsewhere.

Lax security (no screening of fans when entering fan zones) allowed well prepared people with the intent to wreak havoc on the public to do as they wish. Close quarters of 100000 people in concentrated viewing zones allowed people to get organized. Not having enough police on hand to disperse crowds, along with too many bystanders playing with cameras instead of getting the hell out of there, prolonged the riots.

Comment Re:early (Score 1) 473

<quote><quote><quote><p>And there are 6 digits in 101010!
Wohoo! This proves how the world is all Determined by the Lord in all its greatness.</p></quote>
<p>And He took 6 days to complete the Earth. And He saw that Ubuntu was good.</p></quote>

<p>4+2 = 6. 6 years of Ubuntu. 6 digits in 101010. Hmmm. Add all sixes together (6,6,6), and you get . . .</p></quote>

666 - the number of the beast. Those clever little devils....Both god and the devil like Ubuntu!
