Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What we need... (Score 3, Insightful) 234

by Rob the Bold (#47381249) Attached to: Radar Changing the Face of Cycling

. . . do something about the assholes on bikes that think that little white line and bike lane are some sort of magic force field that protects them from massive hunks of steel inches to their left...

As you drive, do you also swerve into cars separated from you by the "magic force field" white line? Or are you concerned about your paint job in a car vs. car scenario? Perhaps bikes/bikers just need some extremely aggressive abrasive on their sides to protect them from motorists.

Comment: Re:Smart-watches are for watch-wearers (Score 1) 427

by Rob the Bold (#47320941) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For You To Buy a Smartwatch?

I'm not going to buy a new car just to get a dash clock.

In 1981, my dad stuck a self-adhesive LCD clock to the dashboard of his then two-year-old 1979 Plymouth Volare. I think it cost him a couple bucks. Way cheaper than a new car, even by 1981 standards. His '84 Olds had a clock integrated in the radio. My '66 Mustang didn't have a clock -- no rally package, bummer -- but the retrofit radio I installed in 1987 had one.

What are you driving? A Model T?

Comment: Why do we have wristwatches? (Score 1) 427

by Rob the Bold (#47320675) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For You To Buy a Smartwatch?

Why do we have wristwatches? Because they are more convenient than having a timepiece in one's pocket to take out to check the time.

Therefore a wrist-phone must be more convenient than both a wristwatch and a "pocket" phone. It can't just tell time. A wristwatch does that. It can't just tell you that you have a call, your phone does that. It also can't do something that requires user interaction . . . Why? Because you need two hands to interact with a smartwatch. The hand with the watch strapped to its wrist, and the hand manipulating it.

So when will a smartwatch be useful and desirable? When you find an interface method that doesn't require two hands.

And no. I don't know what that method is. And if I did, I wouldn't tell you.

Comment: Re:Victims? (Score 1) 48

Interesting choice of words there. 'Victims' and 'suspects' carry pretty different implications with them.

It makes sense the way it's used. If someone is a "suspect" according to their government, that is someone suspected of a crime, then that government probably has straight-up legal means of eavesdropping on them. OTOH, someone who is being spied on via a surreptitiously installed piece of malware might be more properly called a "victim," since the implication is that the spying is being done in an extrajudicial manner by governments or other parties.

Of course, one could be both victim and suspect. Or be spied on by more than one party.

And of course, laws and regulations vary by country, which I add since surely some Slashdotter will feel compelled to point this out anyway. And that Slashdotter may not be named "Shirley".

Comment: Re:I don't understand how this is a "record" (Score 3, Informative) 84

This is the headline:

Fabien Cousteau Takes Plunge To Beat Grandfather's Underwater Record

What is your source of confusion?

It's not a world record, it's longer than Jacques Cousteau did it.

True, but at first glance the reader might be thinking a "world record" and not a "family record". Only when delving into TFA does one discover that there is a carefully crafted (and accurate) headline enticing one to read a much less interesting story. Sure, a family record for diving in the Cousteau family is a bigger deal than say, most cigars smoked in a 4-hour period -- set by my grandfather in 1966 -- in my family. But, like so many true stories, they're both kind of lame.

Comment: Re:What whas the problem in the first place? (Score 1) 250

by Rob the Bold (#47272155) Attached to: TrueCrypt Author Claims That Forking Is Impossible

Reading though the Lavabit case, it's clear that those placed under NSA gagging orders have very, very little room for legal/media maneuver, but nevertheless still retain the freedom to walk away from their projects and tell others not to use them. Such actions appear to be the last defense of cryptographers in the US, and I think that is what we're seeing with Truecrypt.

Just rhetorically speaking, and based on these situations, I'd really like to know just what kind of punishment can the NSA hand out, anyway. Is the guy under legitimate threat of being renditioned to some black hole never to be seen again? He can't be tried in a fully open court where the government has to essentially confirm his story in order to convict him. Even if the government convinces a judge that he's committed some secret offence of a nature that cannot be disclosed, that's still a form of confirmation. So does he get sent to a star chamber to be tried, convicted and never seen again? Can they go Manning on him -- he's not revealing government secrets he learned on the job, right? (Or did he?) When the government starts actually locking people up for dissent, it's game over, isn't it?

Comment: Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (Score 3, Informative) 646

by Rob the Bold (#47267215) Attached to: Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

Indians, Chiefs, Braves, to name a few. The logos with the name tends to make it worse than the name by itself, except for the Indians. Can't get more blatant than that.

But Redskins takes the cake in terms of derogatory. The ones I mentioned are milder.

The "Chiefs" aren't directly named for an Indian chief in general or any particular Indian chief. Rather, the when the team moved to Kansas City, the name "Texans" didn't seem to fit anymore. "Chief" was the nickname of H. Roe Bartle, mayor of the city at the time, and the name "Chiefs" was chosen in a popular naming contest. Bartle's nickname is from his leadership role in the Boy Scouts in the region, who used Native American titles and terms in their organization.

BTW, that origin story is the official one, but I admit is not accepted by everyone.

Comment: Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog (Score 1) 364

Hello Google. How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union?

Maybe they're not worried. (Unlike MicroSoft) they've been fined before in Europe and the US and found a way to get out of it by promising relatively minor changes to how they do business for a limited time.

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.

Working...