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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 2) 60

by jareth-0205 (#48665867) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.

Comment: Re:Hmmmm ... legality? (Score 1) 138

by jareth-0205 (#48604923) Attached to: Amazon UK Glitch Sells Thousands of Products For a Penny

Actually the laws here are biased towards the consumer. If the price is reasonable believed to be not a mistake (which this clearly wasn't) then the offer has to be honoured by the shop because otherwise you'd have a million bait-and-switch false adverts by shops. The consumer does still get 7 days to cancel.

Comment: Re:Hmmmm ... legality? (Score 1) 138

by jareth-0205 (#48604901) Attached to: Amazon UK Glitch Sells Thousands of Products For a Penny

Far as I know this isn't an enforcable condition, consumer protection laws in the UK are strong and the price on the website is considered a shopfront, and therefore an offer and something they have to honour.

*Unless* it's obviously a mistake, which this clearly is, and then they don't.

Comment: Re:Hmmmm ... legality? (Score 1) 138

by jareth-0205 (#48604887) Attached to: Amazon UK Glitch Sells Thousands of Products For a Penny

Or you could look at it that the vendor made the OFFER and *I* ACCEPTED their offer can you not?

The GP is slightly wrong misleading in that the price on Amazon *is* considered an offer (nomatter what they put in their T&C) and that your acceptance of it does make it binding, *unless* it's obviously a mistake. This was obviously a mistake therefore they don't have to honour it.

Comment: Re:Can you say... (Score 2) 266

by jareth-0205 (#48593411) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

You cannot use 'slippery slope' argument and then complain about other people making 'either/or' arguments! They are *the same* concept! You saying that this is a slippery slope is exactly an either/or proposition: That we should not do this thing because it *will* lead to this other thing.

Comment: Re:Very relevent for small target embedded stuff. (Score 3, Funny) 641

by jareth-0205 (#48554103) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

C is the high-level language there. If you want actual control over your target, you'll need to use assembly.

Luxury! You trust a compiler? When I were a lad we inputted the hex codes directly.
Well of course we had it tough... tape and a magnetised pin was all we needed.
You kids don't know you were born... we used to program using a cigarette end to burn holes in the punch cards.

Comment: Re:Brand un-value (Score 1) 171

by jareth-0205 (#48478575) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed

I am loath to join the general chorus of hate for Ubisoft and EA. Complaining about these companies being too focussed on commercial success and not enough of user-entertainment/"art" seems futile: they are, first and foremost, commercial companies.

I'm never quite convinced by this argument. Just because you can do something does not mean you must, and these companies are run be actual people, who can make decisions that aren't only following the dollar. Ultimately if you just want to make money then be a bank, everyone else has a certain amount of duty to provide their service, aswell as to being commercial.

Comment: Re:Why is Android allowing Uber to access the info (Score 2) 234

by jareth-0205 (#48475027) Attached to: Uber's Android App Caught Reporting Data Back Without Permission

Google didn't create Android, they backed it and later bought it. The original developers thought users were too dumb to use Linux, so they dumbed it down by stripping the security out of it to make it user friendly.

I don't really understand how this is 'true'. Linux security doesn't isolate process disk data from each other, anybody can read any part of the disk under the same user, which in practice is all apps a user use because they all run under the user's account. Android has a far *better* security model in this respect because it puts different applications in different users, so they can't get at each other. Also, permissions for system information is far more granular in Android than plain Linux, in Linux you just look at /proc whereas Android has to actually get types of permissions for sensitive data.

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. -- Robespierre