Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Not people: It's a computer problem (Score 1) 394

So the day they make your particular fetish or recreational substance / entertainment / political stance / religion / etc. a crime...

You're an optimist, and overstating the safety and benevolence of this program. Quit sugar-coating it, you apologist! ;-)

Peoples' fetish, substance, etc is already illegal, somewhere. And since no government (including UK) has shown itself to have the ability to store things securely (it's almost as though they employ people), it is reasonable to assume the data is (or eventually will be) globally available.

UK citizens aren't just making a decision to totally and completely trust trust their own government forever. They are also deciding that they already fully trust the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Saudi government, criminals, etc and that they will always be able to trust those parties.

UK is declaring that this is one big happy world without any adversarial relationships, and that "security" is a totally obsolete concept.

Comment Re:And even here they don't know how it works (Score 1) 291

I think people are inferring too much heavy-handedness.

Look at it this way: Airplane mode successfully restricts radio use while airborne, because it is enabled by the user.

(See what I did there?) Correct operation is defined as the computer doing whatever the user wants it to do. The user is in charge of balancing convenience with desire-to-not-be-a-dick, so he'll select what is most appropriate for his needs.

Airplane mode works! It's great. It's one of the best, most successful, easily-understood interfaces we have. You damn well know that in the early days, there was a discussion where some absolute fuckwit at the table said, "We'll need an altimeter, or maybe just use the GPS..." and he was cut off by the genius who said, "Wait, we already have checkboxes and menus and stuff. Why are you making this setting difficult, mister fuckwit?" and that UI battle was won, decisively, forever.

Driving mode can be like that.

Comment Re:Block everyone or the driver? (Score 1) 291

You need to think of this as a UI guideline, not a gun pointed at someone's face. A quasi-standard, not a regulation (even though it might be coming from regulators).

If done correctly, a user will select the best mode, not to save their life, but to maximize their own convenience. People do want to interact with their device when they're driving, and this isn't even a mistake. The problem is that the best UI when you're not driving, is a horrible UI when you are driving, and probably vice-versa.

Depending on how software authors adopt the setting, it might be:

Voice control when driving, otherwise stop listening and making incorrect inferences when I'm not driving.

Display to HUD when driving, display to screen when not.

STFU about trivial nonsense notifications when driving. Bombard me with a bunch of shit that I'm finally capable of handling now, when not driving.

"Blocking" things doesn't necessarily mean it's something you do to the user; it's something you do for the user because they've requested it as a matter of convenience. That's the key to doing this right.

Comment Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score 1) 534

No, you (and a bunch of other people, it seems) just don't understand him. He's taking the responsibility. When he says "I can't" that's just his way of saying that he disagrees strongly that Snowden should be pardoned.

He's a piece of shit, but at least he's admitting it. I thought some people were being stupid, but the more of you who come forward, the more I think you're just not familiar with how he speaks. "I can't" is the way some people express "I won't, because I think I shouldn't."

Comment Re:Scary! (Score 1) 74

How else is the machine meant to know how you want to interact with it?

The "classical" web experience was that the user was always, and easily, aware that there wasn't "the" machine, but two machines: the browser and the server. And you were only interacting with someone else's computer who serves their interests over yours, when you request a page, submit a form, etc.

Web 2.0 is that the browser runs javascript and therefore your own computer is their agent, using your electricity and hardware on their behalf, sometimes in direct conflict with your own interests. That might be pretty freaky to a time traveller from the 1990s or early 21st century. 1995 Guy would be laughing, "There's no way people are going to tolerate that." Decades later, many of us still think of our computers as ours and might not remember (*) that the modern web-browsing experience is very compromising.

(*) Or maybe a more accurate way to put it, is that we're living in denial.

Comment Re:Show us the data (Score 1) 232

And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

No, it's why the stories have influence, which is important. I give zero fucks about anyone's measurements of the influence itself.

You can frame it as a problem with a particular website, or you can frame it as people-enjoy-lying-and-being-lied-to. IMHO the former is worthless way of looking at things, and the latter gets us closer to diagnosis.

Comment Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

Again: you obviously don't like being called out as a liar, and are just digging yourself into a deeper hole by spinning more lies to try to justify it. If you don't want to be called a liar, then stop lying. If you actually meant "He said this, which would have such-and-such a result", then say it. Don't lie about what someone says or does, and then throw a temper tantrum when someone calls you on it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...