Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:hope they win (Score 3, Insightful) 110

It actually feels like they are trying to put a positive "victim" light on themselves.

"We hired this company because we felt our good side wasn't being shown on the internet and asked them to market all the good stuff we've done, and they turned on us and just started spamming garbage everywhere! That's not what we wanted!"

Whether there is any truth to that, who knows.

Comment: Re:The hero Gotham needs (Score 1) 78

by Anrego (#47427857) Attached to: The Oatmeal Convinces Elon Musk To Donate $1 Million To Tesla Museum

Indeed.

He's got crazy ideas, but he seems to be able to make them happen. We'll probably see consumer level electric cars and private space travel due in large part to his efforts.

He's pretty much the only person in the world who if announced had discovered perpetual energy, I'd probably believe.

Comment: Re:why? (Score 5, Insightful) 346

by Anrego (#47375579) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

This all seems fairly reasonable to me.

You have enough people doing enough things, eventually someone is going to make a stupid mistake. In hindsight there is probably plenty of stuff that could have or should have been in place to prevent this, but then there always is when looking back at a problem.

Google seems to be acting reasonably. Putting a process in place where companies can quickly and conveniently "take back" emails seems like a bad idea. Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict process and is well documented. Google doesn't seem to be "fighting" this so much as saying "get a court to tell us to and we'll happily do it for you".

And I don't get the impression that Goldman Sachs is pounding their fists on the desk here either. They are doing everything they can to repair or prevent damage caused by a mistake they made. They are seeking out the court order and probably other stuff internally.

Comment: Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 579

by Anrego (#47372427) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

Certain areas around here they have ridiculously long lights.

The idea is basically everyone gets a turn, so everyone gets a flashing left arrow, then both directions get a green.

Traffic throughput is probably the same and it's probably way safer than the traditional "wait for an opening to turn left" approach, but damn if it doesn't piss off just about everyone.

Comment: Re:Audible warning (Score 1) 579

by Anrego (#47368095) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

Context is king.

The fact that he mentions "disabled folks (except deaf folks, naturally)" in the same sentence makes it perfectly clear that "regular" in this context refers to people who are not disabled (excluding deaf folks, who in this context may fall under the category of regular).

It's not politically correct, but I doubt many people were actually confused as to the meaning of "regular" in the OP.

Comment: Re:No plans to wear a watch (Score 4, Insightful) 427

by Anrego (#47319521) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For You To Buy a Smartwatch?

It's useful in a very small handful of circumstances. The main one that comes to mind is checking the time in a meeting or other situation where it would be inappropriate to haul out a phone (although the social expectation of not playing with your phone in these situations is eroding fast).

Mainly though, it's a piece of jewelry. I know some people are repulsed by the very idea of wearing anything more than the most utilitarian of cloths, but I like wearing one. Mine has a clear faceplate showing off the intricate mechanical workings, which is something I find cool and suits my personality. Other people get something out of the workmanship that goes into those $2000 watches.

Not everything needs a practical purpose. Some stuff is just cool.

Comment: Re:How Do We Deal With It (Score 1) 90

by Anrego (#47265293) Attached to: Privacy Worries For 'Smart' Smoke Alarms

Do you want something which gives you annoying warning messages as you type?

Or after I hit submit.

There is no case where a user is going to want a tag (or an accidentally created tag) deleted. It's always something the user does not want. There is no valid reason for a user to intentionally enter something in the assumption that it will be removed for them prior to being posted. Warning the user that invalid tags have been removed from their post (or would be removed from their post) seems reasonable.

It gets silently dropped because of, well, Little Bobby Drop Tables. :-P

This I could at least understand as a cultural thing. A fun gotcha left that way intentionally.

Because, quite frankly, that would suck as bad as Beta.

If they actually added new features like this to beta, rather than just making a shittier and less functional wrapper around what we've currently got, it might give beta a reason to exist.

Comment: Re:How Do We Deal With It (Score 1) 90

by Anrego (#47264553) Attached to: Privacy Worries For 'Smart' Smoke Alarms

It's not about broken tags.

It's about instinctively typing <some required parameter> when describing the syntax of something and having it unintentionally treated as an (invalid) HTML tag, causing it to be disappeared.

My point was that some kind of warning might be more helpful than just silently deleting the content.

Comment: Re:Does this remove the need for obscurity? (Score 2) 90

by Anrego (#47261767) Attached to: Privacy Worries For 'Smart' Smoke Alarms

It's a sad moment of realization that I actually like getting cloths for Christmas now. Mainly because I suck at picking stuff out myself and hate shopping for cloths in general.

Having a job, a fiance, hell owning a house (or well a gradually increasing piece of one) doesn't make you an adult. When someone gifts you a tonne of socks (sister works at a Marks Work Warehouse and gets some ridiculous employee discounts) and you think "awesome, I really needed these", I think that's the moment one realizes they are an adult.

Comment: Re:Sensors - for quakes? (Score 1) 90

by Anrego (#47258987) Attached to: Privacy Worries For 'Smart' Smoke Alarms

In my completely impractical approach, it would be up to the user (or whoever controls the gateway) to decide what data the device can send.

So you also have an IDL that describes the fields, potential values, and update rates for your earthquake monitoring, that a user can either allow or deny.

Obviously it starts to become easier to slip in data covertly, but this idea is impractical anyway, so what the heck!

You really do highlight the problem though. There is a great amount of legitimate useful purpose for this kind of stuff, but there is really no easy way to control that data once it's gone.

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik

Working...