Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Okay, I'm going to need a lot more. (Score 5, Insightful) 289

So, we have: a single-sourced story from a news source that has in the past been an advocate of the removal of the U.S. base from Okinawa, an anonymous verification source (and thus unable to be contacted for independent verification), and a reprinting of the story by the BoAS, which has long changed its tune to keep itself as being seen as relevant.

I'm surprised that this story was even allowed to be printed, as single-sourced stories are usually laughed out of the editors' offices. Even in this case, if you allow 2 sources, usually you'd need hard evidence, not just hearsay.

How does the expression go? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I don't see anything extraordinary here.

Comment Re:Revoke the certificate (Score 4, Informative) 69

So Apple should revoke the certificate. Why is this a problem? What makes this newsworthy? What am I missing?

That even though this is still just someone running an untrusted binary, let's put that it affects unjailbroken iphones so people who just read the title will be scared and move to android?

Comment Re:Not exactly... (Score 1) 179

Actually, I signed up for unlimited 3G, but when I got my iPhone 5, AT&T changed it to an unlimited LTE contract. They still use the 'unlimited' term, even today: when I go into my AT&T application, my plan is listed as 'unlimited'...and then they give a 5.3GB/5GB designation. And if they throttled my data due to network congestion, that'd be one thing, but my data stays throttled to 0.5MBit/sec from the time I go over 5GB until my next billing cycle starts, no matter what time of day or night I try to use it. Congestion my ass.

Comment Re:Pretty common support forums policies (Score 3, Interesting) 326

Obviously, this is anecdotal, but when my wife upgraded, she had the greyed-out WiFi setting.

I restored her phone from scratch, and it didn't fix it.

We then took her phone to the Apple store, and the tech (I refuse to call them geniuses) said the hardware had failed. Thankfully, she was 8 days (?!!) away from warranty expiration, so she got a shiny new 4S.

I understand that iOS7 did a firmware upgrade, and that can stress the hardware - but no errors appeared during the upgrade process. You'd think an incomplete flash would at least kick out something.

Comment Re:It's like this. (Score 1) 878

Oh, certainly. However, a collective noun still has a singular and a plural. You shouldn't write that a pride of lions was anything but singular, unless you were talking about multiple prides of lions. In the same vein, a company name is always singular. You wouldn't make the possessive of Google Googles'. As for notional agreement, that doesn't apply in this case, as the sentence was referring to the singular corporation, not the multiple people forming them.

Comment Re:correlation != causation (Score 4, Informative) 311

Wow....just....I don't even know how to respond to the sheer number of fallacies in that paragraph.

Instead, I'll focus on the biggest whopper:

Russia became paranoid and autocratic as a defensive measure,

WTF?!? Are you seriously saying that Russia *wasn't* paranoid and autocratic until *after* WWII? Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 on, and used that position to consolidate power. His centralized planning of the economy resulted in the famine that caused mass uprisings, which led Stalin to command the "Great Purge" in 1937-38.

Comment Re:Why (Score 2) 275

Okay, let me see if I can explain this. The amendment was to a bill that is supposed to ensure that the FCC has transparency in its rule making process, and that proposed rules are clearly identified and open for review before being implemented.

This amendment didn't say, "No one can request your password as a condition of employment." It said that the entire language of the bill that was trying to force the FCC to be transparent, was out the window as long as the FCC was making a rule about 'privacy'.

The amendment gutted the whole purpose of the bill currently under consideration for a whole class of regulation, and that's why it was bad.

Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 275

Debate on the floor of the house is about the bill under consideration, not a place to introduce new legislation at the drop of a hat. You can't just say, "I'd do it this way," because that would be meaningless in the context of debate about an amendment currently being discussed.

You bring up your version of the bill/amendment in committee, at a later time, following the procedural rules of the house/senate.

And yes, he did explain why it was a bad amendment, he just didn't explain it to someone who has no clue what the entire language of the amendment was.

Remember: use logout to logout.