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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment You'll survive (Score 1) 376

That will also prevent people on the bus from using their cell phones. I hate distracted driving too, but yours isn't an acceptable solution.

So what? Somehow the world survived for thousands of years without having people use smartphones on buses. It's amazing how entitled people get. I assure you you would survive the experience of not being able to use every feature of your phone for a few minutes. Furthermore there would be nothing preventing you from using a wifi enabled device like a tablet on a bus. It just means you aren't going to be texting or making phone calls while the vehicle is in motion. The point is to keep people from making calls and texting and similar activity while in motion.

I reject the premise that your right to play with your phone is more important than the right of people to travel without fear of dying because some idiot cannot pull off the road to send a text message. If you have a better solution to keep people from literally causing deaths then I'm all ears. Right now forced disabling during transit seems to be the only solution that would actually work. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution but I have yet to hear any other solution that would actually fix the problem.

Oh and I have no illusion that this will become a reality. I'm just pointing out that forced compliance is the only solution that would actually work. I don't see it actually happening.

Comment Only one solution (Score 4, Interesting) 376

If every car had by default some good way to mount a cell phone there would not be nearly so much distraction, since you could see the road and not have eyes diverted to the side for notifications or what have you.

There have been numerous studies showing that mounting the phone or even having hands free operation still results in unacceptable levels of distracted driving. And having a mount doesn't force people to use it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again even though it's not popular. The ONLY way to eliminate the problem is for the smartphones to utilize their tracking abilities and to cease most functioning aside from a few items like 911 calls and GPS when it shows you to be in a car traveling down a road. Since it is impossible to determine who the driver is then it would have to apply to everyone. Yes this will limit passengers use too and that's simply going to have to be a trade off to be made for safety. Exceptions can be made for properly designated first responders. There is no other technology nor any law that I'm aware of that will otherwise adequately mitigate the problem. If you have a better idea I'm all ears but as draconian as it sounds I think it's the only way to force people to be safer.

Comment USB-C is a Good Thing (Score 1) 313

No, but it would be nice to keep it around alongside the new and unproven interface until that new interface becomes proven. We're talking about the (still) ubiquitious USB-A port, here, not some dead-end technology we've been trying to get away ffor years. Well, maybe some people have been trying, but even they seem to agree that jumping to USB-C before it was proven was a mistake.

Again, this is not a problem with USB-C. This is a problem with Apple's product design. Separate issues and nothing in either case that won't resolve itself with time.

USB-A (and B) is widespread but it was a badly designed connector and IS a dead end design. The power transmission in USB-C alone makes it a massive improvement. Yes it's reasonable to argue Apple got a little ahead of themselves but that doesn't mean their design instinct was wrong - just premature. They probably just should have waited one or two product generations. But the move to USB-C is a good one and I applaud them trying to move it along, however clumsily.

USB-A (and B) never had these problems, USB-C does, primarily because it's trying to be more than just USB.

Yes USB-A did have many teething problems similar to USB-C when it was first introduced. It also was a LOT simpler in its initial incarnations so there was less to go wrong. It took quite a while for drivers and other parts of the ecosystem to become sufficiently robust. I remember having all sorts of problems with USB hubs nearly identical to the issues in this article relating to USB-C. Heck I still have a few old pieces of hardware that I haven't bothered to dispose of yet that still don't play nice with USB hubs even today.

Yes, USB-C is a huge step forward... to a time I recall before USB-A took hold. If you're over 30 and remember that time as well, and still think USB-C is a net win, you'll be the first I've met.

I'm closer to 50 than to 30 and yes USB-C is a Good Thing and in my opinion replacing USB-A with USB-C cannot happen fast enough for me. It will take a few years but it's completely worth the trouble in the long run.

Comment This has little to do with Apple (Score 1) 313

Yeah, that's right. Fuck You, for removing every proven interface off your latest hardware and replacing it with this proprietary crap.

What "proprietary crap" are you talking about? USB-C may have issues but it isn't proprietary anymore than previous versions of USB. And I'm not remotely interested in going back to 25 position D-Subs or other crappy serial bus interfaces from days of yore. Just because an interface is "proven" doesn't mean it is necessary. And just because it is "proven" doesn't mean we should be stuck with it for the rest of eternity. I'm not advocating removing interfaces that are necessary/useful currently for no good reason, but I am saying that compromising a product to remain compatible with dead end technology is a bad idea when it can be reasonably avoided.

I wish this kind of fucking courage would spell the demise of such stupidity, but chances are Apple's particular flavor of ignorant Greed will force them to double-down on proprietary interface bullshit to maximize revenue streams.

The problems with USB-C are not specific to Apple so I don't really get the point of your bile towards Apple here. Not saying Apple doesn't deserve criticism but let's save it for when it has something actually to do with Apple. If you don't like Apple products then buy something else that suits you. They aren't the only game in town by a long shot.

Comment Re:Android updates suck (Score 1) 135

>"If you're nerdy enough, you could get one that satisfies everything but no crapware, and put the Android build of your choice on it."

I have given it serious consideration but it seems there was always something majorly wrong- either it would break Netflix or break TiVo, or was missing the Google apps, or was too dangerous, or required a lot of maintenance, etc. And if it was a NEW device, it would void the warranty, which is just too risky on a $400-$800 device.

I suppose I will have to do SOMETHING eventually. Sigh.

Comment Re: Does anyone else suspect... (Score 1) 126

Between 1998, when parts of the NetScape source were release, and 2004, when Firefox was first released, all that existed were "parts of NetScape".

You couldn't build crap, unless you were a NetScape employee, and then you could only build the full suite.

It's one of the reasons Jamie Zawinski bailed.

That's six years during which it was an unbuildable heap of crap.

This is the same problem both Solaris, and Darwin, faced as nominally "Open Source" projects.

Comment Re:What percentage of Android will be patched (Score 1) 135

>"The problem is ultimately one of vendors. In the security and core OS the issue is long solved."

My point in all this was the original statement about back-porting it to Android 6. Even Google won't update their own Nexus devices running Android 6 [with other bug and security fixes], so why would any other vendor? Now, I say that, but I suppose it is POSSIBLE Google might update older devices running 6... I don't think we have had a security concern of this magnitude in recent history, so I guess we just wait and see. In this particular case, it wouldn't be difficult to develop and deliver a tiny patch a single driver to devices to which they already have access.

Of course the big issue is going beyond Google's own devices, and that really is a major problem when we hit something like this.

>"But all in all you're still talking about a single device. "

Not really. I not only do I have Nexus 5 running Android 6, I have a Nexus 10 also running Android 6. :)

Comment Re:What percentage of Android will be patched (Score 1) 135

>"Not sure why you're quoting version numbers instead of manufacturer support. This isn't iOS. Most security fixes are backported to earlier versions of Android"

Even that doesn't help much as an explanation, either. I am one of the 50% that have Android 6.0.1, but it is on a Nexus 5. Google hasn't pushed a single OS update since Dec 2016, and likely never will. So I won't matter if they push it to older versions of Android, because I still won't get it, even on Google's own device.

Comment Re:Android updates suck (Score 1) 135

>"Maybe. I believe the media exploit from a year or two ago on Android was patched on phones assumed abandoned by OEMs. "Budget buyers, no-name brands, etc are most likely going to be hacked constantly until..."

What about Google's OWN DEVICES? I have a Nexus 5 which I bought in Feb 2014 when they were still very new. I haven't had a single update since Dec 2016. The phone works fine, it does what I want, but it will never be patched.

I don't expect updates forever, but mine didn't even get updates for 3 years from when I bought it. And it was a flagship AND a brand name. I haven't found a single phone I could replace it with that is Android, 5", no vendor crapware/mods, works on any carrier, has a headphone jack, 64+GB, and supports wireless charging. Still waiting. :(

Comment Insider knowledge (Score 1) 173

Scorsese is not saying only film history majors should be allowed to criticise his work, he is decrying that the movie-reviwing scene is now dominated by people with very little knowledge about movie making and cinema in general, and that good movies are being panned by those people.

That is exactly what he is saying. He is arguing that film review should be dominated by people who know a lot about film making which is a snobby and false argument. Knowledge of film history and cinema is largely irrelevant to determining whether or not someone likes a movie. The primary purpose of film review is to communicate to lay people whether or not they might enjoy a film and find it worth spending their money to see it. A deep knowledge of film history or how movies are made is not necessary to serve that role. Understanding how something was made doesn't matter at all to the vast majority of movie goers. That's just inside baseball among film buffs. Most people just want to be entertained and Scorsese seems to have forgotten that fact.

In fact, he wasn't even defending his own film, he was defending a film called "Mother!", directed by Darren Aronofsky.

It doesn't matter whose work he was defending.

Comment Film review (Score 1) 173

Of course it is relevant. A good film critic should not only tell you whether a film is worth seeing, but can tell you why, and what other films you might enjoy if you enjoy this one (or what films succeed where this one fails).

You don't need to a deep knowledge of film history to know why a film is worth seeing any more than you need to be a professional musician to know if you like a piece of music. You merely need to be able to watch the movie and articulate your feelings about it. Being able to recommend other films is fine and all but again it's not really relevant. If I'm considering seeing a movie in a theater today, I don't really give a shit if I would be interesting in some other movie from 20 years ago. I want to know if it is worth spending the money to go to the theater TODAY. A degree in film history is completely NOT required to make that evaluation. I don't need to know where in the pantheon of film history this film resides in 99.999% of cases. I just want to know if I'll be entertained and feel like I got good value for money spent. Any additional information is bonus but unnecessary.

Haven't you ever heard about what happens to those who ignore history?

If the movie is shit then history was already ignored long before I got involved.

Comment Must be a joke (Score 3, Insightful) 118

>"giving officers the ability to zoom over congested traffic conditions by taking to the air...

Insanely unsafe to have that thing go OVER cars and people. 4 unprotected rotors? One operator error or equipment malfunction and it can chop people or things to bits or just fall out of the air like a 500 pound rock.

>"The fully-electric hoverbike stays aloft for about 25 minutes per charge"

And then you have to get back to the charger, so that is an outward range of what, 12.5 miles?? And it probably can only carry a single person with minimal equipment, right?

Is this a joke?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"

Working...