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

 



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

Comment Not really (Score 5, Insightful) 91

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 Because it's terrible (Score 1) 355

This is often because in-car tech is terrible. The user interfaces often seem to be reminiscent of something knocked together for Windows CE in the mid 90s, they are often awkward and laggy and counterintuitive. And basically they are ossified to the car's manufacture date, and you have to pay through the nose for data updates. When I last changed my car, the car was 18 years old - would an in-car satnav/other tech still be supported 18 years after it came out?

All I want in a car today is this: some USB charging ports, some point on the vehicle interior that allows you to attach a tablet or phone holder, and a decent Bluetooth implementation. It's far easier to update my phone or tablet than anything actually built into a car, and I can also take it with me and use it in a rental vehicle, on my bicycle, in my house etc.

Comment Re:I doubt... (Score 1) 103

The fundamentals of the US economy are looking great in comparison to what? Are you seriously content because "at least we're not in as bad shape as Greece!"? Housing prices are starting to come back - that's a good thing right? That no one can afford a house unless they sell their and their children's future into usury? Because a fundamental gauge of the economy is the PRICE OF YOUR HOUSE. No, that's only good for bankrupt americans who have no equity at all except the meagre slice they are forced by the banks to have if they buy a house. Buying a home then selling it is not a valid "business model". It's speculation. And just like any other speculator, one day honey you are going to get screwed.

Comment Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. And a lie to boot. (Score 1) 1014

It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.

That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.

You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.

No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.

Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=

It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.

THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.

There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.

Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.

The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.

This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.

You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".

That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?

The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.

They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.

All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'll never win if your work isn't Hugo-worthy.

Which, incidentally, also proves that it's unlikely the Hugos have been rigged for decades, because pretty much every category has had a winner for decades.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the Puppies lost. And they hurt everyone. And no amount of living in some fantasyland where giant SJWs roam the land, somehow mind controlling fandom into voting for stories about lesbian seagulls, will ever help you understand that.

Comment Re:Opt-In (Score 2) 231

There is no way our security forces will let this be anything but mandatory. Manual-control vehicles will be phased out, and eventually will be criminal to drive without some sort of cop-controlled shutoff, at least. Hell, the financing companies alone love external control. They use it to disable cars which have buyers late on their car payments. They can get rid of repo men if the cars drive themselves back to the dealer.

Comment Re:A compromise (Score 1) 231

It would have to be a mechanical kill switch for the power bus that services all the automated systems, including the robot on your brakes, accelerator, and steering, or it is just a cute story you tell yourself so you feel better. And no cute integrated batteries that can wake up if a cop wants to override. A computerized switch is a joke.

Comment Re:passenger safety (Score 2) 231

Any code and procedure can and will be dumped when convenient. Rules can't fix this. Don't accept controlled cars. Don't accept self-driving cars. Don't accept cars controlled by Turing machines which by definition are reprogrammable. Accept only rack-and-pinion steering, hydraulically controlled brakes modulated by your foot, and an accelerator that doesn't ignore your commands when it feels like it. Like e-voting: there is NO correct solution. Any effort is useless to control a computer when hostile outside forces have access. A computer is hackable, and you don't let it control a two-ton tank with you inside.

Comment Re:Only when a warrant is issued, or with permissi (Score 1) 231

"I don't think there will be much argument about this, particularly in Amercia, where the deaths per capita inlicted by 'law enforcement', are similar to the murder rates in more civilised countries."

Well said. And rightwingers only have so many mod points, so let me give ya a hand here.

Comment Re:Brave new "future" (Score 1) 231

Never saw the movie. That writer was a clear thinker, wasn't he?

I'm not worried about car jackers, who are about as frequent as lighting strikes. Worried about our invisible political lords and masters. Imagine a Dick Cheney with this power. Oh god. Assange's car would have driven into a, let us say, a concrete wall at high speed. Snowden's taxi would roll over a railing and down into a gorge. Hell, why be obvious: just drive a random passing car on the street into a political opponent as they cross at a red light. Ooopsie! What a shame, must have been programmer error.

Comment Re:Answer: Never (Score 1) 231

Yup. Since the drug war and 9/11, the young have been raised in a police state. They know nothing else. And don't get me started on the technoeutopians... rich white kids who will never have their cars driven to a lonely spot by a cop for a little impromptu electrocution and tooth extraction. It's the troublemakers and the poor who will see the interior of a Vehicle Sequester concrete box when they annoy some Homeland Security hawk or local cop or even one of our lovely CIA bastards assigned to remove Snowdens from the world.

We're living in a giant, open air prison. I hate being right.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...