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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 0) 705

Also, if someone lets you know a brick can go through your window, better replace is with bullet proof glass.

Though I think companies holding massive amounts of data should be held to a higher standard than people protecting their own stuff, I do agree with your general point.

Comment Re: Suckers (Score 1) 59

I assume one rental of a whole house in California covers it. I'm about to go to a place that's five day minimum at hundreds a day (we're a large group renting, no Teslas, but if they get one family extra in because ofbit, they're golden).

If one tesla owner goes to your place because they can charge, it is a very positive ROI.

Comment Re: Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing" (Score 1) 231

The only time I used uber was in San Fransisco, yes, I could use uber x, and save a little money, but what I actually did was use Uber to hail a cab. It wasn't about saving money, it was about finding an empty Cab three blocks away to come get me. There was also black car service. I'd actually be surprised if the majority of their business in areas with a semi decent taxi system is the private drivers ( not shocked, but a little surprised). The people I know that use them primarily use the black car and cab services in DC and San Fransisco.

Now, where I live, I've used UberX, but there isn't really an alternative to getting picked up and delivered locally in general.

Comment Re: They could have branded it differently (Score 1) 279

That was kind of like Buzz

Picassa was (prior to getting eaten by G+) a great cross platform photo orginizer, with online storage ability.

Buzz integrated with it very well to post photos out of my collections.

Buzz displayed as a folder in gmail, and integrated with Google Chat.

It was fantastic, then G+ came around and there was no picassa, photos were an add on service to G+, except the vast majority of photos I take and orginize are not for social media. Then chat and email and messaging became all confused, which chats go to which sites is ambiguous, and I can't connect with third party services or apps.

It's a shame they finally realize G+ sucks after making so many other services worse when trying to integrate. Even though those services were already nicely integrated into a social network.

Comment Re:It depends on your theory of value (Score 2) 129

The advertiser could stop showing ads that don't generate revenue.

The advertiser wants to get revenue per ad shown, but they could offer businesses different ways to pay.

Pay per a click (sites that exist on advertising themselves may prefer this model), pay per a view (brands such as coke or pepsi may prefer this), pay per revenue (sites that actually sell things may prefer this). The ad network only cares about pay per view, but if one ad has a huge click through percentage, they could list that ad, and everybody wins (ad network gets more money, the site profiting on the click throughs does too). Similarly a site that has a decent sell through rate of expensive purchases may be the most profitable ad to show.

There's no reason to only have on pricing model, and by diversifying the purchase amount the buyers can optimize their budgeting (perhaps at an overall expense to themselves), and the sellers can maximize their per view payment,

This is how google used to so it when you bid price per a click for keywords, ads that weren't clicked on simply were no longer shown.

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312

Where in California?

I was in northern California (not even that far, south of Redding by a bit anyway), and there was a lot of gun love. Maybe not as much as the Texans who visited Alaska had, but a lot more than most places I've been to with gun love.

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312

Yes, I phrased poorly, what I meant was that there are 3 things that I can think of that would make this illegal:
1) discharge laws, and I would hope anybody shooting a gun looks into that
2) concealed weapon, this is definitely not that
3) injuring someone when it's not self-defense, did not happen

I didn't mean to make a statement on what the laws should be (where I suspect we differ, but really wasn't my point).

I am curious though, you think it's OK if I eat a bunch of shrooms, drive down the highway at 20mph, but there's no accidents?

Minimum highway speed, and intoxicated driving laws shouldn't exist? I assume you feel the same way about trespassing? If your door is unlocked, or your window open, I can go take a nap on your couch? What if I pick the lock in a non damaging way?

I think that extremely risky behavior should be banned, because many damages can't be fully compensated for.

Comment Re: this is outrageous. (Score 1) 312

You realize the 3/5ths law was a compromise meant to reduce the power of slave owners (or increase depending on your side of th bcomprimise)?

The law was that slaves were not even people, they were chattle, owned by their owner, with no rights. They would have been far better off treated as 0 wrt to their owners representation in government.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"