Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Looks an awful lot like the iPad mini (Score 1) 22

by stephanruby (#48673517) Attached to: Nokia's Back In the Tablet Business, With the Android Lollipop-Based N1

Except it doesn't run iOS, which means it's not an iPad mini. Someone who wants for a Playstation 4 for Christmas doesn't want an Xbox One.

Yes, but Christmas shopping implies that someone else is going to make that purchase for you, and iPad Minis are vastly overpriced.

If you were my relative, this is the tablet I'd get you. It's far cheaper than the iPad Mini. Its screen is almost one inch bigger than the iPad Mini. And its battery lasts a hell of a lot longer too.

Comment: Re:Not that much less (Score 1) 22

by stephanruby (#48673377) Attached to: Nokia's Back In the Tablet Business, With the Android Lollipop-Based N1

The base iPad Mini 2 lists at $299 and was as low as $229 during recent sales; the N1 is launching at $249.

That's probably why the author of the article talked about the base iPad Mini 3, not the iPad Mini 2.

The new Nokia N1 tablet, apparently. At just $250 with 32GB of storage — as opposed to the iPad Mini 3’s base price of $400 for the 16GB model — the Nokia N1 is definitely priced to sell.

And yes, from Apple's own comparison page, there doesn't seem to be any difference between the iPad Mini 2 and the iPad Mini 3. But to be fair to Nokia, its specs are superior to the iPad Mini 2 and 3.

And also, the Android tablets are the ones that initially embraced the 7 inch to 8 inch sizes, so one could say that Apple is the one that cloned those tablets from Asus, Samsung, HTC, and LG. But then again, a specs side-by-side comparison of Nokia's new tablet wouldn't look as good against the newer Android tablets made other manufacturers. Not to mention, the word "iPad" still has the most mind share, where it comes to people talking about tablets in general.

Comment: Re:Yes, it's in FB's "ordinary [business] course" (Score 2) 32

by stephanruby (#48672893) Attached to: Federal Judge: Facebook Must Face Suit For Scanning Messages

What about Gmail and their ilk? Don't users assume that messages are private in the same sense as users on Facebook sending private messages, that only the recipient reads them?

May be, but targeting Facebook first may just be a matter of strategy.

Facebook resells a lot of the information it gathers from its users, a lot more than Google does. I'm not saying that Google is less evil than Facebook, but if they're doing the same thing as Facebook, Google is lot better at keeping this kind of private information to itself.

Comment: Re:UK vs Free Speech (Score 1) 318

by stephanruby (#48669277) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

What caught my eye is he turned himself in. Was he getting death threats? Or does it say something a bit scary about the UK that someone would tweet an offensive joke, erase it, and then turn themselves into the police?

I would have turned myself in too.

Nobody likes being woken up at 5 AM by a bunch of police thugs breaking down their door, manhandling them, and confiscating all their computers for evidence.

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 2) 120

by stephanruby (#48638917) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Resources For Kids Who Want To Make Games?

If I was the parent, I'd encourage the kid to create games out of cardboard and paper, and possibly out of other physical materials. And of course, I'd play with him at those games. Also, if creating a game from scratch sounds like it's too hard, I'd ask him to take existing games, modify them little by little, and test how fun they are, among family and friends, after each time he makes a change.

Of course, this doesn't mean I'm opposed to video games. I just felt I needed to add my two cents regarding non-video games, since the video game creation angle is pretty much well covered on Slashdot already.

Comment: Re:if there is no evidence presented in how they.. (Score 2) 51

No, what happened to you was odd.

It's actually quite normal for the Supreme Court to pick cases where the lower courts normally can't agree on. In this case, the Supreme Court ruling was given on December 15th, 2014. So today, being December 19th, 2014, implies that there wasn't a definitive answer on this question until four days ago.

It's always been the case that if the cop had probable cause for conducting the search the results are admissible.

You're extrapolating. In the case of the Supreme Court case, the driver (allegedly) gave the cops consent to search his car. In the case of the parent poster, he doesn't say whether he consented to the search, or not.

Granted, "consent" can mean very little these days, just take a look on Youtube. To some police officers, even leaving your car door closed -- but unlocked, when stepping out of your car on the command of the police officer, implies that you've given them consent to search your car.

Comment: Re:This doesn't solve the problem at all (Score 2) 110

by stephanruby (#48624445) Attached to: RFID-Blocking Blazer and Jeans Could Stop Wireless Identity Theft

The RFID/NFC tag on your passport requires a lot of your private information already as the private key to decrypt it. And even then, the biggest additional piece of information at the first level of encryption it gives you is your picture (the same picture that's already in your passport).

Users with Android phones with NFC capabilities can check this for themselves.

Every time an official checks your passport, that digital picture is only used to verify that the physical picture on the passport hasn't been tampered with. In other words, this feature is used to prevent identity theft, not make it easier to do.

Comment: Re:Home of the brave? (Score 1) 586

by stephanruby (#48623467) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Yep, this only emboldens the bad guys, now that some hackers have actually gotten companies to run away screaming from a fictional movie.

If they're not going to show it, they should at least release the movie to the file-sharing community. I just checked, but I couldn't find it.

Comment: Re:503 (Score 4, Insightful) 394

by stephanruby (#48622971) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

On topic, Google, I appreciate the focus on security, but stop deciding to simply implement however YOU THINK the web should be working.

Google should do whatever it wants. After all, if I get annoyed enough by Google Chrome, I'll just switch back to Firefox or Opera. Only the ChromeOS/ChromeBook/ChromeBox users may be screwed (because they've made the mistake of locking their hardware to a specific vendor browser).

In any case, Google hasn't formally announced a decision yet, it has merely made a proposal public and started a discussion on the subject requesting feedback. The fact that everyone is condemning Google for this proposal vindicates all the companies that keep their discussions private and out of the public eye until they work them out -- all secretly first.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...