Perhaps so in Europe, but I don't think that's part of this. Check out the Amazon page about it. https://logistics.amazon.com/h...

They expect the business to physically deliver the packages. I assume if you have a van and a delivery driver on the payroll who is underutilized, it could work out well, but also it's Amazon, so I assume most participants will be doing so with slim to negative margins once all costs are accounted for.

> of non-Amazon goods delivered

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Amazon will be dropping off 30 *Amazon packages* a day at a florist, pizzeria or bodega, and the business owner will be in charge of employing drivers to deliver them. I think it's just an attempt to drive the existing contractor business model to new local entrepreneurs who may not have considered it. Clearly they're suggesting that if you already have delivery drivers, especially not fully utilized ones, this is an easy way to make an extra $7,500 in revenue per month, although I suppose even if your business was say, a coffee shop that had zero drivers today, you could lease a van or two and just do this as basically a business side hustle.

Still seems like that should go out via the channels of the gambling site and not the help desk of the fake store. but I'm not a pro money launderer so maybe I'm missing something else. :D

> staff who answered helpdesk numbers on the sites said the outlets did not sell the product advertised, but that they were used to help process gambling payments

"Nice job moron! You blew our cover!"

How do you not train your people on day 1 of the job at a money laundering outfit, that you don't admit to anyone that you're not a real shop. If anyone should call in complaining that they didn't get their goods (I'm assuming cops ordered items and called in to inquire about the order), apologize, say that item's been backordered, and give them a refund. I'm pretty amused by how dumb they were to admit that outright!

Oh come on. Rails 4 has been out for over 3 years ( http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/... ) not counting beta versions. If you haven't been bothered to update your public-facing application to 4.x in 3 years then yes, you're on your own. If you were one of the volunteers donating your time to run the Rails project would you want to support every version forever? You can always feel free to pay a developer yourself to fix any security holes that may turn up in Rails 3 in the future. And heck, you could sell those patches to other laggards!

Somehow I think this will become The Future the same way SmarterChild and its kin did.

Is the robot "face" screen going to be showing the live video of the person's face? If so, since presumably you don't have a Steadicam operator staying directly in front of each human being represented by robots at all times, this is going to look weird. It will be hard to even keep your face in frame as you naturally move around, swivel your chair, etc. Even if your face can somehow be properly framed, the front of your robot face (which itself swivels) will keep showing the sides of your face as you turn to look at various people.

This can be avoided at the great expense of losing the live video of the person--you can just put a static picture of the person's face on the bot, but this seems a big step back from a regular videoconference--you can't see the person's facial expressions.

Not to mention, this enhances a SINGLE nonverbal body language feature (direction of head pointing) while utterly destroying all other nonverbal information you get from a plain old videoconference, including overall posture, hand gestures, etc. The robot can't fold its arms, make a gesture, tilt its head side to side, etc.

I think this idea is quite a stretch.

What the hell are you blabbering about?

Pressing search on google is not censored in any way I am aware of.

YET.

ftfy

I disagreed that the "average household" was already equipped to disassemble iPhones until this snag. The "eyeglasses repair" argument doesn't hold water either because it takes other tools to work on iPhones as well, and most people just buy them in kits at very little expense when they order their replacement parts.

He seems to operate in a world where the "average" person cares at all about taking their gadgets apart.

> just because something's little means you can't take it apart? What a bunch of bullshit.

And yet, the OP that I replied to claimed that having a screw that isn't a typical shape means you can't take it apart. Even though anyone can buy a proper screwdriver for it for under $5 online.

From what I can tell, OP thinks he is ENTITLED to Apple using only screws for which he already owns the screwdrivers. If Apple does not comply, they're big meanies who are betraying Steve Wozniak.

For the record, MY point wasn't that you can't take it apart, my point was that he shouldn't be comparing modern tech to the Apple I and Apple II computers that Wozniak built. Just because you can take something apart doesn't mean that anyone but a brilliant engineer can perform any useful "creative mods" on it the way people did in 1978. This is what I meant by tinker-friendly. Tinker-friendly devices are pretty rare these days because there's no significant market for that. Of course, "many" people (maybe 0.05% of the population at large) are qualified to replace batteries and other parts, and I predict that these people are capable of shutting up and buying a damn screwdriver. It would be far from the first time they've bought a specialized tool for working on a tiny electronics device. Most Apple hardware geeks already have spudgers, various small screwdrivers, etc. Usually these things come for free in little kits. Someone else pointed out that Nintendo is no different in using a 3-sided screw.

As a side note, Phillips screws are shitty thanks to their intentionally-designed propensity to "cam out." Go look up the difference between PoziDriv and Phillips. Personally, I'd rather buy a $5 screwdriver than deal with the crappiness that is a stripped Phillips head.

LOLOLOL!

(Sorry for using a URL shortener but Slashdot seems to have screwed up their crappy comment system and I can't f***ing paste. WHAT THE HELL.)

The average household? Seriously? The average household has never stocked ANY tiny screwdrivers, be they Phillips like the old screws, Torx, or this "new" one. The average household has a #2 Phillips, an old fashioned slotted screwdriver for stupid things like switchplates that still use them, and a hammer. Probably a few leftover allen wrenches from Ikea. Anything more exotic than that pretty much requires a trip to Radio Shack, or a $5 order from some website. Therefore, almost nothing has changed. In fact, I got a nice little screwdriver for FREE with the kit the times I changed batteries and screens and things. The average household doesn't disassemble electronics, not least because they would rather not void their warranty.

Quit being so dramatic. "Wozniak's Apple," as you put it, existed in a world where computers cost a lot of money, were only purchased by skilled electronics experts or those planning to become experts, and needed to be modified to do pretty much anything. That world has been gone for more than 20 years. Today, computers (and tiny computers called "smartphones") are a mature technology, of which the target market is 99.9% made up of NON-experts, who don't take things apart and don't want to. The fact that it's been this long and you still expect there to be some kind of huge "enthusiast" contingent who are soldering things onto the boards of their Apple IIs, just ends up sounding naive.

The market has gone towards simple, integrated, and (especially in portable devices like laptops and cell phones)--SMALL. You can't have those things and still be "tinker-friendly." Will a few people still take these devices apart to tinker and to perform some repairs (like the battery) more cheaply? You bet. I do it too.

I think if Apple were trying to screw those people, they would seal the iPhone completely so that you had to break plastic to open it, and, coat the board in epoxy like they do with some consoles.

> I doubt Wikipedia makes any money off of this

Why on earth should "Wikipedia" (I assume you meant the Wikimedia Foundation) make any money off anything? That whole organization exists to enrich themselves (I'm referring to everyone who draws a salary from WMF) from the work of the actual contributors(normal people who write the content), none of whom are paid for their trouble.

You're right, and it was a hilarious technicality of poor wording, since obviously the intent of the license wasn't to grant them a license to knock off the concept but rather to write software FOR the platform.

However, have there been successful "look and feel" suits? I was under the impression that no one had won any similar cases. I chose a poor one as an example, didn't I.