Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

Ahh, then no, not that specific, you are still allowed the use of a "Hands-free accessory" which they define as "an attachment or built-in feature for or an addition to a mobile communication device, whether or not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, that when used allows a person to maintain both hands on the steering wheel."... which at least allows for say... a bluetooth connection to your car, which at first I thought you are prevented from, it not being a 'head set'.

Granted, you still aren't trusted to pump your own gas, so there are stranger things.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

Calls are permitted with a headset only.

Is the law actually written that specific? Here in WA, the wording prohibits holding the phone to your ear... which means you putting it on speaker phone and holding it in front of your face is perfectly legal. Just be careful hiding it down on your lap, because if the cop sees you looking down there too much you are going to get pulled over for texting.

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

Nope. All evidence shows that it is the conversation on the phone that is dangerous.


It doesn't matter if you are doing it handfree or holding the phone in your hand.


Having a conversation with a remote person takes 80% of your concentrations and increases your chance of having an accident 100 times.

And what % of your concentration does a local person have?

At least with a remote person, whether you are holding your phone to your ear or both hands on the wheel and speaker phone, you are not as tempted to look at the person, be they next to you or behind you.

"But the local person can see the situation around you and stop taking your attention when the situation warrants" I've often heard... most of those people I suspect don't have children, or chatty friends, or the ability to stop listening to what is coming in their ear when their full attention is needed on the road.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 0) 344

What surprises me is that they need a study to tell this.

How else are researchers going to get money to fund pet research projects?

At every red light, you can see at least 1/2 driver looking at their phone.

Which seems a good bit safer there then when in motion and they would be less obvious, same reason I'll dig for a dropped toy and hand it back to my son when at a light, rather than when in motion.

Best way to catch them: cops in buses to spot them

And if you are too stupid not to be aware of your surroundings when breaking that particular law, you probably deserve the ticket.

And best way to deter them: higher ticket price.

Who says the fines are intended to deter?

Here in Washington state, you texing or holding your phone to your ear will get you a small fine, but the infraction does not get reported to your insurance company, nor does it count against the points on your license as say... speeding or failing to stop completely at a stop sign will (let alone DUI or running a red light).

It's as if, it's more of an aesthetically driven revenue generator, rather than one intended to decrease talking/texting and increase road safety.

Comment Re:M$ wouldn't let devs recompile Win32 apps for A (Score 1) 206

Isn't that called... side-loading and/or Cydia?

Just last month I finally gave up on Windows Phone/Mobile, having been on it since it was first available on my carrier at the time and am now carrying an Android device running 7.2.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount of access I now have to so many little nooks and crannys of the API set on my phone, as well as how well built apps can work together to keep me & my data safe.

One of my biggest laments on Windows Phone (aside from it being abandoned long ago) was that despite (eventually) having a good chunk of Win32 under the hood, as a developer I couldn't touch the fun stuff (even for my own side loaded app) without getting some magic pixie dust from Microsoft which they only give to very select partners, while on Android & iOS, there are many more options.

The disturbing thing to me is that such capabilities also exist through the official app store, where apps can (and do) ask for far more permissions than they need, and each time I hope I click the right side of the screen to not give away too much.

I would argue that of the three... none have it fully right... but each have pieces. Android gives you all of the power out of the box, but at great risk to the owner. Apple gives you no power without jailbreaking, and private 'trusted' deployment relies only on the Enterprise Developer Program... while Windows Phone has package compatibility with tablets & desktops (now), as well as a freaking camera button.

Comment Re:M$ wouldn't let devs recompile Win32 apps for A (Score 1) 206

Did you ever wonder *why* this was?

Like it or not, Windows RT was pretty damn secure (I know a couple folks who only use those devices (and nothing else) for online banking), the fact that only MS signed code code run eliminated the risk of entire classes of malware.

At the time, the only way to ensure 3rd party was limited with regards to what it could do was to run within the rather limited sandbox of WinRT, now though, out of a bit of desperation I expect of people not wanting to write full fledged native UWP apps for Windows, they pushed their 'bridges'. The Android one seems to have gone away, iOS -> UWP has worked for a while, and one of these months I'll get around to trying 'Project Centennial' which allows the packaging of regular Win32 apps into a form which can be distributed/updated through their store, but also has some of the same safety benefits of Windows RT.

Comment Re:Who cares (Score 4, Insightful) 296

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

My drill instructor gave me some useful advice about thirty years ago: if someone says they want to kill you, you should take them seriously. Let's keep in mind that since the late 1950's North Korea has been militant, aggressive, threatening, and destabilizing no matter who was in the White House. Various administrations have tried various sticks and various carrots to get them to change all to no avail. If the Norks are afraid of external animosity they only have themselves to blame.

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

And why is such a monopoly present? Two main reasons:

1. It is economically unfeasible for anyone to bring you service other than the existing provider who is piggybacking on prior infrastructure. In this case, you chose a poor place to live. It's not the fault of the company or the taxpayer that it would cost $10 million in fiber to service 100 rural customers and they won't do it because there's no reasonable return on investment. If you don't like it, nobody is putting a gun to your head saying you have to stay there. Some people move because they want more land, or less traffic, or better climate. Internet service is no different.

2. Local politicians protect the monopoly in return for campaign contributions. Vote the fuckers out, problem solves itself.

Comment Re:The game is too one-sided (Score 1) 423

And nothing of value would be lost.

According to you and your set of values. It's rather arrogant of you to foist those on others.

Yes, plenty of "free" works can and do exist. None exist in any form at a scale equivalent to larger projects with correspondingly larger value (value also being subjective but I'm speaking in generic terms). Suffice to say, there are amazing creative works that contribute to society in ways that could not be practically accomplished in a "free" manner.

If "free" were the rule instead of the exception there would be no market for paid content in a capitalist open-market society. That there is demonstrates your conclusion is not correct.

Comment Re:Committing crime != convicted (Score 0) 384

If you assume criminality for a population you will catch more people from that group in suspicious circumstances, since you know that they are more suspicious.

You could get the exact same results if -- gasp! -- the group in question was actually committing more crimes on average. And FBI crime statistics compiled under the Obama (a minority) administration and under the leadership of Eric Holder (a minority) bear this out. But since you find the conclusion distasteful you disregard it and drum up some completely unsubstantiated conclusion that says it's not that minorities commit more crimes, it's widespread institutional racism in the police and justice system. Never mind minorities are over-represented in the police and have solid representation in the justice system and it's been that way for decades. Never mind this country and its "institutional racism" elected a biracial President twice with solid majorities. Nope, it's got to be racism. That racism has to be widespread and overt to cause the massive bias you cite, but it also has to be subtle and hidden because our PC society tolerates nothing and no one that even hints at bias. This complete and utter contradiction deters you not in the slightest, does it?

Since the black population in America is poorer than the white population, and poorer people are more likely to end up committing crimes anyway, you are asking the black population to behave not just a bit but lots and lots better than the white population would in the same circumstances. As a reward for this you offer only the same treatment they should already be receiving. lovely chap, aren't you.

Now who's being racist? You're claiming that blacks -- who tend to be poor -- shouldn't be expected to live up to the same standards of justice as everyone else, and if they do, they should somehow get more benefits from being law-abiding than whites. And this complete and utter contradiction deters you not in the slightest, does it?

SJW's. If you didn't have double standards you'd have none at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_