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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 299

Well, unless you count App Ops in Android 4.3 (until it was removed) and builds of CyanogenMod starting with 10.2.

Or any Android device with 4.3 or later with the Xposed framework and the AppOpsXposed module installed and active, at which point AppOps shows up in Settings just like it ought to.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 299

And in my experience, apps don't seem to much care if you kill a flag or two. Perhaps because the ability to do so is not yet that common.

There are multiple reasons. Mostly two: you don't want to fail if the user is missing some hardware that the software can work without, and the app doesn't actually request the permission from the OS until it wants to use it, unless it's very poorly designed. So if you for example deny the microphone permission, the app will never even have to decide if it's upset about that unless it tries to grab some audio.

I forget what versions it appeared and disappeared, but Google did put this functionality into an older version of android, then removed it again. You can get it back on rooted devices by installing Xposed and installing AppOppsXposed. Many custom ROMs also have this functionality baked into the ROM so you don't need to mess with Xposed, but Xposed+App Settings+Gravitybox is very wonderful and you want it anyway, if you're not running CM especially. If you can't root your device, make better purchase decisions in the future.

Comment Re:Just (Score 1) 145

And yes, I am well aware of danger to linemen if there's a general outage and a residence is still supplying power. I would put in a transfer switch capable of intentional islanding and some form of intelligent grid AC resync and reconnect if I were to do this.

It's simple enough to just mandate these for interconnect. Everyone will need them anyway, if they want their solar system to work when the grid is not feeding them power.

Comment Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score 1) 213

Lol. This isn't civil disobedience! Where is the human rights violation??

You don't need a violation of human rights for civil disobedience. But there is one, anyway. It's prohibiting licensed drivers in good standing from utilizing their vehicles as they see fit, including for profit, in a world in which you are required to have money or be treated as a criminal. If they're not safe to be an Uber driver, they're not safe on the roads and/or in public period, and you should address that issue.

Comment Re:incomplete sentence... (Score 1) 135

There is some truth in parts of what you say but its still a highly biased view point. Firstly the relatively small size of the Native American population made all that land management easy.

Before the Spanish showed up with many fun new diseases, their population was up to at least 50 million, if not 100 million or more. It was smaller than what we have now, but not as small as people think.

Simply burying your shit works when you only have a handful of people living on a large acreage. That does not hold up when your numbers get much larger.

If they get much larger you have to actively compost the crap, sure.

"The flyover states" are also "America's bread basket" they are not empty.

Actually, most of the food comes from California.

They do have a good deal of forest, more than they once did

Forested area is nice, but forest biomass is what really matters, because old trees fix more carbon (and so on) than new trees covering the same area.

The rest of space is very much being used to group the wheat and corn that went into your breakfast cereal this morning.

Stuff we should be eating less of. Actually, I'm eating oats. 40% of our corn goes to make ethanol and 4.7% for HFCS. Only about 50% of the land is actually used for crops, and if we cut the HFCS out of corn we could save approximately 27 million acres there alone.

Comment Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score 1) 213

Who says civil disobedience is acceptable for people? In a civilized society, that is not how we change things.

It is if you want things to change. All the great movements of change now occurring in this nation were preceded by long periods of civil disobedience. Things like (ostensibly) equal rights for people of all races, for example, or the medical use (let alone legalization) of marijuana would not have been possible without civil disobedience.

Comment Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score 0) 213

If Uber don't like the law they should lobby to get the law changed.

They are.

They don't get to say "we don't like the law, so we'll just break it".

They don't legally get to, but in many cases they are making it work. Why is civil disobedience acceptable for people but not for corporations? Though in fact, there are actual people taking these actions. Uber is faceless to you and I, but actual people with actual faces risk actual arrest.

Comment Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score 1) 213

Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me..

That's because your knee is jerking. You should have that checked out. I am more socialist than anything, my argument is that bullshit restraint of trade under a system of capitalism which includes property taxes, mandatory insurance etc. is slavery. If you want capitalism, fine. If you want to make it illegal to be broke, fine. That's how it is now. But you cannot then make it illegal to engage in voluntary economic activity.

You place restraints on trade to balance that exchange against other persons that have an interest in it.

Yeah, that's a nice idea. Only that's not how they are typically used in our system. You place restraints on trade to engage in protectionism.

Meaning, taxes to pay for the road, certification and testing to ensure people who drive on it don't kill others for lack of (very basic) skill.

But taxi drivers don't pay more road taxes, nor should they, because virtually all road damage is caused by weather or by heavy trucks. And no one should be permitted to drive if they lack that (very basic) skill. If you're not qualified to transport passengers for money, you're not qualified to transport passengers for free. In fact, you're not qualified to be driving on public roads at all. The same skills are involved either way. Now, when you get up into larger vehicles which can do more damage to more people at once like buses or cruise liners, then you should have to have some exceptional proof of your competence, but not for an automobile.

Comment Not even a good troll (Score 1) 135

wind and solar are still extremely diffuse, and the collection hardware has a large ecological footprint.

Bullshit. Wind has a minuscule ecological footprint; you put it on grazing land. Solar as well; you just put it on some crappy land that's not producing any benefit. And solar has the benefit that it reflects some of the light that would normally strike the ground, and it also absorbs and then reradiates as IR even more. More than half of that is reradiated upwards (because solar panels are white on their back sides) so solar panels reduce heating of the land and thus insolation-forced warming.

Not only the vast swaths of land permanently occupied, but the access roads and transmission lines.

The access roads already exist in the vast majority of cases, because as already stated, we put wind farms on grazing land. The energy cost of installation of the transmission lines is far dwarfed by the return, otherwise we wouldn't build them.

Comment Re:incomplete sentence... (Score 3, Insightful) 135

They didn't manage the land and its resources. They lived a nomadic lifestyle. Once they'd depleted an area of its resources, they simply picked up everything and moved somewhere else.

Who told you that? Because they lied to you. First, there was substantial variation in lifestyle. Second, they didn't just deplete an area and then move. They practiced land management, and they had the land portioned up into different groups' territories. In the west, they lived in relative stasis, and in the same places, for over ten thousand years. They successfully managed forests (with yearly controlled burns), oyster beds (by not overcollecting from them) and fish stocks (by not overfishing.) Their yearly burns kept the oaks and redwoods healthy, by clearing the understory. The oaks provided more food than they could eat every year. Then whitey arrived, in the form of Andrew Kelsey, who enslaved, raped, and murdered the locals. Some of them understandably got upset and killed him. Then we sent the US 1st Cavalry up here to murder all the Pomo on Bo-no-po-ti, aka "Island Village". Literally only one girl survived, hiding in the reeds while the lake went red with blood. Later, the federal government paid the locals $1/tree to plant black walnuts, as motivation to chop down the oaks upon which the natives depended for food, oaks in healthy forests that they had maintained literally for millenia. The walnuts were never financially beneficial to the area, and few remain today.

In the Midwest, the natives deliberately burned forests to create more range land for the bison. The bison then maintained the land in a state suitable for their use, which left the bison suitable for the use of the natives. The natives would follow the bison herds, since that was their primary source of all things.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the natives of the East.

Now, to be fair, if you go down and check out the natives of Mexico, they were eating one another, and they deforested the shit out of their land and they ran out of food and they migrated or they died. But up here in North America, the natives most certainly did practice sustainable land management.

Europeans arrived with a much higher population density. They would've had the same detrimental effect on the North American environment even if they'd lived as the native Americans did.

We'll never know, because they didn't even try. They did the opposite. They deliberately destroyed the lifestyle of the natives. They killed all the bison, a free renewable resource, so that they could carve the land up into fenced portions that someday, nobody would want to live on anyway. Seriously, do you think they would have killed the bison if they knew that someday all that territory would be known as "the flyover states", just a bunch of shitholes with poor civil rights? And they deforested the shit out of the west so that they could run cattle here! All they had to do to have more cattle than we could use was not kill all the bison at once.

Comment Re:Parts fail, it needs to be planned for. (Score 1) 100

So everyone needs to perform a full audit of what they're buying, including purchasing something to test that it's safe/fit to purchase?

It's basically already like that for most products. I can't remember the last time I got something with more than three moving parts that actually did everything it was supposed to do correctly.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye