Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is great (Score 1) 94

by drinkypoo (#49628531) Attached to: GOG Announces Open Beta For New Game Distribution Platform

With the speed of Internet connections now, even a 10-20GB download is not really a bottleneck for enjoyment.

Speak for yourself, I have 6/1. It's okay when downloads support resume properly, but a lot of the time that fails. Even Steam used to get it wrong regularly, but they seem to have it pretty well-nailed down now. uplay, on the other hand, totally doesn't. Not sure about Origin.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628527) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Whoah, I pay like 650€/year for my 2007 BMW, liability and comprehensive cover included. We have a discount system depending on the number of years without an accident (the insurance had to pay for). Since I've been driving for 20 years without (any major) accident, I'm down to 30% of the reference rate. Our rates are per car, not per driver, and react to type of car, engine hp, km driven/year and some minor details (garage/roadside parker, region, age of driver, other drivers' lowest age etc.)

Do you self-report the km driven per year, or do they have some type of system in place to track this?

Comment: Re:Like multiplayer? (Score 1) 94

by drinkypoo (#49628519) Attached to: GOG Announces Open Beta For New Game Distribution Platform

I expect it could be done with a proxy process (eg., the launcher) listening on the official GoG ports and forwarding packets to whatever ports the actual game wants.

It seems like the right level at which to do this would be the virtual machine level, at least for DOS games. Create a VPN between the players, and put virtual machines with only the games running in them on that VPN with no firewalling between the players on that network. It seems like this would actually reduce the security considerations. It might require a move from dosemu to qemu or similar, but that would also enable virtualization on supporting hosts which seems as though it would enhance security.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628507) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular.


Perhaps, but I really doubt so many people are attempting to hypermile in SUVs, large pick-up trucks, and other vehicles unlikely to be chosen for such a purpose. I also doubt hypermiling is so popular that I would see it every day I drive, though I admit I haven't surveyed a representative sample so I don't know that.

Observing the same drivers, they tend to accelerate v.e.r.y s.l.o.w.l.y and will randomly speed up or slow down for no apparent reason. I would expect a hypermiler to know that accelerating more quickly and then maintaining a steady speed is more fuel-efficient. Finally, to hypermile one must put continuous effort into a conscious awareness of one's driving habits, which (as explained in my lengthy post above) is inconsistent with other behaviors I see that cannot have a constructive purpose.

Comment: Re:Cross Play (Score 1) 94

by drinkypoo (#49628491) Attached to: GOG Announces Open Beta For New Game Distribution Platform

I was scrolling through expecting to just ignore this like I did the downloader, but that actually provides something of value above what you can do with the website.

The website also kind of sucks. My connection definitely sucks, and their website is slow to load and pretty choppy. I'd rather use an app. I don't have to complain about the site if there's an app.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 2) 104

by causality (#49628459) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

It's similar, they won't cancel your insurance but they hike the rate enormously and stick on a large deductible. The "unlimited" is simply because medical NHS system is free, so they know they won't face an infinite bill for medical treatment.

Can you explain further, please? Does NHS pay for medical treatement no matter what? Or is there such a concept as, "your negligence or malice directly caused this medical expense that otherwise would not have happened, so yes you are liable?".

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

Comment: Re:A spokesman for Uber said (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628419) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Yet another recurrent "Uber is evicted from [somewhere]", Could we have a status on where Über is still allowed/active/authorized/working?

They need to sprinkle a few of those onto the front page every now and then, to break up all of the "Google did something!", "Apple did something too!", and "Microsoft hasn't done much lately!" stories. At least the systemd stories tend to cause some interesting and amusing debates (incidentally, Gentoo with OpenRC here).

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 309

by drinkypoo (#49628409) Attached to: Google Can't Ignore the Android Update Problem Any Longer

If the information on my phone were important, it would be encrypted. But it isn't. I don't keep my secret plans to rule the world on my fucking cellphone, because I'm not new. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck last night, etc etc. Nothing in it is a secret; Google already knows everything my phone knows. If I were going to do something nefarious, I would turn it off and put it into a mylar bag, and it would be none the wiser. I certainly wouldn't fucking tell it. What kind of dipshit does that take?

Comment: Re:Über was not forced (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628381) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

This headline is absolutely ridiculous. It's taking Uber's perspective as legitimate, and then the article links to Uber propaganda in the form of a press release.

Was this posting bought and paid for by Uber?

Uber operates by committing regulatory arbitrage and then hoping it doesn't get caught or stopped.

Uber could absolutely continue to operate but they simply choose not to comply with reasonable legislation. Carrying commercial insurance and submitting to a background check is hardly overbearing.

When Google pulled out of China, was it that Google was forced out? Of course not. They just didn't want to comply with Chinese law.

Same here.

Please reword this article, because right now its a bunch of bullshit.

Laws like this will be appearing everywhere, Massachusetts is up next, and in markets like NYC, its been the standard for years.

The day I read such a biased Slashdot story and don't see at least one comment like this will be the day I stop visiting this site, for on that day it will have lost all value to me. If all you want is a news aggregator there are better ones available. Some of them even have proper editors who copy-edit, attempt to vet stories, and post direct links to good articles instead of kicking traffic over to someone's shitty blog that comments on a good article.

At least I use an effective ad blocker, so said shitty blogs with their dishonest methods of gaining traffic earned nothing from me the few times I gave them a chance prior to deciding never to click on one.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 104

by drinkypoo (#49628353) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

So because the Department of HEalth doesn't inspet your home kitchen they don't need to inspect restaurants?

Are you being stupid on purpose? There's a public health concern in vehicle safety whether you get into one or not, because you can be harmed by someone else's vehicle being unsafe whether you get into it or not, let alone pay for the privilege. There's no public health concern in kitchen safety outside of fire hazards, and generally speaking we already have a mechanism for dealing with gas leaks at least — if you need to connect an appliance to the gas system, many utilities will come out and do it for free.

Comment: Re:Not forced... (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628333) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

I'm really curious why Uber just can't self-insure. They could easily just stash 1 million in a bank account to cover the required insurance.

It's really not that simple. You may want to look into the kind of cash reserves insurance companies are required to have on hand at any given time (this is public information, regulated by your state). They're huge at the same time they're smaller than what most insurers think is more realistic.

If they could do it, this would definitely hurt Uber's cashflow. Then they'd have to have their own underwriting standards, eligibility requirements, etc. because Uber would be batshit insane to offer indemnity to ANYONE who signs up regardless of driving record. All of this costs money and requires in-house expertise to implement. They would have to fully be a "ride-sharing company" and partially be a commercial insurance company, simultaneously. Oh and that's also ignoring a crucial difference: maybe Uber could somehow overcome all of these problems and "self-insure" ... if all of their drivers are employees. If their drivers are contractors, then they are not "self" insuring at all and would in fact be a full-fledged insurance company, complete with having to follow all of the (numerous and complex) regulations attached to that.

There is a reason that even very large multinational corporations purchase commercial insurance policies for their drivers (who are typically employees) instead of self-insuring. If Uber were going to do anything like this at all, they would require their drivers to obtain commercial insurance policies and subsidize the extra cost. By far, that would be the most sensible thing to do.

Comment: Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score 2) 104

by causality (#49628259) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Excellent comment. Anne I am glad to see the folks on Slashdot are not skewering Kansas en masse. This law seems appropriate. It does not look like it is operating to defend taxi badge holders turf, but is instead protecting riders.

The problems Uber is having boil down to this: they want to look like a taxi company, act like a taxi company, and operate in the same market as a taxi company, but they don't want to be a taxi company. I wish them good luck because I have always believed that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as they alone bear the consequences, but none of this is even slightly surprising.

What follows is my personal opinion only - if you want real advice talk to an insurance agent or lawyer. Anyway, as a matter of fact, by requiring them to obtain commercial insurance, Kansas is only repeating what's already in the agreement these drivers have made with their insurance companies. If any Uber driver has an accident and files a claim under a personal-lines policy, and the insurance company finds out they were a driver-for-hire, they're likely to lose their insurance anyway. When you signed your policy you gave the insurer all kinds of investigatory powers, so they probably will find out. They will do everything possible to cancel the personal-lines policy at that point. Whether they can also deny the claim and leave you 100% on the hook for the full liability depends on your state's regulations, but if they can, I'm sure they would.

Do most Uber drivers fully understand this? If so, are they just counting on nothing going wrong, or not getting caught if something does go wrong?

Comment: Re:Problem, Reaction, Solution... (Score 1) 117

by circletimessquare (#49628245) Attached to: French Version of 'Patriot Act' Becomes Law

look, i think this law sucks, but you are paranoid schizophrenic if you think the authorities generated the attack, and generated the outrage

1.violent religious wackjobs are real

2. panicky hysterical mob fear is real

3. overreaching overcontrolling bureaucrats are real

no one designed all those steps, they all actually happened organically, 1, 2, 3

this is all a tragedy of human nature, not some plot by a cabal

and thus we have organic natural step 4: "HERP DERP it's all a secret plot!" says the paranoid nutcases

and someone modded you up to 3?

fucking mentally unhinged losers

it must be a plot behind closed doors! /s

Comment: Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score 1) 104

by causality (#49628157) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Normal car insurance doesn't cover commercial use, so Uber drivers should be prosecuted as not having insurance anyway. That is true for all states, not just Kansas.

If the Uber drivers have the correct drivers insurance for commercial passenger vehicles, then it covers those limits and substantially more.

Kansas is basically just defining the minimum level of insurance that they need, not forcing them to take proper insurance, that's already a requirement for driving in most states.

Even if Kansas caves, the requirement to have valid driving insurance is still law, and Uber drivers cannot do commercial work on insurance designed for commuting and home use.

Indeed. If you actually look at actuarial data, you will find that there are good reasons for the price difference between personal and commercial insurance. The commercial vehicles have far greater exposure to risk. I know it's popular to bash insurance companies - hell, I dislike American corporatism myself - but when people do that from a position of ignorance, it doesn't help.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen