Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Why do they need ANY info? (Score 1) 376

No, and that's not how it would work, either. At worst, they'd have a couple sponsored results, which would be labeled as such, jus like current Google Maps searches

Yeah right. Get with the times, fanboy. Google has been selling search results without indicating it in their "special" searches like "Hotel Finder" and "Flight Search" for years.

Comment Re:Why do they need ANY info? (Score 2) 376

To block passengers in your car from doing useful tasks while you are driving such as editing a playlist, browsing your contact list, or searching for food/gas/bathrooms on your route.

FTFY. This nanny corp crap really needs to go away.

Nice try. The user interface is placed for operation by the driver. Whatever the passengers do with it will at least be in the peripheral vision of the driver, if not actually in the way of his right hand and arm - which I would count as a distraction again. Not to mention that to reach the UI, the passenger will likely need to move from his seat, probably including unbuckling, putting him in danger in case of accident. Which is actually more likely because he is fucking distracting the driver.

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 326

Tell me, which new version of the iPod came out shortly after the deal that HP did not sell under license?

The iPod Photo - which wasn't really a new version, but a top-end variation of the same iPod HP sold, just with a color display, to look at photos. Ignoring that littly fact, according to the Wikipedia article on this - "HP later added the iPod mini, the iPod photo, and the iPod shuffle to the lineup."

Which means this article is so wrong it isn't even wrong, because for the term of the contract HP sold the whole line-up of iPods (at least later on).

Comment Re: That's just... dishonest (Score 1) 229

$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.

If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.

What do you think it costs to develop for Android? Heck, you need to build an house extension just to store the test devices.

Comment Re: Actually, the opposite (Score 1) 79

So what you're saying is that it was possible, but for some reason the original malware writers decided not to?

Probably because that would have led to the malware being detected by Apple's app checking, resulting in the loss of bragging rights for "First major malware attack on Apple's App Store".

Comment Re:Why would any developer ever download this? (Score 1) 79

it used to cost $5 many years ago because of weird accounting

I bet you also believed the line about OS X updates having to cost money because of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

Apple charges what they do because people pay. There is absolutely no accounting or SARBOX voodoo involved.

Actually, that would be a SEXCONKER OXSHIT ACT issue, because you just made it up.

Another megabytes the dust.