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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 1) 318 318

If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

Slow down, cowboy! The reason for car insurance is mostly that third parties are kept save by having someone with lots of money who has to pay. Insurance companies can't get out of that liability. In Germany, for example, it takes about two months of non-payment until the insurance company can cancel your contract, and a notice of that will go simultaneously to you and to the police, who will make sure that you don't drive around without the insurance having to pay.

However, a lot earlier the insurance will try to recover any damage payments from you, which could easily bankrupt you.

You will obviously not get a refund, because the insurance company still has to pay out (and slim chance to recover the money from you if your victim ends up in a wheelchair), and of course their risk is higher than assumed, based on the premiums they charge commercial drivers.

Comment: Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 1) 318 318

So, the insurance don't want to work with Uber drivers? That would be a terrible, terrible mistake, seeing the ambition of Uber's executives, in a company valued $50 billions, they could just start a business in the car insurance and get more profit.

Fifty billion dollar? So why do we always hear sob stories about little Uber fighting the evil monopoly of taxi drivers?

How many of that fifty billion dollar goes towards convincing politicians? And as with other big companies, if a fifty billion company breaks the law, then any fines must be big enough so that a fifty billion dollar company notices them and changes its way.

Comment: Re:I'd certainl yhope so... (Score 4, Insightful) 63 63

Under what legal theory would it be forbidden to offer a product that blocks shitware? Even if we grant that this 'freemium.com' must be tolerated as legal-but-sleazy, rather than dragged out and hung from a lamp post; is there some sort of 'right to be installed' that software possesses that nobody told me about?

Oh, that's no problem. Freemium claimed (and likely has the numbers) that their income from sleazy installs against the wishes of the computer went down, and that it was due to Avira's software (which they probably also can prove). So Avira _did_ interfere with Freemium's business, there is no doubt about that. The question was whether they interfered in a legal way, or in an illegal way. And the judge said it was legal. I suppose if Avira put up an alert saying "Don't install this, this software will cause cancer" they would have lost.

Comment: Re:Precedent (Score 1) 63 63

While true, judges tend to follow the ruling on the table. If only to appear consistent and not wanting to contradict their peers.

It's also a lot less work to find a case that is quite close and copy what the judge in the other case found. Instead of figuring all the details out himself, which is hard work, the judge just needs to check that all the details of the other court case match.

Comment: Re:Fucking Lawyers (Score 1) 174 174

That pretty much sounds like bullshit. Interoperability is part of fair use. Have we so thoroughly eroded this concept that the copyright lawyers have won?

But tell me, where is the interoperability with Java? Google has its own VM, so they don't really need Java interoperability.

Comment: Re: Oracle is GPLd now, then. (Score 2, Insightful) 174 174

Actually, he might have a valid point. If an api is subject to copyright, wouldn't that make a whole bunch of closed source things in violation of the gpl? For example, the closed source nvidia drivers include some of the kernel api, so are they now subject to gpl?

I suspect that (1) there is a license allowing the inclusion of header files, for example the GPL license terms might allow this, (2) NVidia is merely using, but not copying the header files (unlike Google), and (3) if someone insisted that NVidia can't include kernel header files to build its drivers, then instead of a GPL'd driver Linux users will end up with no driver. And if the same thing happens with ARM / AMD, then good night Linux.

Comment: Re:Good design, eh? (Score 3, Insightful) 149 149

You think when they put the battery in at the factory they are just going to inject pure battery 'juice' into the phone??

Have a look on Apple's website at the design of the batteries in newer MacBooks. It's not quite "battery juice", but the batteries do come in shapes that fill the smallest gap, something that would be impossible with a removable battery.

Comment: Re:I have an iPhone 1 (Score 2) 149 149

The only people who care about removable batteries are the people who want to have multiple batteries so that they can replace them in order to maintain a more or less continuous duty cycle for the device.

I thought the only people who care about removable batteries are the people who love Android and haven't figured out yet that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery. Oh well, and some people who love Android and figured out that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery can complain about that as well :-)

Comment: Re:Give me a break (Score 1) 815 815

It's a god damned piece of colored cloth. People who claim it means something more than that are either mindlessly parroting other, louder people, or they have an agenda of their own. The idea of outlawing a piece of colored cloth is about as logical as outlawing a plant.

If it's just a god damned (I fully agree here) piece of coloured cloth, then what are you complaining about?

Comment: Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters? (Score 1) 177 177

I heard that protesters were flipping cars over and smashing windows. Perhaps they should be the ones cracked down upon? This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob seems like the wrong message you would want to send. Unless France wants to encourage angry mobs...

Your source, which you verified carefully without doubt, is free to send any evidence to the French police which will take care of it. Well, unless of course your source is lying or doesn't exist.

Comment: Re:"Other types of electromagnetic radiation" (Score 4, Informative) 528 528

Many people are sensitive not to EM radiation, but to seeing antennas.

More precisely: They are sensitive to believing that an antenna is working. There have been studies where people showed symptoms when a button was pressed and a red light went on to demonstrate that an antenna was transmitting, and the symptoms disappeared when the button was pressed again and the red light went off. (Nothing was transmitted at any time during the experiment).

Comment: Re:Another Name / Company dispute (Score 1) 271 271

That one is the ultimate horror story what happens when you get stupid lawyers involved. Short summary: Guy named Uzi Nissan registers and uses www.nissan.com. Nissan car company wants the URL. Lawyers get involved. Judge decides that nobody can use it.

Between reasonable people without lawyers the outcome would have been that Uzi Nissan would have received a generous amount of cash, perhaps a new car made by guess what company, and Nissan car company had used the URL. Instead, everyone lost, except possibly Nissan's lawyers who declared this a victory for Nissan (which obviously it isn't).

The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee

Working...