Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (Score 1) 32

by drinkypoo (#47442935) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

I didn't view the images because you just get black squares without scripts. Come on, Slashdot, link a site that can write HTML, not where they're too incompetent to display images without javascript. This is 1990s technology. What year is it?

Anyway, on topic, all you actually need is a skirt to channel heat up the sides of the pot. If it's a little lower than the pot itself then the heat will flow up the sides of the pot and you get massively more heat transfer. One little piece of sheet metal, done.

Comment: Re:And then throw it in a fire (Score 3, Informative) 34

This.

What is the value of a used device? Compare that to the risk of the data on that device going to a malevolent third party.

I've had people saying "oh, look at all these hard drives, you should totally sell them on ebay and I bet you could get $10 apiece for them!" Adding up the time I would waste running DBAN or sdelete or whatever, and keeping track of which ones have been wiped, and double checking to make sure everything is really gone, it's not worth the time.

A big hammer and a punch, driven deeply through the thin aluminum cover and down the platter area, takes about a second and leaves nothing anybody would bother trying to recover. You can quickly look at a drive and say "yes, this drive has been taken care of", or "hey, there's no jagged hole here, this drive isn't destroyed." The aluminum cover contains the shards if the platters are glass. I don't care who handles them after destruction. There's no worries about toxic smoke. And if you have to inventory them before shipping them to a recycler, the serial numbers are still readable.

Smashing a phone wouldn't destroy the data on the chips, so a fire is a somewhat safer option.

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 167

Trying not to "piss off the law makers" simply caters to their silly protectionist rackets that are doomed to fail business and consumers in the long run.

Except, that's not what happens.

The first laws passed by the First United States Congress after the ratification of the constitution were tariffs. People have a right to protect their homes. "free markets" are a scam for redistribution of wealth upward.

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 168

Yes, competition is good for the consumer, which is why France wants to protect competition in the marketplace.

But that's not what they're doing. They're trying to suppress the competition. The competition is online, which is more efficient than having many unrelated bookstores. France wants to pretend to live in the past, while using modern technology against its people. French SWAT members (well, the equivalent) wear masks so they cannot be recognized. Yeah, it's a democracy. Right.

Comment: Re:There are better than Apple's (Score 1, Funny) 75

I find it annoying that despite the existence of common devices which are "better" that the "best" is still considered to be Apple's.

Congratulations, you have just lived down to your nickname, and it has led you to whine about Apple's popularity — the only reason why everything is compared to Apple.

Comment: Re:Better fitness watch (Score 1) 314

by 93 Escort Wagon (#47440441) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?

I second this. I don't know if I'll buy one; but, if I do, it'll be because of the health sensor / monitoring functions.

I don't need to see my texts on the device, nor my phone calls. I have a phone already, and pulling that out of my pocket isn't onerous. Heck, if I'm at my computer most of my texts show up there already, since most of them come via iMessage - and in a few months even the SMS ones will be there.

Comment: jargon (Score 1) 88

What the hell is a "threat actor"?

Why use jargon when "criminal" is a perfectly good word? And if this is a specific type of criminal, say a terrorist or a thief or the intelligence apparatus of a foreign country, then there are very descriptive and precise words for those as well. If it's corporate espionage, then "crook" works well, too.

Why do people who use technology feel the need to create neologisms for the most mundane things? Just the other day, I saw someone from a news web site refer to an "article" as an "explainer cardstack". I'm not shitting you. I immediately took that news source out of my RSS feed because if they're that dedicated to lexical obfuscation, I don't trust anything they write.

English motherfucker. Do you speak it?

Comment: Re:Why are the number of cabs [artificially] limit (Score 1) 86

by drinkypoo (#47440129) Attached to: Lyft's New York Launch Halted By Restraining Order

Strictly speaking, I don't need a PC to stay alive and capable of working. That means the PC is a luxury; I have one because at some point of my life, I had spare income. That, in turn, is an inefficiency - I could had undercut other workers by asking for less.

Sure, if your only goal is efficiency. But if it is, you're boring.

Comment: Re:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (Score 4, Interesting) 259

by PopeRatzo (#47439493) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

No, in recent history, these conflicts are resolved by pressure from the international community. It's how apartheid in South Africa ended, to a great extent.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher referring to Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist" and his party as a "terrorist organization". It turned out they were dead wrong. Last year, the philosophical progeny of Reagan and Thatcher hailed Mandela as a hero.

History is not going to be kind to the government of Israel in the first decades of the 21st century (if not longer).

It didn't have to be this way.

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981

Working...