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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 3, Interesting) 359

Which reminds me --- Coca Cola pulled out of the Cold Drink effort with Keurig. After product launch it all tanked. --- again they forgot to test the market. Nobody wanted to pay a big price for the machine, have it occupy counter space, and then fork over about the same money as a can of soda costs.

oh- and everyone is getting wise to health and sugar -- and that they should drink less soda.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 359

One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?

This doesn't sound like the Jack LaLanne Juicer thingy (which sells for $150). I think the Premium Experience folks ran amok on this one- those Tech Billionaires must have thought "yeah I'd drop $400 on this" but forgot to test the market. I personally don't need another kitchen gadget - let alone a $400 one.

My friend used to have a coffee maker that you filled with beans and it would drop in & grind one serving on demand. Seemed cool and was expensive. After using it while visiting for a week I can't imaging a IoT angle to it. I just put my cup under it and pressed "go"

Submission + - Inside the Glowing-Plant Startup That Just Gave up Its Quest (backchannel.com)

mirandakatz writes: Back in 2013, the internet was abuzz over a startup that promised Kickstarter backers that it would create a plant that could grow brightly enough to one day replace street lights. The Kickstarter raised half a million dollars, and the controversy was great enough that Kickstarter wound up banning all future synthetic biology projects. But Taxa Biotechnologies was never able to create that much-hyped glowing plant—and last night, they announced that they're officially giving up on the dream. At Backchannel, Signe Brewster has a deep dive into what went wrong, and why biohacking is still such a fraught, complex realm.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 344

Sure - show me the work - fair enough. There are lots of citations available - sorry this isn't wikipedia.

For example - Alan Alda covered this on Scientific American Frontiers when he visited the Ford driving simulator. Part of the show had him carrying out tasks while driving so that the viewer could get an idea of what distractions looks like.

It is known that the brain devotes more effort to listening to a phone call than listening to kids in the backseat. Probably because there's pressure to pay attention to the phone call where as you can ignore the children - or scream "shut up !!" at them...but not your boss on the phone.

An article from 2014 shows the same: https://www.scientificamerican...

This is an area of research. IBM even prototyped a driving assistant that could monitor the outside world and disable your phone to "turn down" the distraction level. Hey - talking on a quiet long straight country road vs rush-hour traffic in LA has a different impact-of-risk. Make a mistake in the country and...well probably nothing happens..maybe kill a bunny.

But that isn't the point of all of this -- it is distracted driving and people don't believe it or are willing to accept the risk.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 344

Unfortunately the scientific data does not agree with your opinion.

The issue isn't whether this is dangerous - science says it is. People want to take this risk. Heavy drinking will kill your liver - yet people still binge drink (and you might be surprised to find out how low # of drinks that defines binge). Don't eat sugar - most have a Mountain Dew in their hand right now. It doesn't matter that a Church van gets whacked by a texting driver and kills many -- not in my backyard.

No matter the number of studies telling of the risks - people will continue to believe that they are above average and that they can operate a cell phone while driving. Years ago I wondered how talking on the phone stacks up against "fiddling with radio, talking to passenger, eating snack" - and turns out talking on the phone is more dangerous for several reasons. One - your participant is not in the car with you. When talking to a passenger - they too can see a sticky situation coming up and will curb the conversation along with the driver. Also people tend to devote more focus on phone conversations than they would say...eating a snack.

IBM once put forward a system that could monitor the road, traffic density, and other attributes and plug that into the cell phone. Diverting calls to voice-mail if you had the brakes on, or heavy traffic etc. The more dangerous the situation and it would lock out external distractions.

Companies like Ford have tested this in their driving simulators. They know. My father has a GM with a navigation system that can't be operated while the car is in motion..... and I'll tell you what.. it is the most frustrating feature ever. I just pull out my phone or Garmin and think....why th' f* pay $1500 for a lousy nav system that you can't use.

Submission + - SPAM: Can Parents Sue If Their Kid Is Born With the 'Wrong' DNA?

randomErr writes: In a fascinating legal case out of Singapore, the country's Supreme Court ruled that this situation doesn't just constitute medical malpractice. The fertility clinic, the court recently ruled, must pay the parents 30% of upkeep costs for the child for a loss of 'genetic affinity.' In other words, the clinic must pay the parents' child support not only because they made a terrible medical mistake, but because the child didn't wind up with the right genes.

“It’s suggesting that the child itself has something wrong with it, genetically, and that it has monetary value attached to it,” Todd Kuiken, a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo. “They attached damages to the genetic makeup of the child, rather than the mistake. That’s the part that makes it uncomfortable. This can take you in all sort of fucked up directions.”

Comment one up - 64 oz of soda !!! (Score 1) 370

I went with my brother years ago. He wanted the "32oz bottomless cup of cola" for $1 more --- and managed to finish it before the previews were over. He ran out for his free refill - sat down and slowly drank it as the movie began.

He then missed most of the second half because he kept leaving to pee.

Lots of violations to that list: Cola in the Dark vs Focus. Plus I was disrupted and had to fill in plot details later.

Comment HTTPS vs VPN? (Score 1) 404

Given (assume for argument) that there is no proxy setup by ISPs --- what is the functional difference (related to privacy) between VPN & HTTPS? HTTP I get - but with DNSSec and SSL what information can be gleaned from HTTPS?

Yes - I know what a VPN is - use them everyday. But what I don't understand is....what info of value is leaked from HTTPS ? Simply DNS lookups? They can't see inside the stream. OR--- is the concern that a lot of sites & apps are still using HTTP such that there's enough value to be gathered?

My company uses a web proxy and require MiM certificates installed - allowing them to monitor everything. Plus- DNS doesn't work (nslookup www.google.com returns nothing)... however typing https://www.google.com/ works and the certificate is NOT Google. Seems that Chrome was changed recently so you can't see who the issuer is anymore.

Submission + - Why You Should Care About The Supreme Court Case On Toner Cartridges (consumerist.com)

rmdingler writes: A corporate squabble over printer toner cartridges doesn’t sound particularly glamorous, and the phrase “patent exhaustion” is probably already causing your eyes to glaze over. However, these otherwise boring topics are the crux of a Supreme Court case that will answer a question with far-reaching impact for all consumers: Can a company that sold you something use its patent on that product to control how you choose to use after you buy it?

Here’s the background: Lexmark makes printers. Printers need toner in order to print, and Lexmark also happens to sell toner.

Then there’s Impression Products, a third-party company makes and refills toner cartridges for use in printers, including Lexmark’s.

Comment Re:Bundle != Using It. (Score 1) 143

Fair point - I think it does matter though when carrier negotiations come up. The Cable company will claim that X million people watch (look at our subscriber data) and the Networks will claim Y actually watch.

Of course now that Xfinity can track what people actually watch they have the data. Of course in my house - my daughter presses the On button for the "box" to see the blue ring light up. So whatever channel is on is reported as watched for "24 hours" until I feel like turning it off.

She's a great MTBF tester... loves pressing the button on...off..on...off..on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...