Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Can Uber really make money at this? (Score 1) 122

Why would you want to own a self-driving car if self-driving taxis make the experience of hailing one comparable? Unless you actually like driving (I do), looking for parking (I don't), taking the thing in for service and fill-ups (nobody does), and paying for insurance (anybody?).

Comment Re: So essentially test rides with passengers (Score 1) 122

They don't need to outlaw human drivers. If self-driving, hailable vehicles become widespread, far fewer people (vanishingly few?) will bother owning cars themselves - at least in locations well served by the Ubers. Why deal with expense, maintenence, insurance, parking, etc. once you can have a more convenient experience hailing a robot? Especially if competition brings the price of hailing a robot down.

Comment Re:U.S. profits too??? (Score 1) 174

And none of those 4000 people are involved in generating intellectual property - for which the Irish company collects the tax-free royalties. Nobody said Apple doesn't have a real office in Ireland - just that that office is being credited for revenues it didn't really produce. That's the game.

Comment Re:Prepare for deluge of stupid (Score 4, Insightful) 481

I think the greenhouse effect is a lot more straightforward - and well understood - than the effects of various foods on health. Even the 'massive scientific cockup' in the area of nutritional science validates the scientific method - in that if new evidence proves it wrong, that new evidence is accepted and added to the body of knowledge.

Nothing about the dynamics of climate change has been disproven. Yes, we don't know how fast it's happening and what the exact results will be, but to deny that it's happening is nonsense. There is such a thing as denialism. The most clear-cut cases are the ones where deep-pocketed interests have a stake in the denial - like the tobacco/lung cancer example. Certainly, corporate money pouring into unsuccessful attempts to counter scientific research would be a red flag, no?

Comment Re:Is Microsoft really the one to give orders? (Score 1) 171

The problem with considering that a problem for anyone but Microsoft is that the market for PC's has gravitated to those 'race to the bottom' cheap machines.

Except for those niche Alienware gamers, most people treat their PC's more or less like 'Chromebooks that can run MS Office when I need it'. That's why Microsoft is developing their new 'Cloud OS' thingy that essentially does the same thing. But the high-end PC has become a niche that most people don't need. And the vast market is spending their bucks on a new $800 iPhone or Samsung device every two years.

Comment Re:What in the blue hell are you talking about (Score 1) 834

That assumes all those visas go to skilled workers not simply intended to work as go-betweens between American product designers and offshore cheap workers. That particular skill should be exempted from the H1B program entirely. Those are anti-workers - as opposite of an American workforce as you could imagine.

Comment Re:Whoosh... (Score 1) 333

Solyndra was a bet that went bad. Among a bunch of other alternative energy bets that did a lot better, and on the whole, we're a lot farther along on the road to alternative energy cost parity than we would've been had none of those bets been made.

Cherry-picking Solyndra as an excuse to claim all Democratic investments are cronyism is kind of like holding up George Soros as an excuse to claim that this one rich guy is pulling all the strings on the left - when in fact, the right has Solyndras and Soroses by the score...

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 564

What was she 'getting away with' - dare I ask? You seem to assume there were incriminating documents that she 'destroyed' by hitting the 'delete' button on her email account. And yes, she had her IT guy use a tool to 'really delete' them. So what? There is zero evidence that there was anything 'immoral, deceitful, reprehensible or unconscionable' in those deleted emails - beyond your assumption that because she's Hillary Clinton, there has to be.

The fact that the obvious, fairly innocent, explanation makes a whole lot of sense doesn't even merit mention to you. But picture yourself with lots of political enemies just waiting for an excuse to subpoena your email account in search of potentially embarrassing stuff to use against you. You'd want the ability to hit Delete and have it matter too. Again, her deleting stuff from her personal server does not delete it from the State Department's records - if it was department business originating - or ending up - on department accounts. Is it possible that she was hiding something consequential? Sure. Is there any evidence of that? No. Evidence of opportunity is not evidence. That's why she wasn't prosecuted. And y'know what. She shouldn't even have been investigated, since the investigation was about Benghazi, and her role in it was well known. She lobbied for limited aid in toppling Quadaffi, and bad things happened afterward. Not illegal things. That's it.

Comment Re:liar (Score 4, Insightful) 564

By the way, the whole "[X] Derangement Syndrome" meme is another of those false equivalencies the right loves to trot out.

People upset about Bush lying us into war, declaring he had a mandate after losing the popular vote (and yes, barring some botched Broward County ballots, the Florida vote too), etc. are not 'deranged'. They're upset about something real.

People upset about Obama being elected president despite being black (or because of a bogus question about his place of birth) are deranged, in the sense that they are creating or latching on to falsehoods to justify their feelings. People that think Obamacare is a 'job-killing disaster' (despite a steady pace of job creation), but who think the Affordable Care Act is a good thing that we should keep are blindly parroting stuff they don't understand, and to the extent they have strong feelings about it, that can be reasonably called 'derangement' as well.

People upset about Trump are upset about a president who lies constantly, shows no sense of respect for the truth, and insists on punking the public and the media with outrageous statements rather than acting like a President. It's not 'deranged' to be upset about those things. If he starts acting like a responsible leader, this will likely quiet down. But he has shown no indication that he will.

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 564

There's no evidence that Clinton engaged in anything criminal either. Just because you want her behavior to be criminal doesn't make it so. It's been looked at and determined not to be.

And yes, there's plenty of evidence Trump did engage in criminal stuff. He settled the Trump University fraud case for $25 million, and still has plenty of other lawsuits pending.

Comment Re:liar (Score 4, Interesting) 564

The proof of their partisanship is the timing of their releases. Assange pretty much declared that he was releasing stuff in dribs and drabs to keep the flow of anti-Clinton stuff more or less constant. That's not 'release the information and let the chips fall where they may'. That's agenda-driven media manipulation. Who knows what Assange's actual agenda is - but he most certainly has shown that he's agenda driven, and that agenda included harming Clinton or helping Trump or both. Whether he cares about Russia and Putin one way or another is a different point - and he hasn't revealed anything about that yet...

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 564

And it's not just that the exposure was applied only to one side. It's also that it was strategically timed for maximum damage and/or to distract from other exposures of stuff about the other side. This wasn't making information freely available - it was partisan media manipulation, in cahoots with (or at least, in the best super-PAC tradition, in sync with) a particular party.

Comment Re:Price has other factors (Score 1) 91

that updates are guaranteed for at least two years from the sale date

Who out there thinks 2 years is enough? If people keep using these things after 2 years, then they'd better get updates. I think 3-4 years is a more reasonable lifespan for a phone these days. At some point, of course, they're going to stop getting updates - and maybe they should lose their ability to connect to the internet at that point. But having them become disposable after 2 years makes them a lot less of a bargain.

That said, many of today's flagship phones don't provide much better support - in many cases worse. But that's no excuse for making Android One insecure and/or disposable. The whole point of Android One is to make sure that there's a secure alternative at the low end - rather than the utter crap that's being sold into that market now.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson