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. ×

Submission + - Wired says Google's Pixel is the best phone on the market

swillden writes: The reviews on Google's Pixel phones are coming in, and they're overwhelmingly positive. Most call them the best Android phones available, and at least one says they're the best phones available, period.

Wired's reviewer says he used to recommend the iPhone to people, but now he says "You should get a Pixel." The Verge, says "these are easily the best Android phones you can buy." The Wall Street Journal calls the Pixel "the Android iPhone you've been waiting for." ComputerWorld says "It's Android at its best."

AndroidPolice is more restrained, calling it "A very good phone by Google." The NY Times broke from the rest, saying "the Pixel is, relatively speaking, mediocre", but I'm a little skeptical of a reviewer who can't figure out how to use a rear-mounted fingerprint scanner without using both hands. It makes me wonder if he's actually held one.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 439

Pretty much what I've observed as well. Have you seen the videos on this topic from Black Pigeon Speaks? They lay out how women mostly vote for security over liberty (which is just biology at work, security being more important for maximal offspring survival), and that this eventually erodes and curtails liberty. -- BPS doesn't just rant, he links documentation.

Comment Re:Your car is not your car (Score 1) 192

...and the "cloud" -- if it's in the "cloud", someone else owns it. Even when they tell you you own it.

It's not on your hardware, it's not on your software, it's not in your storage, it's not on your premises, and you have zero control over any of the actual foregoing locations / instances.

But hey, everyone, keep that cloud-ward stampede going. They love ya for it.

Comment Tesla has control (Score 1) 192

All they could do to stop you from doing is voiding your warranty.

Perhaps not. As I understand it, the car is connected in order to facilitate software upgrade / maintainance. So they could tell the car it couldn't drive the next time you parked it for ten minutes, for instance.

I imagine that would land them in court -- but technically speaking, they could do it.

Comment Re:Nintendo OFFICIALLY has left the "console" mark (Score 1) 175

Without knowing how much the Switch costs, let me assure you that it will be less than a "real" tablet.

How can you do that when it will likely cost at least as much as a typical tablet, because it will have faster graphics hardware? But at the same time, it will be poorly supported, because Tegra.

Comment Re:Contracts (Score 1) 192

You don't have to sign such an contract but Tesla doesn't have to sell you a car without such a contract.

I predict Tesla will be told in court that they can't enforce such a clause when they sell someone a car, even though there is an ongoing service component, specifically because they are competing and that would be anticompetitive.

Comment Re: Irony (Score 1) 70

They obviously know, but are legally forbidden from commenting.


I think people often forget that corporations are about the furthest thing possible from monolithic. It's entirely possible for one organization within a corporation to receive a request that is within its own ability and authority and to handle it without bothering to tell anyone else, or with only brief consultations with legal, who may not have kept any records. Given government secrecy requests/demands, that possibility grows even more likely. Further, corporations aren't static. They're constantly reorganized and even without reorgs people move around a lot, and even leave the company. There are some records of what people and organizations do, but they're usually scattered and almost never comprehensive.

It's entirely possible that they did something like this, that the system was installed and later removed, and that the only people who know about it have left the company or aren't speaking up because they were told at the time that they could never speak about it, and that the organization that was responsible for doing it and/or undoing it no longer even exists. It's possible that Yahoo's leadership's only option for finding out whether it happened is to scan old email to see if anyone discussed it via email (which may not have happened; see "government secrecy requests/demands") or to look in system configuration changleogs to find out if the system was ever deployed (and it may have been hidden under an innocuous-sounding name)... or to ask the government if the request was ever made.

Of course, my supposition here depends on a culture of cooperation with the government. I don't know if that existed at Yahoo. I think most of the major tech corporations at this point have a strong bias towards NON-cooperation, which would cause any request like this to go immediately to legal who would immediately notify the relevant C-level execs. But I have worked for corporations where the scenario I describe is totally plausible.

Comment Re:Election of 1968 (Score 1) 271

This was known to Johnson and the FBI at the time, who chose to do nothing.

I wonder why that is. Because after all, if

During the election of 1968, Johnson was trying to bring an end to the Vietnam war.

then Nixon's action would be in direct conflict with that objective, right? Did Johnson just no longer give a shit? Or did he hate Humphrey more than Nixon? Seems unlikely, since he endorsed Humphrey after pulling out. I'm just going to leave it at that, lest someone think I'm sticking up for Nixon.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI