Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Good move Nokia (Score 1) 44 44

I use both; Google on my phone and HERE on my car's built-in nav unit. Being able to use the car's system where there's no or poor cell coverage is definitely a big plus. However, the HERE data is old and incomplete as far as businesses. If you know the street address of where you want to go, it's great. However, if you just want to look up all the Walmarts nearby and pick one to go to, it tries to direct me to one that's an hour away for some odd reason. And forget about finding some small restaurant; if it's been there for decades, it's probably on HERE, but if it's fairly new, forget it.

Google Maps' biggest strength is that it combines navigation with an up-to-date business directory. I can search for "Italian restaurant" within a certain area, see all the businesses that match that description, then look at them and immediately see peoples' Google and Yelp reviews, so I can avoid places that suck. Then I can just tap one button and have it navigate me to that place, without having to mess around with street addresses.

I wish my car's system could integrate the business-directory stuff from my phone (assuming I have coverage at that moment), and then switch me over to the car's navigation after it gets a street address.

Comment Re:Bad engineering choices (Score 1) 44 44

GM engineers are famous for their complete incompetence. Just look at the ignition-key fiasco. There's no way in hell I'd buy a GM. I even thought about it once; I thought that a few decades was enough to forgive them for their past atrocities in automobiles, and that their new cars were worth taking a look at again, and then the ignition-key fiasco came up in the news. That was the end of that idea.

Comment Re:"there was no acknowledgment that ..." (Score 1) 136 136

couldn't Microsoft reasonably anticipate that it would turn into a giant write-down?

I think people at our level have a hard time imagining just how much hubris these top-level corporate execs have. You don't usually get to that level without being some kind of egomaniac, sociopath, or both.

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 1) 136 136

Ultimately FB primarily has turned into a conglomerate of a desperate small-business owners way to try to push their bad ideas on their friends, a place to post pictures of your children and a news aggregator. I don't think it has much of a future on its present vector either. It will simply last longer because it is slightly less dangerous.

I disagree. What makes you think that people won't always want a place to post pictures of their brats and other shameless self promotion ("look at the meal I ate tonight! we just watched [movie]! I'm listening to [song] now!")? Or that people won't want a news aggregator? Or that small-business owners won't want a forum to push their bad ideas on friends? FB can continue indefinitely just providing a place for all this.

Another thing I've seen on FB is political chit-chat: a lot of wackos use it as a de-facto blog to post all their dumb conspiracy theories and anti-Obama nuttery (not that Obama is great, but these people contend that FEMA is setting up concentration camps and similar nuttery), presumably because it's cheaper and easier than simply setting up a Wordpress blog. I guess if you're dumb enough to believe in FEMA concentration camps, then setting up your own website with Wordpress is simply too much to ask. Plus FB makes it really easy to share and get the word out with their "likes".

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 3, Informative) 136 136

Facebook is still a slow cooker, so the frogs don't notice.

This is wrong, and insulting to frogs. Contrary to popular opinion, a frog will not allow itself to be boiled alive, and when the water temperature gets too hot, will simply jump out of the pot. It's an old wives' tale that frogs will allow themselves to be boiled if you turn the temperature up slow enough.

It's only humans that are so stupid that they'll accept horrendous conditions if you make the change slow enough.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 217 217

Indeed. But it's also true that change per se puts more stress on less innovative or agile companies, especially companies that have massive investments sunk into older technologies. No matter what rules you set it'll benefit some companies over others; rules that are very favorable to GMC would be unfavorable to Tesla and vice versa. They'll both argue that rules that benefit them the most are best for the country.

I'll say this for Tesla's position, though: the notion that it's physically impossible to build fuel efficient cars that people will want to buy is balderdash.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 390 390

How about because when NATO ignores Russian security concerns and expands recklessly, Russia responds with low-level, plausibly deniable invasions and destabilizations in the states they feel are strategically within their sphere, much like the US does with literally the entire Western hemisphere.

1. we went over this moron. "it's ok for russia to do bad things because USA does bad things" intellectual and moral bankruptcy

first off fuck the usa. it's committed many crimes in this world. but more importantly, your "two wrongs make the right" thinking only goes to show you lack morals and principles. in your world it's ok for anyone to commit any crime they want at any time. the justification being someone else got away with the same crime once, so they should be able to too. it's sophistry and empty contrarianism

it's like "i hate the usa so i have to love the iranian bomb program." or "i hate iran so i have to love american imperialism." both suggestions are fucking idiotic, and it's the way you think about russia and the usa. in reality, populated with people with actual principles, you can hate both iran, and the usa, for their separate crimes. likewise, it's totally possible to hate the usa, and russia, and not give one or the other a pass because "it's not fair mommy, that kid got away with shoplifting too" like an immature douchebag, which is what you are with your words here. by thinking this way you're just announcing your own intellectual and moral failure

2. if NATO did not exist, russia would be doing the same, or worse. why do you blame the malice of one party on someone else? it's like you lack a basic abstract social model of cause and effect in your mind, something developed by most people in elementary school

example: lets say the USA invades canada in 10 years. according to your logic, we can say it's bin laden's fault, because of 9/11, which did this to american politics, and that to american concerns, and turned them into raging warmongers, etc. so it's all bin laden's fault for the usa attacking canada. completely stupid. but that's your logic here

some moron like yourself would agree with this contrived bullshit, because you believe NATO is somehow to blame for what *russia* does. get it? do you possibly sense the social problem you have on assigning responsibility and accountability for what one person does to another person?

another example: i dent your car. you pull out a gun and blow my head off. according to your wife beater logic, i'm at fault for getting my head blown off. because i dented your car

but in reality, you have many choices to responding to me denting your car. swear at me. ignore me. ask me to pay. punch me. insult my friends and family. dent my car back. make jokes. whatever. how you respond to the stresses of life is about YOUR character and YOUR thinking, and you're only demonstrating your own low character and weak mental capacity at understanding who is responsible for what

in fact, blaming your bad choices on who you choose to victimize is called avoiding responsibility. and for you to fall for this lame "poland wanted to dance with NATO so russia had to beat up ukraine" wife beater stupidity, and your other "the usa does bad things so it's ok for russia to do bad things" two wrongs make a right idiocy, it tells us you are person of no morals who blames your bad choices and your crimes on others

your geopolitical analysis tells us nothing about the reality of russia and NATO, and only about your own intellectual and moral failure

your country is probably some broken shithole with many problems all due to local corruption and bad domestic choices, but blind pride means you believe what some chest thumping demagogue feeds you "it's all the usa's fault because they did bad thing {X} to our country in the cold war 50 years ago" and so you never take any responsibility for your own failures, invent fantastic bullshit cause and effect chains of reasoning for why what you do wron gis actually someone else's fault, and you never fix your fucking problems or even admit you created them

some kid hit you in the face in elementary school once, and you carry that chip on your shoulder your entire life and blame all your failures on what that kid did to you long ago. no, you're just a loser with weak character who looks to point blame rather than just fixing your own fucking problems

do you know what the usa did to japan?

they NUKED them

did the japanese whine and bitch and blame their eternal poverty and squalor and local corruption on the usa forever thereafter? no. japan has national character, they built themselves right back up to a world power status. for a while in the last century they dominated. only 40 years after being fucking nuked. and they are FRIENDS with the usa

that's a country with character. you? you are the problem in this world. you are an example of why your country is a fucking cesspool. it's in your two-wrongs-make-a-right "logic" and your wife beater "logic"

for you commenting on geopolitics doesn't inform us, it is merely a window for us into your own pathetic failed weak mentality, illustrated by how you rationalize immorality and irresponsibility

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 390 390

china is outpacing india economically and militarily

india better catch up

if india had any cojones it would also be more assertive on the issue of tibetan independence. mongolia exists because russia could outweigh china's imperialism. tibet does not exist because india could not do the same

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 390 390

no

india and china have many minor border disputes, but also two major disputes over absolutely huge areas that are indeed mostly mountainous, but i don't know why that magically makes them unimportant

these are very large areas, read up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and then we can get into the issue of tibetan independence...

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...