Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:64%? (Score 1) 278

Man, oh man... there's so much to what you are saying, not even all of it has to do with the issue at hand (there should be death penalty for drivers stopping past the stop line at a red light so that drivers to their right CAN'T see what's coming from the left(*)), but I have to question those statistics, too.

If the laws are favorable to pedestrians - like that they really do, literally, always have the right of way - then the "at fault" statistic is going to be skewed. The article states that pedestrians ARE cited, so there must be some restrictions, but without knowing in who's favor the laws are skewed (pedestrains vs. vehicles), a statistic like 64% being any particular group's "fault" is hard to decipher.

(*) I mean, what benefit does a person turning left get by stopping AFTER the stop line? The ONLY things they succeed in doing are blocking the view for people who might be able to make right on red turns, and (possibly) obstructing traffic turning left from the cross street.

Comment Re:There is nothing you can do (Score 1) 278

Yes, what you're saying is true to a large extent, but pedestrians also act all superior and like they always have the right of way - they don't. Pardon the pun, but it's a two way street. I'd definitely like more pedestrian friendly areas with lower speed limits (and bike lanes for everyone!), seriously... but we don't have that, so pedestrians need to be careful to. Yes, I drive to work, but I otherwise do a lot of walking, and never presume someone sees me or that I have the right of way when I'm cutting across a street and not using a crosswalk.

Comment Re:Right Of Way (Score 4, Insightful) 278

Even Missouri gets that right. ... That means that any pedestrian-involved accidents are automatically the vehicle driver's fault, including any applicable criminal charges.

The problem here is you think that's getting it "right."

Virtually everywhere else, if a pedestrian is hit on a roadway and they're NOT in the crosswalk, if they aren't killed then THEY'RE the ones getting a ticket for jay-walking.

And THAT is "right." And I say this as someone who prefers walking when possible.

Comment Re:"in order to avoid customer confusion" (Score 1) 222

There were not many standalone devices - not computers, something cheap (sub $100) and simple (easy to move around) - that could do both. Chromecast still can't. I could have gone cheaper with a FireStick (or whatever it's called), but I liked some other things about FireTV, too (and waited for a sale).

Comment Re:customers don't like having choices restricted (Score 2) 222

Yes, it's not "free" the same way education and healthcare aren't (and never will be) "free." But you end up saving a lot of money and getting the added convenience of 2-day shipping. So if you use it enough, then maybe your first 10 or 12 expedited orders are "prepaid," but everything after that it is free (to the customer anyway - someone's paying). So yes, not quite free, if you want to be pedantic about it, but more like "buy 10, get as many as you want."

Comment Re:The fundamental issue? (Score 1) 222

Well, I'm repeating myself here, but the awkward thing here is that they withheld apps for Prime from other devices while they were trying to sell kindles. I wouldn't buy a kindle for Prime, I doubt anyone would. In fact, people don't buy prime for the video, they just take advantage of the video after signing up for free 2-day shipping, which is what the vast majority of people who sign up for prime are looking for.

But the point is a few years ago they withheld general android support trying to get people to buy their hardware. They didn't realize prime video wasn't a motivating factor in purchasing a tablet, but nowadays you CAN get a generic android app for Prime. Now it seems they are going back in time to try a similar strategy to sell the hardware - this time by not selling competing hardware at all.

My magic eight-ball says this will go on for some time, then when it doesn't work, they will start selling these devices again. At the same time, if there are generally available Amazon Prime apps available, why wouldn't Google and Apple try to support them? I get it - competitors for content, but that strategy is not going to work for anybody, it's just pissing off customers. Seems like Amazon wins a few Emmy's and think they can start dictating terms.

Comment Re:"in order to avoid customer confusion" (Score 1) 222

What's worse is they withheld an android app they had on their android based kindle because they wanted people to buy kindles. When it didn't work, and people kept complaining, after some years, they finally released an android app. They've always made it difficult because they wanted people to buy their hardware, too. So this move is not surprising, but out of complete honesty here, I bought a FireTV because I wanted a separate device (not tied to a tablet or a disc player) that could do both Netflix and Prime.

Comment Re:Only in the US then? (Score 1) 222

Well... the devices should just run apps, and there's a prime video app (at least for phones/tablets). It was a long time coming - for a long time, you couldn't watch on any portable devices that were blessed by Amazon - you needed a kindle tablet at the time, despite the fact that the app would have probably run on any android device. They wanted people to buy kindles. Period. I would hope they could make an arrangement that if the other devices had Prime support that then Amazon would allow them to be sold again, but I'm not holding my breath. I fear it will be like with the tablet, where when withholding the app from general use didn't cause people to come running to buy kindles, they finally released an app that would work on most android devices.

Despite their Emmy wins on their own content, Prime isn't compelling enough for video - the free stuff just isn't all that. Prime video is icing on the prime subscription cake - people don't get it for the video, they get it for the free 2-day shipping.

Comment Re:So no Prime for AppleTV then (Score 1) 222

Maybe. Frankly, one of the reasons I didn't get a chromecast is because I couldn't watch Amazon prime video with it (I don't know about now, but at the time). I don't even use prime video much at all - the free stuff is mostly crap, but if I was going to get something, I wanted something that I could use for any service I had.

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?