Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment interesting tradeoff seen in industry as well (Score 1) 47

Having fewer people with a higher degree of autonomy manning these kinds of communication channels does tend to produce more of an identifiable "voice", along with the ability to respond to things faster and insert your message into current events/discussions. The downside is that it's also somewhat more prone to gaffes or off-message comments, basically for the same reason, that the messages are written on the spur of the moment by one or a few people and don't go through a more "heavyweight" approval process that ensures they're in line with the brand's desired image. Of course you can then deal with that on the meta-side by blaming "a staffer" who "didn't follow policy" if anything particularly controversial happens.

I think campaigns will probably move towards the more lightweight-review model, just because inserting yourself into topical discussions is so important for the news-cycle-driven style of campaigning.

Comment Re:Who cares... (Score 4, Informative) 346

Until Hughes bought it, for the previous few decades it had been controlled by Marty Peretz, and was to some extent reflective of his views, which are an odd idiosyncratic mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas. He's socially liberal but a defense hawk, among other positions. Which explains why TNR was liberal on things like gay marriage, but neoconservative on things like the Iraq War.

Comment Re:Big Mistake (Score 4, Informative) 33

It's definitely a risk, but I would be surprised if they're going to be using their latest-gen technologies there, partly for that reason. So Foxconn will be able to pilfer some older tech which is by that point less secret to begin with.

Intel already has one fab in China, in Dalian, but it's on a 65nm process, several generations behind the 14, 22, 32, and 45nm processes that they use in their American fabs.

Comment Re:Meh. (Score 2) 163

I don't think anyone's being "ordered" to get it. I got an email that they were giving free vaccinations at my workplace last month. I could go to a certain room between 1pm and 2pm and get one, or I could choose not go to that room and not get one.

Reasons healthy adults might want to get one: 1) your risk of dying from the flu is quite low, but your risk of falling ill for 1-3 weeks is much higher; and 2) higher levels of vaccination in the population are protective of more vulnerable members of the population as well. This works on both a local scale (less chance of passing on influenza to other household members, like kids or grandparents), as well as on a community scale.

Comment is the claim they're triggering a fake reset need? (Score 4, Informative) 250

From what I can tell, what's being claimed isn't that Apple is specifically wiping the files, but rather that: 1) users are told to factory-reset their device; and 2) this wipes all files; except that 3) after factory reset, iTunes restores the iTunes-purchased files from Apple.

#2 and #3 don't seem particularly nefarious on their own. You'd expect a factory reset to wipe the device, and you'd expect a cloud service like iTunes to support restoring your purchases from (and only from) that service. So what it seems to boil down to is: was situation #1 popping up nefariously, i.e. Apple is purposely triggering an unnecessary "please factory reset your device" request even when there is nothing wrong with the device and no need to factory-reset it? And furthermore, that Apple is doing this based on detecting competitors' services on the device? That seems... surprisingly blatant if true.

Another possibility, which Apple seems to be hinting at, is that some kind of "tamper-detection" DRM is setting off reset-your-device false positives.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn

Working...