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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I couldn't moderate this appropriately... (Score 1) 76

They're introducing the new Note 7 battery technology so the phones can be remote immolated if you carry them out.

What moderation is the intersection between "Funny" and "Flamebait, but in a funny way"?

No idea, but I'm quite sure that easily-stolen iPhones with remote immolation technology would count as "flamebait".

Comment Re:Two nations separated by common fantasy (Score 2) 108

"Two nations separated by common fantasy"

Well, except for the fact that Trump quite openly and repeatedly said the first, whereas May not only never acknowledged- let alone "admitted" the truth of- the "story" and certainly hasn't come close to saying anything like the second quote even allowing for paraphrasing... but also that the only "evidence" that this might even be the case is an unsubstantiated article that speculates on some vague connection between Hinkley Point and Trident without explaining clearly how that might work (i.e. how the overlap between the two projects is supposed to work- i.e. how does research and work at Hinkley Point benefit the rather different Trident programme- and also, how exactly are they going to do this without the Chinese finding out about it?)

That said, something *does* stink quite badly about Hinkley Point C; at face value, the Tories are funding it this way to avoid being seen to be increasing public borrowing for purely dogmatic reasons, ultimately costing the public and taxpayer a lot more, and involving China in Britain's energy supply. But that's Tory hypocrisy all over for you, and entirely plausible in itself.

Comment Re:Too small (Score 1) 105

Quantum of Solace, however, was (presumably accidentally) actually appropriately named - when do you actually see Bond have any solace in that movie?

The title would imply that he was getting the smallest possible amount, but that would still be more than none. Anyway, I'm not sure that this doesn't count as a quantum of "solace", if not a lot more. :-)

Anyway, yeah. The title of the film was a bit of a contrivance (especially given the criminal organisation was apparently called Quantum), given that it was taken from an entirely different short story by Fleming that only had the character of Bond in common and wasn't even really about him per se; but in which context the title made complete sense.

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

your OP made it clear that you were intending your comment as disparagement towards Apple

If you view the accusation of Apple's advice being self-serving as "disparagement", then this was already clearly implied in the original comment, then clearly (and explicitly) spelled out for you in my previous comments!

And you ad hominem attack against me, based on my username, confirms exactly that

Your original comment already smacked of defensive fanboyism before I'd even noticed your username or taken a look at any of your other comments (#); that simply confirmed it for me.

If you'd come across as an otherwise neutral observer with an Apple-related username, you'd have had a point; but this wasn't the case.

You seem to think that "ad hominem" is a universal retort to anyone noting your username; it's not. If it was being used to shut down an unarguably true and factually correct point, you might have a case. However, if one is simply using it as evidence that you're an Apple fan and that this may be reflected in matters of judgement and viewpoint, it's quite legitimate.

Now you claim that makes Apple no better than other OEMs. Conversely, however, it makes them no worse.

Don't think I was suggesting otherwise. If Sony had done something similar and we'd been discussing that, I'd have been equally happy to accuse them of being self-serving in the same manner.

Your problem is (I'm guessing) that- like a lot of fans of anything- you view everything in terms of pro- or anti- your favourite whatever, and assume that everyone else is arguing in terms of that mentality. Hence, criticism of Apple is attack specifically on Apple.

Nope. As far as the point being discussed here is concerned, they're just another corporation- albeit one that is both financially successful and good at getting talked about- exhibiting typical corporate behaviour.

(#) And having done that, I suspected that you might accuse me too of an "ad hominem" attack. I was correct.

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

What would you expect them, or indeed any OEM, to say?

Er, I think you missed the point being made. That's precisely what I *would* have expected them to say, because it was in their own interest. Hence the quote.

Or perhaps your problem was with my implication that the motive was driven by their own self-interest, rather than pure, selfless concern for their users? Well, yeah.

Of course, by adding "or indeed any OEM", you're implying that this is an attack/persecution specifically towards Apple and that I'm biased. Nope; doubt I'm any more partisan than someone with the username "macs4all", and I'm sure that most similar corporations in Apple's position would have come up with a similarly self-serving answer. Doesn't make Apple any better than them, though.

Comment Okay, I'm lost now... (Score 2) 57

Am I the only person who's starting to lose track of who owns the rights to what after Nokia sold off its phone business to Microsoft?

I was under the impression that the right to use the "Nokia" name (which MS got the right to after buying the phone division) was due to expire after some time (#) and that was why MS were phasing it out.

The previous story linked in the summary seems to imply that MS sold off the ex-Nokia feature phone business to FIH, but they're still apparently making feature phones as "new Nokia phones" [my emphasis]

Yet Nokia itself announced it was licensing its name to a (different) manufactuer- HMD Global for similar purposes.

So what's going on? Does MS still own the name- or have a license to it- for smartphone and tablet use. Or has Nokia got it back? I can't see either party signing an agreement that would let them both use it for competing products in the same field (i.e. phones and tablets) at the same time; that sounds unworkable.

(#) This seems to be fairly typical when another company Y buys out X's widget division; they get the right to use X's name for a while (and presumably a non-compete from X, not that X is usually concerned with re-entering the field they've just left). I assume (for example) this is why the "Samsung" M3 external USB hard drives have been rebranded as "Maxtor" but remained otherwise identical- Seagate (who have long owned the Maxtor brand) bought out Samsung's HDD business a while back.

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 1) 153

It's one of dozens of cheap Coronation Street crossover shows and they've all done that. The Doctor Who one from way back was unwatchable despite the cast.

Are you thinking of the Doctor Who / EastEnders crossover they did to "celebrate" the 30th anniversary in 1993? That was eye-gougingly bad.

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 2) 387

The sad truth for those people is going to be that using third-party unsupported ink cartridges that HP did not sign for makes your guarantee vaporize.

Does it? I very much doubt that would stand in the EU, and even in the US I would assume that it's possibly covered by the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act...?

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 1) 387

HP used to be a great company, maybe the best, 20+ years ago. Reliable, innovative, well designed and manufactured. Then the PC came...

Bear in mind that they spun off the lab/test equipment division- which the company was founded on and which much of its early business was directed towards- as Agilent in 1999, and also that it merged with Compaq in 2002.

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 1) 387

"Back in the day" HP made excellent hardware. I was using HP test gear in 1970 and there was very little that could touch it. This modern company has gone to the dogs.

Bear in mind that the test equipment division- which the business was originally built on- was spun off as Agilent in 1999, and that the current HP Inc. is one of the two companies remaining after the 2015 split (albeit the one closer to HP's origins and early days than the more service-oriented Hewlett Packard Enterprise), having also merged with Compaq in 2002.

You can decide for yourself how much continuity there is with the original company.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker