Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why can't this be the law everywhere? (Score 1) 234 234

The "one phone call" is a myth made up by Hollywood. Last time I was arrested, there were several phones in the holding cell, and I was there for four hours. I could make as many phone calls as I wanted, to anyone, either local or collect.

I don't think it was a myth so much back in the day - the supreme courts ruled that if you were arrested, you have a right to contact someone. I.e., the police could not arrest you, then toss you in jail without you being able to talk to someone who can try to do something about it.

Perhaps it's more apt to the smaller communities, you know, the ones where the cops are just as crooked and looking to arrest you for any reason whatsoever. The one phone call came into play saying you were at least to have the right to contact someone - otherwise the police would just lock you up for a month, then set you free.

In most "normal" areas, yes, the phone is freely available for use because the last thing anyone wants is for you to be let go because you did not have sufficient time to contact someone, especially an attorney.

So today it's more likely a myth, but back maybe 50 years ago, it probably wasn't. Plus probably a bunch of court precedent that basically said under what conditions that "one call" really meant (is it one call, and if you reach a busy signal, no answer or an answering machine and that's it?). Just safer to let them have use of the phone as much as possible so no lawyer can get the guy off because he was denied sufficient phone access.

Comment: Re:Umm, who are these guys? (Score 1) 82 82

This product doesn't appear to be outside of the realm of the possible; bulk metallic glasses are a real thing (and apparently not excessively expensive for consumer electronics, a number of Sandisk's adequate-but-cheap-and-wholly-unexciting MP3 players used them as chassis materials); and the rest of the specs are on the high side; but available.

However, there appears to be almost nothing about this 'Turing Robotic Industries' except a couple of sites with the same 3d renders and vague puffery. Is 'cryptic' just what all the cool kids are doing these days, or is this the ever delightful scent of vaporware?

I suspect these guys may be an industrial manufacturer or some form or other, where a webpage is basically whoever can host web pages for free and who use gmail for email.

Given Apple just renewed their exclusivity to use Liquid Metal technology (in consumer electronics), someone's going to be in a world of hurt.

Could be these guys may be forced to license through Apple, Apple may demand damages from Liquid Metal for allowing this to happen, or Liquid Metal might terminate the contract with these guys.

Might want to hold off on the pre-orders...

Comment: Re:Why release it? (Score 1) 86 86

They probably just ran into a million issues on OS X and its implementation of OpenGL and Apple doesn't give a shit.

I also never heard of DX11 on OS X. I imagine he must be referring to Bootcamp, although I don't know the state of Apple's drivers for bootcamp.

I guess they could have just not released the game in the first place instead of pulling it later...

No, they basically recompiled their app using a Windows API library.

There are lots of Windows API libraries - like WineLib - where you take your Windows source code, compile against the library and you have a Mac/Linux/Etc. app.

Square used Cider, which is an older port of WINE (before WINE switched licenses because TransGaming was effectively selling WINE without contributing back)

And no, there is no "DirectX for OS X". There's a DirectX API provided by the library that runs on top of OpenGL. Basically they're hoping the next release of Cider will have improvements in the Windows API library.

But it still will run like crap. Because it's a Windows game that runs on a Windows API emulation layer that runs on top of OS X. So of course, when you add in the library, it's no wonder performance on OS X sucks - OS X is running a virtual Windows API layer.

The reverse is also true - iTunes/QuickTime are notorious offenders in the "runs like crap" category, because they do the same thing - Apple has an OS X API layer that runs on Windows, and it's that OS layer that iTunes runs on.

Comment: Re:Not Exactly.... (Score 2) 479 479

...when you connect to a new network, there's a "share with my contacts" checkbox that you have to turn ON for this network to be shared.

If true, this would be a departure from the Windows Phone 8.1 OEM requirements, which requires OEMs to fully enable this, "killer feature:" https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

Comment: Re:Bad Summary, Only new part is the sharing optio (Score 5, Interesting) 479 479

First, we're only talking Windows 10 PHONE

ERROR: INCORRECT

First: This is in Windows 10 desktop, as detailed here, complete with screenshots: http://www.howtogeek.com/21970...

Second: Even if this were only confined to Windows Phone 10, it would still be monumentally stupid.

Comment: Re:third solution the MS doesn't want to mention (Score 3, Insightful) 479 479

ERROR: INCOMPLETE SOLUTION

There is no provision in this "killer feature" that establishes whether the person doing the sharing is the network administrator, i.e. the person who grants authorization to use their network. So if you share your WAP credentials with a friend, and that friend uses Windows 10 with Wi-Fi Sense enabled, than that friend has just compromised your WAP.

Comment: Re:No (Score 5, Informative) 479 479

ahhhh no, for networks you have SELECTED to share it can do it. [ ... ]

ERROR: MISLEADING.

Wi-Fi Sense's default settings are to share everything, all the time. Indeed, Microsoft's rules for shipping Windows Phone 8.1 requires OEMs to turn this "killer feature" fully on. Expecting users to have the presence of mind to turn this off is willfully disingenuous.

+ - Windows 10 to Share WiFi Credentials by Default?

ewhac writes: Even those of us who reflexively (and correctly) bash Microsoft every chance we get are having trouble wrapping our heads around this one. It seems that the latest build of Windows 10 has a new feature called Wi-Fi Sense which, by default, will share your WiFi connection profiles and credentials with all your Facebook friends, and Skype and Outlook.com contacts.

Wi-Fi Sense is apparently a feature that first appeared on Windows Phone 8.1, and is described by Managing Editor Sam Sabri in this Windows Central article from last year — without irony or sarcasm — as a, "killer feature." The apparent use case for this "killer feature" is to more conveniently share the connection credentials to your own WAP with your friends. If, however, you would prefer your WAP's info to not be shared, you have but to append the string "_optout" to your SSID (no solution is provided for people whose SSIDs are already near the 32-character limit). The WinPhone version of Wi-Fi Sense reportedly does not display the WAP's password to recipients but, since recipients can connect, the password is (probably) stored using a symmetric cipher and, thus, can be easily extracted. Wi-Fi Sense will also automagically click through any ToS page that typically appears on public WiFi access points (thus destroying any remaining illusion of meaningful assent to such so-called contracts).

Wi-Fi Sense can apparently be turned off completely, but its default state appears to be enabled and sharing everything. It is unclear how much, if any, of this "killer feature" will be in the final release of Windows 10.

Comment: Re:Conflict of Interest (Score 1) 307 307

It's simple. As long as a significant portion of Apple's revenue comes from having a closed, "walled-garden" ecosystem, Apple will be disinclined to participate anything that might result in the demise of that ecosystem. After all, it's hard to be in the same boat as everyone else supporting WebAssembly etc., when that same technology will ultimately result in the death of on-platform app stores.

Apple's walled garden and iTunes revenue pales in comparison to their iPod revenue, which has been declining for 10 years straight. (It's roughly on order of a billion dollars). Just to compare, Macs account for several tens of billions of dollars. And iPhones/iPads account for hundred billion.

Apple's take from iTunes is small and not essential. Unlike Amazon whose business model IS to sell content, Apple's model is to provide content, to sell hardware.

Oh yeah, iTunes content sales include music and movies as well. (Apple does not break it out any finer grained than that).

Anything Apple does is to sell hardware - that's their main revenue generator. Everything else is just icing. Especially to encourage sales of new hardware.

Safari upgrades don't sell hardware.

Comment: Re:E-book prices (Score 1) 97 97

You know, I think since this court case, eBook prices have actually gone up. I mean, when we actually had Amazon, Barnes and Noble and iBookstore competing, you could get books for $10. Now that iBookstore was colluding and banished as a competitor, damn has prices risen.

Yeah, Apple sucks, blah blah blah, but now we have less competition and Amazon's dictating the pricing rules. I don't think the ebook market is as healthy as it was back then, nor as competitive... especially now with Barnes and Noble on life-support, iBookstore gone, it's just Amazon...

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 817 817

Not only that, but no artificial limit to g. No pilot to keep conscious.

Easier to scrap the airframe and design for a drone, actually. Because too much has been done already in the design to support a pilot.

If you're not having a pilot, there's a TON of equipment that can be gotten rid of because you don't need life support equipment, all the cockpit gear, even the canopy can go.

And with all the extra space you make, you can fit more armament and all that in there.

Comment: Re:Google It (Score 2) 189 189

I asked this because I do not accumulate those in a business setting. In our office we have the printer service companies (who beat each other up to get our business) deal with that, but they do not do private households and I am not bold enough to just dump my empty cartridges on the pile. I am sure they'd catch on to that quickly because we only have HP at work.

They probably will accept them.

They don't do private households in that they won't do business with you. They are often more than happy to take empty toner cartridges for recycling (really, refilling). And the worst that happens is they leave it in the area, so check it after they're through. Hell, if you're scared, ask IT if you can leave your toner carts for them.

If not, I'm sure there's a walmart or other place with a ink/toner refill business. They'll be more than happy to accept empty cartridges that they send back and refill and sell in the store.

Hell, the online retailer you buy from probably has a buy back program.

Comment: Re:Copyright Law (Score 1) 190 190

This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

Except the domain was registered BEFORE the trademark.

That's the key point - if the domain was registered AFTER the trademark, then yes, trademark law is clear on that. But in this case, the trademark was created long after the domain was registered.

So it's no longer a simple "defending a trademark" procedure, as otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property. Don't like a domain? File a trademark and if successful, sue to get the domain, doesn't matter who got it first or whatever.

It's similar to the case where the guy got his YouTube URL taken away just because someone with money wanted it. Or Nissan.com - the original owner had the store way before the car company renamed themselves.

Trademarks need to be defended, however, defense implies preventing people from diluting it. It doesn't cover the case where someone else already uses the name prior to your filing. (And there are many trademarks that are similar - as long as their trade areas don't overlap, that's fine.)

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...