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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Apple gonna Apple (Score -1) 58

You do realize you don't accumulate wealth by giving it away for no gain, right?

You can be an ignorant SJW all you want but it just makes you look stupid.

People (and companies) accumulate wealth by NOT giving it away, as best as possible. Thats kind of what most for-profit cooperation are required to do based on their charter (not all, but certainly most)

Comment Re:Kinda defeats the purpose (Score -1) 152

The up side is that the F-16s are actually combat capable aircraft that can kick the shit out of the F-35 and pretty much every other fighter on the planet without breaking a sweat.

One really has to wonder why the F-35 is even there at all. A smaller, faster, harder to hit drone could relay data far better than a big ass expensive F-35 with a person in it.

Park a predator in the area, use it for your eyes and ears, remote control the Falcons ... no need for the ridiculously built POS known as the F-35.

Comment Re:Why does Qualcomm care about Apple perf decisio (Score -1) 92

This isn't the main claim of the lawsuit, though. Qualcomm is alleging Apple interfered with Qualcomm's patent licensing contracts with manufacturers (like Foxconn, Wistron, Pegatron) by encouraging them not to pay the full royalties Qualcomm asks for and not to comply with independent royalty audits. Apple is alleging that Qualcomm's royalty licensing practices are anticompetitive. It'll all go on for years.

Not really, they've pretty much already been found guilty of price fixing and fraud in their own country, the whole world knows they're lying cheating scumbags at this point. Judges are unlikely to be too lenient

Comment Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc (Score -1) 199

This is just the new slashdot ownership pushing clickbait headlines.

This has already been discussed on slashdot in this very exact sensationalizing and WRONG way in the past. And, just like you and everyone else on this article, its clearly done because of the fingerprint/secure enclave stuff.

Comment Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely (Score -1, Interesting) 286

Mythbusters does less science than the catholic church.

They couldn't have possibly tested what happens unless they were moving the aircraft at several hundred miles of air and openned a hole in the side which, due to the forward movement of the aircraft and the wind passing this new opening at a higher rate of speed than the surrounding air ... would have created a low pressure situations with strong winds that will 'suck' things right out of the aircraft. (Actually, they're blown out, vacuum doesn't pull anything, pressure on the other side pushes it).

Bernoulli described the physical processes doing this about 300 years ago now ... but hey, you're right, Jamie knows all about real science!


Also, don't let several confirmed cases of it happening in real aircraft incidents sway you either.

Oh and by the way, the sun is purple because Mythbusters said so.

Comment Re:Discount != paying you. (Score -1) 90

FedEx is not paying anyone to install flash. Instead, they are offering a $5 discount. There is a huge difference.

On top of that, its offered as compensation for making you deal with the fact that you have to install flash. It seems a lot more like them saying:

'yea, this sucks that we have to ask you to do this, so heres a discount to kinda make up for it, we're really sorry :('

Which also sounds like they recognize that flash isn't what they should be doing and likely have at least a few people who are trying to remedy the problem.

But hey, the headline is WAY more clickbait-ready than if they had used "discount" instead of "pay you"

Comment Re:Trying to draw the specification for this or no (Score -1) 151

Yea, all that is great ... But I'm just going to compromise one of the poorly written apps that access the data . . . Or shove bamboo springs under your finger and toe nails until you log me in and show me the data I want.

You've neither prevented state sponsored activity or script kiddie automated scans ... But your system is now really complex and likely to fail more often! Yay!

Comment Re:Pray I don't change it again (Score -1) 149

In this particular case, this 'rule' is not new, its been part of the rules since the app store was created, so before you spew some bullshit about 'change', keep in mind the people doing this have ALWAYS been violating the app store agreement.

The only difference here is that Apple now has a method to detect it, so they can enforce the rule easier.

Why bother knowing what the rules are when you can just do whatever you want and have a free-for-all like the Windows world, because thats AWESOME!

I do it because it makes me money hand over fist and because the rules aren't really that bad and do a lot of good to protect my grandma and grandpa from themselves.

Not getting rejected or yanked from the app store is trivial, the rules are well known, the only time this shit makes it in the news is when some dumbfuck like you goes off and rants about how apple is horrible for changing the rules or some other bullshit that is completely untrue and just shows your ignorance of the subject being discussed.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn