Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The problem is user error. (Score 1) 368

My GPS has the option for me to tell it that the 'route ahead is blocked', IE 100 yards, 500, etc....

The problem is that this is NOT a simple operation to do, it requires half a dozen selections to utilize. Not one I'd recommend on the fly, as opposed to pulling over and working on it.

And, of course, if you turn off onto the detour or something, it starts recalculating, and recalculating... Never giving you the time to tell it X road is unavailable at that spot.

Then again, in-dash GPS can be stupid as well. The car dad rented when we were visiting his parents would lock the GPS controls while the car was moving. Even though I was in the passenger seat working on it...

Comment Re:The problem is user error. (Score 1) 368

The problem isn't that the GPS is wrong, the problem is that the user is in error. In the Iceland case, the driver made a typo and wound up going to a similarly-named road 250 miles away. Had he entered the correct street name, he would likely have made it to his destination without a problem. I'm guessing the Belgium-Croatia case is similar.

One problem I've seen is that phone and small screen GPS sucks at providing you with the overall picture. Now, yes, I'm old school and grew up consulting actual maps, and regularly obtaining updated paper road maps. I would generally get one of those atlases that had a highway map for the whole USA, as well as a more detailed one for each state. I would then get updated maps on occasion for the specific state I was going to/traveling through.

Anyways, what I'm seeing here is a classic problem they're constantly trying to drill into the heads of students doing math or science work - the estimate. "Does my answer make any sense?". IE stuff like calculating the maximum separation between Earth & Mars and getting 30km. That makes no sense.

I see two options for sanity checking GPS - the easiest should be to look at the total length of the trip - if you're staying in town and it's telling you that the destination is 250 miles away, there's an issue. The other is looking at a map of the route the GPS is proposing. But that's difficult with a small screen.

Comment User interface flaw (Score 4, Insightful) 368

Some of the GPS units I've used just start giving you street directions right away after you enter a destination. The better ones I've used (including Google Maps) start with an overhead view of your entire route, then zoom in to the street-by-street view. That makes it rather simple to spot silly errors like driving from San Francisco to Springfield, Missouri, instead of Springfield, California.

Comment Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? (Score 1) 84

If you truly believe that, then that right there is admission that this law is wrong. If you truly believe people have a fundamental right to be forgotten, then that should apply to all people, not just your citizens. Same reason it's not ok to rob or kill foreign tourists, or why U.S. Constitutional protections apply even to illegal immigrants. People are deemed to have these rights simply by being people. Human rights are not granted by the goodwill of some bureaucrat in a government office only to those he deems worthy.

Comment Re:Seriously?? (Score 1) 139

I routinely use X forwarding on a 10 megabit LAN without any problems. More likely a poorly written application is to blame.

The problem is that an X application which is written correctly for local display (for example, taking advantage of hardware acceleration) is "poorly written" for running with a non-local X server, and vice-versa. To handle both cases well you have to implement two different UIs, which shows that X's much-vaunted "network transparency" isn't actually transparent at all.

Comment Re:No global deletion (Score 1) 84

1. There is no requirement for the material to be removed from the source web site.

Which is precisely the problem with these right to be forgotten laws. They're shooting the messenger, not the originator of the message. If it's really so damn important that this information be removed from the web, then they should be going after the sites which still host the "wrong" or "outdated" information.

The only reason Google (and other search engines) are targets of these laws is because it's easier to go after a few search engines than to track down every single web site. As I've said since this whole thing began, the people supporting the right to be forgotten should be overjoyed that Google indexes and gives them the search results. It quickly and easily tells them exactly which sites they need to track down to get that information expunged.

2. Google still index and list that site for other search terms.

Which is another reason why these laws are dumb. It's ok to display pumpkins in a north-facing window, but not a west-facing window?

3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

Google search results are basically displaying zeitgeist - a snapshot of the sign of the times. By manipulating and altering search results with laws, you are causing this snapshot to differ from what's actually out there. Ask yourself: why does free speech exist? Because this sort of manipulation has always been used in the past to hide things that the public should know about. Mandating such manipulation as law is the first step down a really slippery slope.

I understand the desire for a right to be forgotten law. The flip side of free speech is gossip - stuff that isn't or may not be true, but gets spread around anyway. Yeah a lot of times I'd like to stop gossip, but never at the expense of giving up free speech rights. If you want to stop gossip, refer back to point (1) - go after the people spreading the gossip, not the people telling you who is spreading the gossip (search engines).

Comment Re:Seriously?? (Score 1) 139

What people want is ssh -X and yes it is a top priority to many.

That, plus the ability to reconnect to the same session (Ã la screen), ...

In other words, what people really want is the functionality provided by xpra. The thing is, xpra would actually be easier to implement as a Wayland compositor than the current hack based on Xdummy or Xvfb.

Comment Re:It's 2016 and I can't even easily run Wayland y (Score 1) 139

For example there used to be a keystroke for killing grabs. They removed it claiming it was "unnecessary" because you only need it if there's a bug in an application.

They removed it because it was a security problem, not because it was "unnecessary". You could use it to bypass lock screens, which are implemented in part through screen grabs.

The AllowDeactivateGrabs and AllowClosedownGrabs options are available in xorg.conf if you want to restore the original insecure behavior.

Comment Re:Why not overseas .... (Score 1) 140

We could also have import tariffs and whatnot to offset the reduced cost of not caring about employee safety. But we're all about "free trade" nowadays, where companies are free to roam the globe looking for the cheapest, most desperate labor with the lowest cost of living. If laws can drive industry away, they can keep it around too.

Companies roaming the globe looking for the cheapest labor is exactly how the economy in those places improve so they are no longer cheapest (which is why China is starting to lose labor contracts to Vietnam and Thailand). The market sees a disparity in wages as an inefficiency, and seeks to remedy it by shifting work from the high wage region to the low wage region (up until low wages + transport cost = high wages). The end result being wage equality throughout the world (well, to the point where local regulations cause wage inequalities which can't be corrected by the market).

The folks who express a desire to protect jobs here are the same ones who proclaim the wealthy should "pay their fair share". Well, understand that the U.S. is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Part of "paying our fair share" is hiring workers in developing countries to help spread the wealth around, help their economies develop. Erecting trade barriers to keep our wealth within our borders is exactly the opposite of paying our fair share. It's telling the workers in developing countries to go eat cake.

Or is this one of those situations where you think the wealthy should pay their fair share when they're someone else. But if you are one of them you think the whole idea is baloney? A real philosophical stance remains consistent whether you're on the receiving or the losing end. If you flip-flop the moment the stance becomes inconvenient to you personally, it was never a philosophical stance; it was pure selfishness.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.