Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment: Re:Why all the Safari/Apple hate ?... (Score 1) 306 306

but are they available on the most popular Safari browser used, mobile Safari?

They are available on almost any other browser on iOS - which as somebody pointed out are basically Mobile Safari. Ohh, and with iOS 9 you'l get Content Blockers. You now have a couple of weeks to get used to losing that beloved piece of advocacy.

Comment: Re: Name one original thing that Elon Musk has don (Score 1) 246 246

Right. Because the Macintosh was exactly like the Xerox Star, right down to the three-button Mouse and Smalltalk commands. Which Jobs licensed for a very agreeable amount

Apple didn't license anything from Xerox. In fact, Xerox sued Apple over the Lisa (and lost) for Apple's use of "their" technology, despite the fact that the mouse and windowing were created much earlier by Doug Engelbart.

Even if your whole narrative about Apple wasn't bunk, the fact that Douglas Engelbart's only relation with Xerox is that some co-workers basically took his work and moved over there is the icing on the dumb-cake that is your claim.

Comment: Re:5 Laws? (Score 1) 318 318

If the person in question bypassed the barrier system (eg put a shim in place of a sensor so he could work near the operating robot) then there is no way a lawsuit should be brought against the manufacturer. If the device/installation was missing basic safety precautions then there may be a case for a lawsuit against the manufacturer, installer of the robot, or auto manufacturer. Depending on who neglected the safety precautions. Regardless this has nothing to do with pseudo-"laws" of robotics or anything else remotely related to artificial intelligence.

The problem here is that the person killed was in the process of installing the robot.

Comment: Re:It's that time... (Score 1) 318 318

That woman has absolutely zero sense of humour.

"Guys. I don't know what skynet is. And I wouldn't follow me - I tweet really boring stuff about unit wage costs and the like."

"Ugh, this is a bit uncomfortable. A person has actually died."

You actually think "You report on a guy being killed by a robot, and your name is almost like that of a character in a movie about a killer robot" is funny? Let alone a couple of hundred times over?

Comment: Re:It's that time... (Score 1) 318 318

And this is how copyright caused thousands of deaths because the life saving checks could not be implemented.

I feel like a story coming to me...

No, they couldn't be implemented because they can only be implemented in a Positronic Brain. At least that's closer to the truth than your claim.

Comment: Wait, what innovation now? (Score 1) 97 97

From the ruling (second link):

17 In late 2007, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) introduced the Kindle, a portable
18 device that carries digital copies of books, known as “ebooks.” This innovation
19 had the potential to change the centuriesold process for producing books by
20 eliminating the need to print, bind, ship, and store them.

Amazon "innovated" ebooks? Really?

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 97 97

But it *is* 70% to Amazon for books between $0.99 and $2.98. Maybe that's justified by the fixed costs Amazon faces, which are a greater percent of a smaller price, but it still seems absurd to me. Of course my response is just to not price ebooks under $2.99, and then I can avoid it.

But it's proof Amazon is preventing authors from selling ebooks below $2,99. And thanks to their most-favourite-nation-clause, they also prevent that on all other places that sell ebooks.

Ohh, DOJ! We have a new victim for you!

Unless of course you want to prove your in cahoots with them. Who watches the watchers again?

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...