Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:We need more of this (Score 1) 275

by SvnLyrBrto (#47878073) Attached to: California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews

Yes, so very yes.

Severability clauses in general need to be outlawed. I'd say that sneaking something that's illegal into a contract, in the hopes that the other party won't realize that it's illegal, is a crystal clear indicator at the very least of "negotiating" in bad faith and SHOULD be prosecutable fraud. Try to pull a stunt like that on someone; and his obligations to you should be wiped clean.

Comment: Probably, it's just lying salesdrones. (Score 1) 63

by SvnLyrBrto (#47819323) Attached to: Appeals Court Clears Yelp of Extortion Claims

A friend of mine used to work at Yelp When he did, I asked him about this. (Accusations of cooked yelp reviews are far from a recent development.) For whatever itâ(TM)s worth⦠but I have no reason to suspect he was lying to me⦠he told me that sales and operations absolutely ARE firewalled from each other, that by no means do the sales types have the necessary administrative or database access to adjust a business' ratings, and that theyâ(TM)re not the sharpest tools in the shed anyway and probably wouldnâ(TM)t understand how to use said access if they had it.

He also told me, though, that their sales department was one of the slimiest bunch of lying scumbags heâ(TM)d ever encountered; and he wouldnâ(TM)t doubt for a moment that they were TELLING businesses that they could have their ratings adjusted if they bought ads.

Comment: Re:Planned obsolescence (Score 0) 281

That's funny.

Every iOS upgrade I can recall, even since Apple made OTA deltas available, has required affirmative permission from me before it installed. Would you care to enlighten us as to exactly which versions were pushed out and automatically installed without users' consent?

Comment: Re:cause and/or those responsible (Score 5, Insightful) 667

by SvnLyrBrto (#47496917) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

> Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?

Actually yes, I do. There were various discussions about at what point the crew knew they'd just shot down an airliner, or at what point they should have known that they were targeting one. There've even been various conspiracy theories that they knew it was an airliner all along and shot it down intentionally to kill someone or another who was onboard. But the US has always admitted that it was the one who shot down that airliner.

At no point has the US government tried to re-write history and disavow the blame by claiming that it not the US who pulled the trigger; but some bunch of locals who somehow managed to capture (and figure out how to operate) the Vincennes.

Comment: I'm not surprised. (Score 2) 215

by SvnLyrBrto (#47269557) Attached to: Was <em>Watch Dogs</em> For PC Handicapped On Purpose?

They've been dumbing down the gameplay on real games for years to make things easier the konsole kiddies. Look at Deus Ex: HR or the Xcom: EU vs. their namesakes for fine examples. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd cripple the graphics too. Can't let the children get jealous that someone else has something better, after all.

Comment: Re:This is Alamo Drafthouse - makes sense (Score 1) 376

by SvnLyrBrto (#47209641) Attached to: Theater Chain Bans Google Glass

Under the ADA, it doesn't mater how large or small the business is. "Reasonable accommodations" have to be made at places open to the public. And so long as someone is not actively using Glass to record video, it's perfectly reasonable for someone whose prescription lenses include Glass functionality to be left alone in peace as he watches his movie. And yes, it is possible for someone's vision to be bad enough to bring the ADA into play; but still be adequately correctable with glasses.

Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.

And all that is completely aside from the point that it's ridiculous and narcissistic for people to assume that the only reason anyone might be wearing Glass to to secretly spy in them. It has "substantial non-infringing uses", and all that.

Comment: Re:Slashdot technophobes (Score 1) 376

by SvnLyrBrto (#47208385) Attached to: Theater Chain Bans Google Glass

The part that baffles the crap out of me is the overbearing self-importance of the anti-Glass segment of the luddite brigade.

Their entire argument seems to revolve around the assumption that the only reason someone might want to own or wear Google Glass is to surreptitiously take pictures or video of them. There's a much smaller contingent that looks at its current form-factor and screams: "NERRRRRD!!!". But by far and large, the anti-Glass hate comes from the: "You're wearing that thing to take pictures of me, Me, ME!!!". That level of arrogance and narcissism both astounds and confounds me.

When *I* first heard about Google Glass, my thought was: "Cool... Terminator vision!". And shortly after, I thought: "Even cooler... Predator vision!!!". Yeah, the camera is a necessary part in generating the sort of informational overlays that I'm imagining. But the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing. And yes, I do know that Glass doesn't yet come close to those capabilities. But one day it certainly will.

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" -- Douglas Hofstadter