Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:36 hours? (Score 1) 52

>You are presumably too young to remember when phones lasted a couple of weeks before needing to be charged.

Hardly. Let's say I have watched times from NO cell phones until now.

>People are prepared to accept the sacrifice to get the goodies on a smartphone, but that doesn't make it acceptable on a watch.

It isn't a sacrifice to place the watch on a charger pad instead of placing it not on a charger pad when one takes it off before going to bed.

Comment Re:How often are the addresses re-validated? (Score 1) 106

> It ended very badly: when a couple state governmental agencies started using ConstantContact for various newsletters between related org

I can completely understand your situation. That is what caused us some issues too- some national organizations, ones we actually PAID to be a part of, decided to use those scumbags (Constant Contact) and some of my users were affected. But we stood fast and explained in detail to the organization sending them and the users exactly what was going on and why. Most of those organization still uses CC, but several now they also have a SEPARATE mailing list from their own domain to send my users important things. And it turns out WE WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES BLOCKING CC.

>The industry has come to the conclusion that opt-in marketing newsletters are not Unsolicited, and if it's not unsolicited, there have been cases where providers were successfully sued over blocking the messages.

Well, that is correct- opt-in marketing junk isn't spam. But the issue is that 100% of what I personally get from such marketing firms I *NEVER* requested. So all of it was spam to me. If I looked at ALL the Email coming in from most of those firms, 99+% of it was never opt-in by anyone, so it was spam.

Of course, by blocking those firms, it also blocks the very tiny part of non-spam marketing that a few of my users *did* request. But in those cases:

1) Most of it was not work related
2) Most of it that was work related was not important
3) We decided, as a facility, that the blocking of the marketing houses which stopped 99% of their spam was more important than allowing a very, very tiny portion of non-spam through with questionable value.

Again, we are not an ISP, so we can do whatever we want. I don't think an ISP should block such places unless they have permission from each customer.

Comment Re:36 hours? (Score 1) 52

Yes, it HAS been beaten to death.

The 360.1 and .2 have at least 24 hours and usually far more hours of battery life per charge with normal use. When I get home from work after 9 hours off the charger, it usually has about 75% battery remaining.

As long as you can go a waking day (16-18 hours) on a charge, it doesn't matter. You charge your phone every day, so you charge your watch every day. Put it on the charger before bed.

No big whoop. I have used the 360.1 for a year. Not ONCE have I ever needed to charge it more than once in a 24 hour period. Oh, and if you really did have to charge it and put it back on (can't imagine why) charging it is very fast- like 20 min to 80% or something.

Comment Here are the differences (Score 1) 52

I have been wearing it for a year, hardly ever notice the slice at the bottom of the screen. And I know several people who also have the 360 and none of them really notice or care. Having the light sensor that goes with it is FAR more important, trust me. I would love to have BOTH a light sensor and no cut out to go along with the tiny bezel, but that is still just not really possible.

If I could have any change for the 360, it would be either thinner or always-on display (for non-sport). The 360.2 offers neither. Everything else is fine in the first version (display res, battery life, speed, charging, style, reliability, functionality, etc). The 360.1 has been a really solid and decent smart watch.

Here is my take on the changes coming with the 360.2 from what I could gather from different sources:

* Faster processor
* More cores
* Higher resolution
* Lugs for better looks and easier band changing
* Three sizes: Same men's 46mm dia, new men's smaller 42mm dia version with wide band, and women's 42mm with narrow band.
* Larger battery (in the 46mm version only)
* Moved button for easier access
* Sport version with hybrid, transflective, always-on display

* Same storage & memory :)
* Same light sensor and other sensors :)
* Same bluetooth and WiFi :)
* Same thickness :(
* Same wireless charging :)
* Same lack of speaker :|
* Same display tech, except sport version :|
* Android Wear :)
* Small bezel with angled cut glass :)
* Same tiny slice on bottom of display for light sensor :|

* Stone leather band not available for men :(
* Lack of always-on-display version for non-sport (bummer)
* Unknown weights
* Unknown availability of sport version- non-sport preorders now

Not sure if I will upgrade from the 360.1 to the 360.2 or not. I am quite happy with the first version at this point. The new features are compelling enough for me, but I was hoping for either an always-on screen or a thinner watch. Since I don't do "sports watches" (plastic/silicone=gross), I would have neither improvement. I could go for the SMALLER men's (since I can't have thinner), which would likely be less stress on my wrist (CTS), but smaller = harder to read for my older eyes, and I wouldn't gain the extra battery (not that I really need it- almost 2 days is more than enough right now). But they also dropped the color band I want (stone grey). Decisions, decisions....

Comment Re:It's just handy (Score 1) 52

>Note that I said the Apple Watch at the start of that, because although the Pebble Time has some nice features

I don't disagree with your posting, but I am puzzled as to why you are going on about the Apple and Pebble watches, when the topic is the Moto 360. You weren't replying to anything, so it seems a bit odd.

Comment Re:How often are the addresses re-validated? (Score 1) 106

>Either this is bullshit


> or you have a total of 10 users.

I have 171 users.

>Try running an ISP, even a small one with just a few hundred users, and watch how much bitching you have to deal with when you block ConstantContact, MailChimp, SendGrid, etc..

We get some rare/occasional bitching, and we explain why we do what we do, and they are then appreciative of our very low spam rate and find some work-around.

One can't do that as an ISP, since it is like censorship. But we are not an ISP and can do what we want. Most people *like* getting rid of all the marketing **** Email. Rarely it is an issue with some newsletter or whatnot that we can't get, and if it is important, the sender can send it directly from their own domain (and usually they are cooperative in such cases).

The reality is the reputation of a sender can be VERY tarnished by using a third-party mailing system. Not my problem. They are free to use a third-party, I am free to block those third-parties.

Comment Re:How often are the addresses re-validated? (Score 1) 106

>"The biggest problem is We have no idea when it is happening, or if there are complaints, which messages are actually true spam, and which messages are just "legitimate marketing" that look spammy."

Is there a difference? Spam includes UCE (Unrequested Commercial Email). Unrequested marketing junk *is* spam. I report it as such and ban most mail servers that send such stuff to my users. When I first started doing that many years ago, the very first to be banned, permanently, was Constant Contact. And boy were they pissed! They actually tried to tell my users we were doing something wrong and went over my head to try and be removed (and the CEO laughed at them). Now I ban several hundred such marketing houses.

>"Nobody really sends detailed abuse complaints anymore or provide any data that could be meaningfully used for reliable spam content identification without false positives. They just put IP addresses straight to blacklist"

The word "nobody" is pretty strong. I report *every* spam I get, in detail, to spamcop. Thankfully it is only a few messages a week that slip through, but I take the time to do it.

You might not like RBL's, but they are a keystone to our anti-spam. We don't do automated content examination or even ratings at all. Just greylisting, country banning, several RBL's, dropping messages with improper headers, checking that the domains on the Email server and sender are actually valid, and our own blacklist (coupled with a whitelist for both filtering and greylisting for those places that we consider mission important).

Comment Re:The above is informative ? (Score 1) 576

The Ukraine.

But that's a bit like "Hitler was a Vegetarian." I actually agree with your position in that I would say it's safe to say the Muslim World is currently in a last ditch fight for relevancy before modern society completely moderates its last grasp on political power (just as Catholicism destabilized much of Europe to maintain control).

But when nearly half the world is Muslim of course most of the conflicts are going to involve Muslims.

Comment Re:I like it. It's Subversive. (Score 1) 86

You might argue that a user doesn't want Google as the default search engine from the start - but if they're buying an Android device, at least they know the default search engine is Google - and they can change it.

You might argue that users neither care nor know that Chrome is a google product nor care nor know which search engine they are using.

Every system these days seems to be funded by the default search option. That's why Chrome came into existence in the first place, to change the default search provider.

Comment Re:you fail at formal logic (Score 1) 284

If this were a serious concern for you, you would realize that election officials must be lying when they talk about your ballot's votes being anonymous. I've never heard anyone suggest such a concern, so I assume those who raise "formal logic" issues, with special coded sequences of votes and such, are being, well, politeness prevents me from finishing the thought yet again.

Would you like a verifiable election that doesn't rely on ballots? Fine, here you go: five contests with five candidates requires five scales, five planks of wood, five curtains, and 25 etched glass jars with lids through which beans can be inserted into temporary holding chambers, falling into the jar only when the jar is tilted. The planks go on the scales, the jars on the planks, the jars' etches indicate which choice each jar represents. The scales are checked after each voter to show that no more than one bean's weight was added to each contest by the voter, at which point the plank is shaken or tilted and the beans drop into their jars. The only part of any jar visible to anyone until the end of the election is the part from the etching to the top. Representatives of each candidate monitor the jar collection until each jar is weighed, at which point the jars are sealed and transported. The winners are those represented by the heaviest jar in each contest. Done. And, miraculously, I have not cursed.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 4, Insightful) 284

This is not the first time I've heard the argument that access to voting records can reveal supposedly secret votes. Of course, what this argument reveals, if accurate, is that voting officials are routinely able to determine supposedly secret votes, as they have access to the voting records they refuse to reveal to the public.

The long-term solution is to ensure that all voting records are routinely made available to the public, meaning that any systems which acts to violate the secrecy of the vote will do so equally for all, leading to the withdrawal of such systems on the grounds that they do not meet the baseline requirements for a voting system meant to maintain the supposedly sacrosanct secrecy of the vote.

I would have thought this common sense when I was younger.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?