Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Never understood this (Score 0) 102

Why are companies allowed to trademark some exceedingly common words or phrases and then extort others based on that? Sure, such things ensure that there will always be need for lawyers, but what about the rest of the society? It just creates even more work for already-overworked courts, it hurts any entity that can't afford to fight back, it indirectly stifles free speech -- aside from the lawyers, the company, and the hands that the company greases the society at large doesn't seem to benefit from such shenanigans at all, yet no one in position of power is even trying to steer the Titanic away from the ice.

Comment Interesting (Score 2) 29

I never understood the idea of slapping a humongous monstrosity on your wrist, but then having to be constantly charging it or having its display off all the time just to save battery. I've multiple times voiced my wish for pretty much exactly what the article is about, so I'm cautiously excited seeing and hearing more about this. An e-Ink display is great for showing things that don't need high refresh-rates, like e.g. reminders, slowly updating weather data, or stock tickers, or messages or, you know, clock -- I would love to have something like this to keep an eye on my servers just by flicking my wrist.

Comment Re:26.2% miss rate... FAIL. (Score 1) 57

Though if they are only missing 26.2% of all pedestrians I'd call that a fail. If they are missing 74.8% that is still a fail.

You're interpreting it incorrectly. "Missing" a pedestrian, in this case, means the system didn't detect the pedestrian, so it did detect and avoided 73.8% of them.

Comment Re:That's stupid (Score 3, Interesting) 417

But, changes that people really don't like tend to bring about a response. The Cuyahoga river for example was so toxic that it was completely devoid of fish, and the water itself was flammable, whereas now some 44 species inhabit it.

So, wait, you're saying that humans caused the river to become toxic and flammable and then managed to fix it and that somehow precludes that humans can't cause the oceans to become acidic and/or toxic?

Comment Who is it for, really? (Score 2) 178

If a person is willing to drive a bike under influence why would they then go and deliberately prevent themselves from doing that? It's not really much different from alco-locks in cars: the people who are most against it are most likely the ones most in need of it. All of this just begs the question: who is the lock for, who is it that is going to buy and install those locks on stuff for the people who most likely should have them and then maintain the locks?

Comment Re: Dr. Doom AGAIN (Score 4, Insightful) 168

I was actually thinking while reading these reviews that someone should instead make a movie where Doom is the protagonist. Doom is an interesting character in so many different ways; he is motivated by the need to be a better man than anyone else, including himself, and to make the world around him better, but he keeps headbutting with the "actual heroes" because they don't understand him, they don't even want to understand him, and he is willing to use more drastic methods to bring about his utopia than these "actual heroes" are willing to let him. Even when he becomes a literal god, saves the universe from a collapse and makes the world a wonderful place for people to live he still can't chug down the feelings of inferiority compared to what he thinks he could still become nor are the "heroes" still willing to look past his exterior and see who he is for real.

There's just so MUCH potential there, it could be a very deep movie and flipping the viewpoint around like that to revolve around the anti-hero instead would definitely interest a lot of people. But nooooo, Hollywood just wants to push out easy, mediocre crap :S

Comment Re:Android update weakness (Score 1) 69

Are you sure you can't install CM12 on your current phone? http://forum.xda-developers.co... at a glance seems to offer everything you need. Your phone's specs are mostly similar to my old Galaxy Note's, ie. 720p display, 1GB RAM and such, and my Note certainly got a lot spiffier with CM12 and seems to consume less battery than it did with stock ROMs.

Comment Re:Confused (Score 1) 69

Why is it HTC's responsibility to patch it?

Because the bugs lie in HTC's software and that software is baked in the firmware. While these things are an industry standard practice these days they aren't an Android - standard thing; stock Android, like e.g. the Nexus - devices use, don't have this bug.

Comment Re:I wish (Score 3, Interesting) 69

Have you checked if there are any custom ROMs for it on XDA-forums? I got fed up with these vulnerabilities myself yesterday, what with LG taking a minimum of 6 months to even consider doing anything, and wiped my LG G2 and installed Cyanogenmod on it; no bloat, much slicker, and both this and the Stagefright - bugs have been fixed. I have Cyanogenmod 12 on my aging Galaxy Note, too, that I just have hanging around as a replacement phone should something happen to my G2: Samsung never updated the Note beyond Kitkat and Samsung's own firmware was rife with bugs and god damn that Touchwiz slowed things down, but, again, replacing the official ROM made the device feel like new.

Comment Re:Animated/imaginary CP (Score 1) 410

I've actually tried to talk about this a few times in the past, but people tend to get offended as soon as I open my mouth, they just can't accept the idea of treating pedophiles -- persecution is the only Truly Acceptable(TM) way. I find that kind of appalling. We are already treating a lot of people with all sorts of generally untowards and socially possibly destructive traits and behaviours, why should pedophilia automatically be any different? Someone getting help for it without being subjected to overbearing hatred, threats of violence and whatnot could prevent cases of abuse and could make these people's lives more enjoyable.

Certainly, someone who does not seem to be able to control themselves even despite help should be placed under intense scrutiny and not be let around children by themselves -- I totally am not saying they should just get a free pass --, but at the same time those who would be willing to seek and accept help should receive humane treatment and respect. But perhaps my view on the matter is just too radical for the world to accept it yet..

Comment Re:Animated/imaginary CP (Score 1) 410

How is that any different from those who try to "cure" or "treat" homophiles just because they dislike how they're attracted to another member of their sex?

Sex between consenting adults is quite different from sex between an adult or adults and underage children. And treating someone doesn't mean curing them; when you're treating someone with e.g. those rage-issues I mentioned in my post you're trying to help them control the rage, not trying to make them magically not feel the rage anymore. Treating a pedophile would be the same thing; trying to help them find ways to cope and control the urges so that they don't become totally overwhelming and to help them with any possible associated depression and such.

That said, for the sake of devil's advocate, please prove that someone having photos and recorded footage (read: not animation or drawings) of children engaged in sexual situations is going to cause the person to go out and molest children.

Red herring: meta-monkey never claimed anything such.

Comment Animated/imaginary CP (Score 2) 410

Banning this one sounds like a bad idea to me. I know there are people who e.g. have issues with rage and are unable to control it, even with medication and therapy, unless they can find a safe outlet for it every now and then and for some of them violent videogames have been a great alternative. I would imagine imaginary CP could serve as a similar outlet. The people who get tickled too much about such and then go and do things for real will do it anyways, so banning such won't stop those people, but providing an outlet for people whom such content would help control themselves might, indeed, prevent them from taking it out on a real person. Of course, IMHO, there should still be some sort of therapy in addition to such, but our society makes it really difficult for people to admit such a problem even to professionals.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...