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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:It has this. (Score 1) 188 188

by tlambert (#50013637) Attached to: iPhone 6S New Feature: Force Touch

Do you defend every company which charges premium prices for a product where they limit your ability to do something every computer has been able to do for the last 50 years

Of course.

I will happily defend IKEA for selling me a chair that is limited from being able to do *anything* "every computer has been able to do for the last 50 years".

Except, you know, being sat on. If I can't sit on the chair, I'd be pretty unhappy. On the other hand, not every computer in the last 50 years has been large enough or flat enough to sit on. You gotta draw that line somewhere!

Comment: A near miss is defined as 500 feet (Score 1) 264 264

by tlambert (#50012483) Attached to: Drone Diverts Firefighting Planes, Incurring $10,000 Cost

A near miss is defined as 500 feet:


According to the American Helicopter Services & Aerial Firefighting Association, airtankers fly between 150 and 200 feet:


The article reports a drone altitude of 800-900 feet. Let's take the most pessimal separation from these numbers: 800 - 200 = 600. That gives them a buffer of 100 feet in which this was *NOT* even classifiable as a near miss; there was no danger of a drone to aircraft collision, unless you are claiming that the drone pilot intended to fly the drone into the DC-10 airtanker.

You will find elsewhere on the AHSAFA site that the aircraft do not "dive-bomb" the fires; a fully loaded airtanker had a heck of a lot of inertia, and it's not really an option; they are long, low runs. I refer you to the site however, because I doubt you'd trust my (anecdotal) personal experience with U.S. Forest Service airtankers.

Comment: Re:It has this. (Score 2) 188 188

by tlambert (#50006787) Attached to: iPhone 6S New Feature: Force Touch

How about we turn this around: Other than pirating commercial software or installing spyware, what do you lose by an inability to side-load without a jailbreak?

Really? That is a question? Is that how far we've fallen down the dumb consumer hole?
How about being able to create and share programs on phones without the blessing of some magical corporate entity, or without someone having to fork over money for a developers license?

Perfectly doable, if you have source code to what's being shared, or if what's being shared is being distributed as linkable object files. Have you really not looked into current iPhone software development tools? It doesn't require paying the $99 fee to install whatever crap you want on your own device. The fee is for the ability to list on the App Store.

Comment: Re:It has this. (Score 1) 188 188

by tlambert (#50005403) Attached to: iPhone 6S New Feature: Force Touch

As opposed to downloading a remote access program from the store?

These programs have to be explicitly launched by the user themselves after each boot. In other words, they are about as dangerous as a tethered jailbreak, shich is to say: Not very.

This is about as FUD as it gets. The ability to side load is not a physical security exposure. If you have a lock screen then access is blocked in any case. If you don't have a lock screen, then the mythical walled garden won't protect you. Blocking side load only makes sense when it comes to protection from user error, and even then on Android you can side load single apps without enabling universal installation of apks so the only thing you're left with is user stupidity.

How about we turn this around: Other than pirating commercial software or installing spyware, what do you lose by an inability to side-load without a jailbreak?

Comment: It has this. (Score 4, Informative) 188 188

by tlambert (#50004937) Attached to: iPhone 6S New Feature: Force Touch

the only thing i can think of that would get me to switch to ios over android would be if they came out of the box with the ability to sideload apps without jailbreaking

It has this. Just enroll the device as a developer device, and compile the code, or enroll it as a corporate device, if you want to use precompiled code you trust but that Apple won't allow into the App store because Apple doesn't trust it.

If you mean thing like side-loading just random crap, like if I were a private detective hired by your wife, and had 60 seconds of access to your iPhone, I could sideload some serious backdoor onto your phone to enable me to monitor your texts, phone calls, email, Facebook, and so on ... I'm pretty sure no one wants someone else to be able to load that kind of crap on their phones, but if you can do it, they can do it, too.

Comment: They actually didn't "have to" divert. (Score 0) 264 264

by tlambert (#50001799) Attached to: Drone Diverts Firefighting Planes, Incurring $10,000 Cost

The plane did not *have* to divert, the plane *chose* to divert, to make a point about drones.

If the drone was operating between 800 and 900 feet off the ground, it was well out of any potential collision zone.

An airtanker on a retardant run operates at an altitude of 150 to 200 feet.

Comment: I have an iPhone 1 (Score 0) 149 149

by tlambert (#50001767) Attached to: AppleCare+ Now Covers Batteries That Drop To 80%

I have an iPhone 1; it was given to me in 2007 as part of the Apple iPhone giveaway to employees.

It is now 8 years old. And using the original battery, and not having charge or capacity problems.

The only people who care about removable batteries are the people who want to have multiple batteries so that they can replace them in order to maintain a more or less continuous duty cycle for the device.

For those people, there are cases with integrated batteries they could use as an external power source.

Comment: Re:The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States (Score 1) 293 293

You gotta explain how the ""straw that broke the camel's back"" occurred in the third year of the war.

It was more or less a series of border skirmishes (including a few port cities), until the proclamation.

This map animation demonstrates it better than I could with just words:


The proclamation more or less gave a mandate to penetrate deeply into the Southern states in order to enforce it.

Comment: If my church were being torn down for a telescope (Score 4, Informative) 293 293

If my church were being torn down for a telescope, I would of course protest.

However, I would protest when they were first tearing it down in 1967, and not wait until 37 years later, in 2004, to start protesting.

They've only been protesting about how holy the site is since about 2004. When it benefitted them in ways other than piety for them to do so. This is about trying to garner international attention for the monarchist movement in Hawaii, who would like to bring back the Kingdom of Hawaii, and are still pissed off about the deposition of Queen Liliuokalani, and the effective annexation of Hawaii in 1893.

Protesting a telescope gets media attention, even though there are already 13 telescopes on the site, operated by 11 nations, and they are in fact already the largest astronomical observatory on the planet. The only thing new about this one is that it was easier to latch onto the media attention, since the telescope in question was going to be very large, and was therefore already getting media attention.

Of course, assuming this was granted (thus setting the precedent for all non extinct indian nations to reclaim their lands within the U.S. as well), there would immediately be internecine warfare as to *who*, of the 10 groups claiming to have the "rightful" king or queen among their members, got to be the "official" one.

See also:


Comment: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States (Score 2) 293 293

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States


The specific primary issue was whether or not slavery would be prohibited in new territories when they became states, changing the balance of power between slave-holding and non slave-holding states. Prior to the election of Lincoln, the balance was maintained by inducting one non slave-holding state and one slave-holding state at the same time (paired statehood grants).

The South was not fearful of the existing slave states losing their slaves, they were fearful in a change in relative power between the two power blocks, and the election of Lincoln made this inevitable.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was in fact a punitive action relative to the secessionists only, and only applied to the ten states then currently in rebellion. It is widely regarded as the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back", and was issued under the president's war powers, and thus necessarily excluded those areas not in rebellion. In other words, of the 4 million slaves currently held at the time, about 1 million of them were *not* freed by the proclamation, as they were within states not in open rebellion.

But nice try on your straw man argument.

Note: as a technical note, free persons who commit criminal acts *could* in fact be made slaves today through court action, since you may deny someone their liberty through due process of law. We just don't use this particular loophole within our justice system.

The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination -- but the combination is locked up in the safe. -- Peter DeVries