Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Windows 10 sucks (Score 1) 273 273

I was thinking he was the poor sucker with a first generation iMac where the USB wasn't even 2.0. (and where the firmware is set so that it CANNOT boot from an external USB DVD-ROM drive)

My first gen iMac boots from external CDROM on USB just fine, thank you.

Hold the Alt key at startup to get the boot device menu, plug in your cdrom if need be and press alt again to update the device list, and click on the big giant CD icon.

Both OS X and YellowDog Linux boot fine this way, and I've installed and reinstalled both more than once.

Firmware hasn't ever been manually upgraded either, so unless some patch came with OS X 10.1 or something, the firmware hasn't been upgraded beyond factory as well.

I've not tried the "C" key shortcut on it, as I didn't learn about that one until later sometime around/after I had my i7 macbook.

But even today I prefer the alt key method of selecting a boot device from the list over the "C" key that can't confirm the cd media is even bootable before skipping past it on to the HD.
Too many cdrw discs having boot sector problems with various older cdrom drives I guess.

Comment Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score 1) 994 994

Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do

How is that not easy to do?

"[Man] Kids, get in the house."

Now only one person remains in danger of a drone falling on him, zero people are in danger of the shotgun pellets coming down, and as the one main remaining is also the land owner, you clearly have the land owners permission to act as well as already accepting the risk of damage to their own property.

Easy Peasy

Comment Re:The Microsoft key!!!! I've never used it...ever (Score 1) 524 524

I started using computers regularly in the time before the "Windows" key was added to the keyboard. So, when it appeared, I refused to use it, out of pique.

I have to bring that statement into question.

If you really did use computers back in the day before Windows, you would already know that key - called Super - has existed since the 80s and was first removed on the IBM 8800 computer, which it remained missing until Microsoft requested keyboard manufacturers to put the Super key back and stick their logo on it.

Unix systems used and still use Super as an extra modifier similar to Hyper, Meta, Alt, AltGr, and Control.
The classic Macs used it as the "open apple" / command key, which was used for keyboard shortcuts leaving Control free to insert control characters as originally intended.
Sun had a dedicated key on the left-hand function keys.

LISP programmers have said they can't live without Meta.
Even emacs remaps the keycode back in for command shortcuts.

Personally when the key REappeared I was quite happy, as any cheap-o $10 keyboard would have similar functionality to any 104-key keyboard in the past, and no longer commanded higher prices to get.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 524 524

"They installed a simple Chrome plugin on every Macbook [...] the least popular keys are Capslock and Right Mouse Button"

You don't say!

Right click is pretty popular on most every desktop OS out there.

What shocks me the most is they didn't report mouse buttons 3, 4, and 5 as least used.
Button 3 is pretty well used by power users, but 4/5 require an external mouse, so macbooks don't have those two buttons built in as hardware.

I'm still waiting on Windows to actually add in support for buttons 4 and 5 instead of faking it and mapping them to browser forward/back.

The most used desktop OS (Windows) still to this day doesn't support as many mouse buttons as younger OSes like OS X and Linux, it's simply amazing.

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 92 92

Usually the settlement documents specifically state that if the patent/etc. is declared invalid that they get to keep the money anyway.

So... $45 million is not a bad run for this troll. It will probably encourage them to keep the extortion ring going with another worthless patent.

I see no mention in the newegg blog about the patent being declared invalid, only that newegg was declared not infringing upon it.

While I'm sure this ruling will help anyone else in the future who is simply using SSL on their web server, it doesn't really help anyone else the troll sues who they feel is using SSL/RC4 differently.

They only really need a new worthless patent to go after the same targets they already sued or planned to sue for the same reason.
They get to keep using this same worthless patent still however, just against a different group of targets.

Comment Re:More Sanity (Score 1) 270 270

How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your craft would have something to say about it flying over them?

I dunno, but you could ask New Zealand after paying them $600 for the privilege of not giving the people who could be potentially be hit by your craft something to say about it...

Apparently they think it's quite sane to charge so little money in return for making your permission or opinion moot.

Comment Re:The math (Score 4, Funny) 171 171

Yeah? Well I strapped some fucking rockets to my car and it went from 0 to 60 MPH in about 0.8 seconds. So fuck you.

Yes, but that was 0-60 straight up.

To win the race you need to move forward, and the largest piece left over from the explosion must cross the finish line.

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 2) 549 549

To start with, only make it a little harder to maintain a driver's license, such as requiring people to take the test more often

*snip*

Meanwhile, keep making the driving tests more strict. Not impossibly difficult, but maybe difficult and expensive is roughly the same range as getting your pilot's license.

I've been in favor of doing just that for a long time now, before self-driving cars were involved or even a thing.

It's ironic you mention the test shouldn't be impossible difficult, but it seems the primary argument for handing out drivers licenses like candy is that for way over half the US population a test that is possible to fail effectively is impossible (which never sounded like a valid reason against it to me, but alas)

A funny story that happened to me when I went to take my first driving test, many moons ago...

I was 17 and pretty nervous and anxious about taking the official test (as tends to be my nature), so I purposely scheduled it on a later day than suggested in order to get as early a slot in the day as possible.
My thinking was that a driving instructor that has had to put up with bad drivers and dumb kid mistakes all day is likely to be pissed off, even if only on the inside. That was an additional stress I didn't want, so hopefully if I was first in the day, the instructor wouldn't have a full days worth of frustration pent up to potentially be taken out on me.

After a 10 day delay I was able to get slot #2 that morning. Sure not as good as slot #1, but how bad could one student before me possibly be?

As myself, my mother, and the mother of the girl in slot #1 were all standing at the front window of the DMV watching her do the parallel parking cone test, just as they finished the instructor opened the passenger door and stepped out of the vehicle, the car lurches forward with a brief screech and runs over the instructors foot!

First to be said, the instructor was not seriously injured, though I can only imagine how much that would hurt.
EMTs came and examined him and took him to the hospital for further examination.
An employee there was out talking to the instructor before they took him away, which is where the report of "no serious injury" came from, as well as determining another instructor would need to be assigned for the day.
(It turns out I was in slot #1 for the new instructor anyway!)

The girl and her mom were still at the DMV after I completed my test and returned and her mom was still chatting with my mom, which was a little surprising as I assumed they remained there due to the accident, something I figured would be involving a lot of paperwork of not a police report or something like that.

Nope, turns out the girl passed the rest of her testing, and despite running over the instructors foot with her car, was waiting on (and issued) her full privileged drivers license!

If that isn't reason enough to fail someone and keep them on a learners permit, I'm honestly not sure what one could do to fail it if they wanted to.

The driving test was already far too easy even back then, and from what I hear lately the written test is now multiple choice where they get to choose which questions to skip or answer, the cone test is now spread out further than the parking lot line guides we used, and the driving test itself is limited to four right turns going around the block.

I understand how today it is practically impossible to live without being able to drive to and from work, to and from the big grocery stores that replaced the corner-mart, and all of that...
But I still wish they would take into account how difficult it is for the rest of us to live when they allow people like this to pilot a 4000lb block of metal without the slightest idea how to control the thing.

Comment Re:Something wrong there (Score 1) 549 549

Computer driving system needs to avoid all accidents, not just proclaim after each one "its not its fault!"

The courts and entire legal system says you are wrong.

The law only says you must follow the law, and thusly following the law and being hit by someone breaking the law is not the law abiding person (or computers) fault, nor is it intended to be their problem.

(Even then it's only their problem in the sense the law abiding driver has to deal with fucktards like you causing harm to them, refusing to take responsibility for your law breaking, and the slowness of the courts in forcing you to make them whole again)

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 1) 549 549

That goal might be a technically sound one, but I don't think it's politically viable. Telling people they are not allowed to drive their car anymore is likely to be even less popular than telling Americans they can't own a gun anymore.

I'm not sure I agree with that, although admit you may be right.

I think telling people they can't drive a motor vehicle on the public roads anymore would be more comparable to ~100 years ago when the government told people they wouldn't be allowed to ride their horse or horse drawn carriage on the public roads anymore.

I bet most people back then also thought that would never work or be accepted by the public either.
Actually for all I know it DIDN'T go over well!

However here we are, not a single horse on the roads in the cities anyways, and even in the country it isn't the most common form of transportation anymore although you do still see it on occasion.

But just as its necessary/tolerated to have a horse on a country road at times, I suspect those same roads will tolerate human-driven motor vehicles just the same and likely for a long time to come.

In the city however? Doubtful.

As a country we have gone through such a transition before, so there's no reason to think it can't also be done again.

But I must admit you may still be correct. The opinion of the general public on what America should be and is has drastically changed in the last 100 years or so.

It used to mean "freedom" yet today more than the minority are in favor for a totalitarian police state.
It used to mean "chasing the American dream" but now that is hardly tolerated and less possible than ever before.
It used to mean curiosity and learning to those that wanted it, but today we imprison more children for doing the exact same things the judges, police, and lawyers (and the rest of us!) all did as kids too.

A strong anti-science and anti-progress movement to stop such a change from happening today like it did with horse drawn carriages wouldn't be a shocking surprise to me, sadly.

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 1) 549 549

By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.

When given the choice between not stopping and rear-ending the car stopped in front of you, or stopping like you are required to do by law and being rear-ended yourself, I must seriously question why you advocate the more dangerous and the only illegal option of the two?

Plus 11 out of 10000 rear-end accidents per city per day doesn't sound at all like it is out of range, especially so considering those 11 are spread out over a vehicle fleet the size of Googles.

Take a small taxi or limo company with the same sized fleet and I would bet money on the spot they have had more than 11 vehicles rear-ended in the same time period.

Finally, in closing you just literally advocated 11 traffic violations should have been committed, when in reality Google's vehicles haven't violated a single one.
You do realize if you followed your own advice, after just 3-4 of those accidents you caused, you would have lost your drivers license and privileges by now, right?

Hard to take the opinion of someone who by all rights should have a suspended license over a fleet of vehicles and drivers that haven't violated any traffic laws to date.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

But by that definition, if I write an essay advocating anarchist revolution to a conservative newspaper and they decide not to publish it in full on their letters page, they are "censoring" me.

Yes, exactly, they would be censoring you.

Not illegally censoring you, not censoring you in violation of any constitutional amendments, but they would certainly be censoring you.

In fact as the topic of discussion at hand is about, they arguably are not even in the wrong for that form of censorship.
It is their conservative newspaper, their soapbox so to speak. They have the moral right to decline letting you use their soapbox.

They likely have the legal right to do so as well, although that can be trickier depending on the details. Certain forms of discrimination Are after all illegal for citizens to perform.

Also if it was an issue of the newspaper controlling ALL the soapboxes that could be available, that would certainly have a good argument for not being legal. It may need a monopolistic practices charge from a judge first, but that may certainly be possible.
Since you defined "conservative newspaper" that does imply there are other sub-types of newspaper out there, and assuming they are each controlled by different parties (IE no monopoly issues) it would very likely not even be considered a problem legally. You would have other soapboxes to use, and in that example could very well find one more in line with the anarchist theme which would publish the paper.

It also matters a lot if you can make your own soapbox or not.
In the case of the press, you can make your own soapbox to use, so being denied the use of other peoples soapboxes isn't a legal issue.
If that was practically or fully impossible to do, that would be a valid and good argument that it is illegal censorship.

I don't believe in your example it would be illegal discrimination or censorship, but honestly there are so many laws out there and so many differences state to state that I could very easily be wrong.

But legal or illegal doesn't really matter, the act itself is still called "censorship".

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

No, that's not censorship.
That's an editorial decision being made by a private company as they choose what to include in what they publish

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship

Censorship: Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen.
To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable.

A decision made by a private company to "choose what to include in what they publish" is *exactly* the act of blocking something from being read, heard, or seen by reviewing it and choosing to hide (not publish) it.

How do you figure that isn't censorship? It is literally the dictionary definition of censorship!

Censorship is when the government steps in and says you can't do that.

No definition anywhere of that word involves "government" - anywhere

The first amendment in the US even proves that. That is the amendment that says censorship performed BY the government is illegal.

Why specify censorship by the government if no other forms of censorship existed or were possible?

Comment Re:Free speech has no meaning (Score 1) 581 581

If Reddit allows that, next thing you know it may escalate up to the Dyson gangstas siphoning the dirt out of our cars for their pics:

http://dbagging.com/wp-content...

Then where would America be!

Comment Re:Isn't Flash extinct? (Score 1) 199 199

I don't know how useful you consider the site, but this morning's Firefox update broke YouTube for me.

If you uninstall Flash plugin from Firefox, Youtube will detect no flash plugin and instead use HTML5 video which works natively.

But just having the Flash plugin, be it disabled or blocked or if you have Javascript lie, will cause Youtube to fall back to trying (and failing) to use the Flash player.

A good "emergency" tip for youtube, although all the other websites without HTML5 video versions (aka all the other ones I use) will of course remain broken - or in the case of Flash per-page blocking, will break even further than before.

I don't know why youtube actually searches your extension list to choose flash vs html5 players instead of something more sane like checking if the plugin loaded on their page (to handle blocked and disabled flash), or just give you a choice which player to use...

Now if only blip and twitch would add html5 video support, for me at least much of this flash crap would be taken care of.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.

Working...