Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I think it may be for development (Score 1) 73

One of the things I was thinking the port was there for, was probably when developers could build native apps for the phone - since it would be a little pokey to ship debug builds and running debug info over wireless to the watch, a development cable would be a great idea.

It's probably also for Apple Store employees to run diagnostics (not sure if they have equipment for that yet).

Comment: Band would seem to cover port pretty well... (Score 1) 73

The diagnostic port is hidden by a cover. I'd be interested to see if removing the cover adversely affect's the watch's water resistance.

It may somewhat, but given that the port itself is located under the round part of the band that slides into the watch, it seems like it would be sealed away fairly well (especially if you designed the strap with that in mind).

It seems pretty sure sweat would not be able to get in there, really only submersion would have a chance.

Comment: The review, it does something... as does sandbox (Score 1) 42

I agree it would have been really illuminating to do the same test for a large range of free iOS apps.

However I think that you wouldn't see the most egregious of tracking stuff going on in iOS, for two reasons:

1) iOS reviews would I think alarm on something connecting to 810 different tracking sites. Definitely f you were trying to do anything like that in the background.

2) There's simply not as much data to gather. Most Android apps ask for all possible permissions, because why not? You're probably not going to read it anyway. With the iOS permissions as they are the user is going to think "why is this app which has nothing to do with contacts, asking for contacts" (or location, or photo library, or health data, etc).

That said I'm sure many free apps on iOS are doing everything they can possibly get away with, and I would love to see quantified just what that is.

Comment: Purity Test (Score -1, Troll) 227

You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego.

It's amazing how all of these pure Beings of Science can exist without any sources of funding, or motivation deriving thereof...

Oh wait.

Science if hard work for little pay

Little > 0

$500k is also > 0

I'll let you have the last response. Just thought someone should, in the name of scientific accuracy, throw actual truth into the froth.

Oh, one last truth...

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point

Only 7% of reporters are Republicans.

I would say to draw your own conclusions from that glaring fact but you already have, and you got them wrong.

Comment: Hasn't been that way yet (Score 0) 445

by SuperKendall (#49612533) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Announces Bid For White House

Treating sexes equally means that when a hack comes our way we judge her just like a man.

If a male politician used a private email server for government work, then deleted the whole server when it was discovered - would he still be a viable candidate?

If a male politician ran a "charity organization" that collected millions from foreign countries after those countries were favored by the organization the candidate worked for - would he still be a viable candidate?

Those are just two of many, many examples of a level of ethics so low as to be practically immeasurable.

In no way is the media treating sexes equally. For Democrats they ignore all flaws; for Republicans the flaws are amplified as far as possible and then beyond.

Either way, it stinks. You're ideal of how Carly should be examined simply will not happen.

Comment: Plan worked perfectly. (Score 1) 909

by SuperKendall (#49612415) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

This was a perfect example of a honeypot. Just in physical form...

A more physical metaphor would be flypaper. All we have to do to protect the U.S. against terrorism is have one of these Mohammed art exhibits in every town, attackers will naturally be drawn there first and when they attack, they are killed.

In a very real way this is the ghost of Hebdo striking back.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 0) 164

See, "the market" isn't "nature", and "undercutting competition by ignoring laws and regulations" isn't a vacuum. That is a complete lie.

Oh really? Then explain why people are using Uber at all instead of the licensed, regulated cab companies that are omnipresent at all Uber-served locations? Saying something is a "complete lie" doesn't make it so, you know. The obviousness of reality proves you're incorrect.

And we have those laws because in the past greedy, shady douchebags with little regard for the welfare of others have decided to act like greedy, shady douchebags. And this whole crap of "people are free to not buy from greedy, shay douchebags" is so so much garbage it isn't funny.

Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior. So, do you buy products and services from greedy, shady douchebags yourself? Or do you exercise your own free will and avoid buying from companies that exploit sweatshop workers, cut environmental corners, and screw their employees? I do, and it works out rather nicely. If you do as well then you've just invalidated your premise that government is required to keep the greedy, shady douchebags in check. If you don't, you're a hypocrite. Or, perhaps there's a third case where you're forced to buy goods/services from greedy, shady douchebags but only because they're protected by a government-sanctioned (officially or otherwise) monopoly.

Companies that consistently act in a fashion counter to what their customers want don't usually survive long. In fact, they typically only survive if -- drum roll please -- government regulation or subsidies allow them to do so, usually in the form of a protected monopoly/oligopoly or by excessive regulatory action presenting a nigh-insurmountable barrier to entry.

But go on thinking government is the solution to all that ails you. Knock yourself right out on that one.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 164

One thing is for sure, some poor Uber driver's life will be destroyed the first time there is an accident causing injury with another uninsured driver. Uber won't be standing behind them.

So? It's not like someone put a gun to their head and said "you will drive for Uber or else!"

For crying out loud folks...grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want the risk, don't take the job.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 164

Are you glad that the pilot of your airline has a license, the mechanics who work on the plane are certified, etc or is that "nanny state"?

I'm glad they have licenses, certified mechanics, etc., but you miss the point. I don't have a choice in the matter. All these things are mandated and regulated. However, if I did have a choice, I would choose of my own free will to fly the licensed, certified airline. Most other people would probably choose the same way, and the unlicensed, uncertified airline would wither and die for lack of business...all without the almighty hand of government forcing the populace to think and act a certain way.

Maybe I should buy a plane and start flying people around. I have a history of heart disease and haven't actually flown anything apart from my dad's piper when I was a kid and he let me take the controls, but I have plenty of simulator time. I should start my own airline.

Then nothing should stop you from doing so. If you can attract paying customers to your business and you prosper at it, you're filling a market need that wasn't being addressed to begin with. Your customers are happy, you're happy, and nobody is harmed by these free choices. If you give bad customer service, endanger your passengers beyond their willingness to accept risk, or run your business poorly, your endeavor will fail as it should based strictly on the merits of your idea and enterprise. Government should not be in the business of determining who can or cannot come up with a useful service. Period. Government is too corruptible, too faceless, and far, far too powerful to trust with something like this.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 164

I do when what you do involves me, and it turns out I might be on those public roads, and I might even be asked to pay for the expenses when you get in an accident, and I surely am expected to deal with the fumes released by the ICE vehicles. You know, when you make your business my business.

I'm not asking you to pay for any of my expenses if I get into an accident. If the government is forcing you to do so, however, your issue should (again) be with the idiotic government regulations that compel you to do such things, not with me for exercising my free will.

The "fumes" crap is just that -- crap. It's a non sequitur to the argument at hand, namely whether the government has any right to shut down a useful service that's in demand by a willing population.

We do not living a sovereign anarchy.

Nor did I say we should. A sovereign anarchy would mean I can do whatever I want regardless of how it might affect anyone and everyone. Quite the contrary, I propose the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do when it only affects myself. For example, if I want to sit in my house and get blind stinking drunk, that's my business and the government has no right to stop me. If, however, I choose to get drunk and drive, then it affects others, so that should rightly be a crime. See? It's pretty simple. You get to do what you think is best for you, I get to do what I think is best for me, and so long as neither of us tread on the other, why should either of us care what the other did or does?

Your problem is you think what's best for you ought to be best for everyone else. The height of arrogance. Let everyone make their own choices, even if they're the wrong ones. In the end, the "right" choices will eventually win the day and society will progress.

Comment: The Only (Score 0, Flamebait) 445

by SuperKendall (#49611941) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Announces Bid For White House

becoming the only woman in the pack of Republican candidates for the White House in 2016.

Because the next president of the U.S. *must* be a woman right? That's what you are implying...

Even if our only choice is an incompetent Republican or a completely unethical Democrat...

Meanwhile in the Democratic "pack", you have much more diversity. They have all kinds of candidates - both old white men *and* old white women. A true force for change in politics.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 164

Ok, so what is your argument about Uber flouting the laws in the UK, where anyone can get commercial passenger carrying insurance and then get a taxi cab license from the local council for less than £3,000 to operate from a taxi rank or a private hire license to operate point to point on prebooking jobs?

My argument is simple: such laws are idiotic and serve only to create barriers to entry and depress competition and innovation. If I pick up a friend and drive him to the airport and he gives me gas (excuse me, petrol) money, do I have to have a license and carry commercial insurance? Of course not. That'd be ludicrous. And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations. Baloney. Hogwash. Balderdash.

Uber wouldn't exist if the in situ transportation companies were fulfilling their function as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Uber is filling that vacuum. Cab companies are crying foul because they don't want their business model challenged. It has nothing to do with their sudden love of human life. You say this is all about profit and you're right, but it's about their profit, not Uber's.

And let's not forget, nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to ride with Uber instead of an insured, regulated cab. People have a (gasp) CHOICE. My God, we can't have that, can we? Government MUST step in and tell these poor besotted idiots how they must decided because they're clearly too stupid to do it for themselves! Here comes government to save the day!

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 164

Private industry being the mentally unstable guy who will charge you a fee for sitting in his disgusting car which he has an expired license for, while you pray not to die from the fumes and that the car actually holds together long enough to get you to your destination. Laws exist to regulate private industry because private industry too easily focuses on the "my profit" part of the equation and not enough on the "quality of service" part.

You amply illustrate the thinking of the nanny state. Yeah, people are just too fucking stupid to make their own decisions. Why not let the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing government tell you what's best for you.

You talk about "minimum level of service acceptable" as if it were an absolute. Why don't you let people decide on what they'll accept instead of you -- or, by proxy, your totalitarian vision of government -- decide for them? What's acceptable to me may not be acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be happier paying less for it. It's my skin I'm risking, not yours. You have no business telling me I can't choose to do something because you think you know better than me what's good for me. Neither does government.

The two most beautiful words in the English language are "Cheque Enclosed." -- Dorothy Parker

Working...