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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:The REALY dystopia (Re:So...) (Score 1) 166

Yup, sure enough. More ad hominem snark instead of addressing the substance of the matter. You know perfectly well that the WaPo isn't the way you characterize it, but rather than point to persuasive information to defend your position, you're just dishing out the juvenile foot-stamping. Still, if that's the way you concede that the person you're being shrill at is actually correct, so be it.

Comment Not really (Score 5, Insightful) 102

The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)

Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)

It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1, Interesting) 166

Oh bla bla bla. You are just rationalizing the absurd.

Yes, it is absurd that people become violent and crazy, and they do things like hold hostages or grab kids or attack people, or force stand-offs. If people wouldn't do absurd crap like that, then the absurd crap like that they do wouldn't happen right in front of us every week. The fact that you're pretending it doesn't happen is curious though. What do you think that achieves? It's an odd personality quirk, at least.

Comment Re:So... (Score -1) 166

You really stand tall for all this authoritarian shit

I see. So if one of YOUR family members is being held or threatened by some loon, you'd rather that member of your family get hurt than the cops use a taser to subdue the person who's the problem? Or would you rather they use lethal force? Or would you rather they simply walk away so that nobody can accuse them of being "authoritarian," using any sort of force against a person who, after all, hasn't yet killed your family member, he's just promising to if anyone comes close to him.

You don't actually understand what "authoritarian" means, do you?

Comment Re:So... (Score 2, Interesting) 166

Why is it ridiculous? Why would you NOT (if it's logistically reasonable) use a small tracked RC machine on the ground to roll into one of those classic and recurring crazy-person-barricade-gun-waving scenarios, and taser that clown remotely instead of risking the life of one or more police officers? Likewise, if the circumstances happen to fit, why wouldn't you do that from 10 feet over the guy's head?

And if you've got that same crazy guy holed up somewhere and you need to flush him out ... why would you shoot potentially incendiary tear gas shells (which can also be lethal if they happen to, say, catch you right in the head in the wrong way as they come through a window) the old fashioned way, if you can send in a flying robot that can just let loose with the same substance while also seeing what's going on.

Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. If you're saying we shouldn't have the tools because some people don't use tools wisely, then we should take away cars, guns, flashlights, tasers, pepper spray, shoes, radios, and probably fingers and hands from all police just because there's the chance that some officer will choose to use them the wrong way.

Comment The whole concept is a "Rube Goldberg" contraption (Score 1) 107

The whole concept smacks of being a "Rube Goldberg" contraption to me. While I could see a very small segment of the market liking the idea of replacing components and doing partial upgrades, I'm pretty sure that the mass market will stick with integrated one-piece units that don't fall into a pile of blocks when dropped.

Comment Re:Just what I need for an old car! (Score 1, Insightful) 87

To say nothing about the ridiculous price. Especially for a service that's unlikely to be used in any given month. F'em all.

If it's not working all the time, it's not working. That's the whole point of these systems. A lot of what it offers (like, knowing where your 85 year old grandpa's car is when he's late coming back from golfing and not answering his phone) isn't useful if it's only online and using its SIM card and burning some bandwidth when the driver decides just that moment to turn it on. If $15 bucks for a mobile device's connectivity and use of their services is too much for you, just don't buy it. There are plenty of people who would like some OnStar-type services on a vehicle that wasn't factory equipped for it, and the cost of two sandwiches a month is simply no big deal.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 187

You think commercial operation will be better

Yes. My experience in observing the habits and practices of both suggests very strongly that enthusiastic recreational multirotor fliers aren't nearly as thoughtful about things as are commercial users. Most recreational fliers are used to operating in very sedate, controlled spaces like AMA fields. Commercial operators are thinking about way, way more factors before, during, and after a planned flight.

The Shuttle is now going five times the sound of speed. -- Dan Rather, first landing of Columbia