Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score 1) 246

By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.

"Not disabling" isn't the same as "enabling".
More importantly, the bigger point is that Consumer Reports dismissed the fact that battery tests with Chrome on the Macbook were both consistent and long with "we use the default browser on the operating system" as a justification for not updating their review, but now we find out that they also modify the default browser from its default mode... something they didn't report at the time.

So, which is it, default or not? They can have it both ways if they report all of the details of their tests, but they can't simply say "we always use the default (except when we don't)" while retaining any sort of credibility. The fact that they refused to repeat the tests with witnesses present, and now we find out that they changed an additional variable without telling anyone means that we can't trust them, at least until they've built that credibility back up from scratch.

Comment Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump (Score 1) 734

Some things we do know: John Podesta had an extremely insecure password, and that's how his email leaked.

Although I agree with the rest of your points, this one is only partly correct. Podesta had an extremely insecure password, but that's not how his email leaked. It wasn't brute forced or anything - he got a phishing email, his IT guy said "that's legitimate, you should totally click it," and he did and entered his password. He could've had the most complex password in the world and he still would've given it away.

Comment Re:This is fucking awesome (Score 1) 455

I did not realize that. No need to be a complete dick about it.

Sorry, I was trying to be nice. As I said, it was in my earlier post.

It's yet another design flaw in our patent system.. patents are a type of intellectual property, and patent rights are usually analogized to property rights. If I own have the deed for my house free and clear, it means I have complete control over my house (notwithstanding laws)... not just that I can keep other people off, but I have positive control over it as well. You're saying patents are negative only. That totally runs counter to the common understanding of it.

Nope, and with all due respect, you may misunderstand your property rights over your house. Your deed gives you the right to exclude others from your land - same as a patent allows one to exclude others from their invention. Your deed, however, does not give you the right to, say, operate a business in a residential zone; or build a tower beyond height limits; or freely tap into water lines running under the property; or practice nude sunbathing on your front lawn; or start a sweatshop, etc., etc.

Specifically, property rights in real estate are frequently discussed as a bundle of rights, with the right to exclude others being prime. There's also a right to quiet enjoyment and right of control that come in with real property, but that's a result of the fact that real property is physical... someone cannot be on the same land without intruding on your land... By contrast, with intellectual property, one can freely occupy the same idea without intruding on your right to enjoy your idea. Like, if you have a house and I park my car on your lawn, you can't enjoy your lawn. If you have an idea for something and I too think of that idea, I'm not diminishing your enjoyment of it except through your loss of exclusivity, unlike real property. Accordingly, the only real right that attaches in intellectual property is the exclusive right.

Comment Re:This is fucking awesome (Score 1) 455

Do you mean "ability" instead of "right?" Because Apple does have the right to build a lockout system.

Says who? If they can't build that lockout system without infringing someone else's patent, then no, they do not have the right to build it. I repeat, having a patent doesn't give you the right to manufacture something, it only gives you the right to exclude others from manufacturing, using, selling, or importing. That's it. You can stop others, but that doesn't automatically mean no one can stop you.

And if they lack the ability, is the patent valid? Are you saying I can patent something I don't actually know how to do and then if someone figures it out I can prevent them from doing it?

Nope. Go back and read my post. Come back if you're still having difficulties.

Comment Re:This is fucking awesome (Score 3) 455

This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters.
Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.

Except, no, a patent does not give you the right to manufacture something. It's a right to exclude others from manufacturing your invention (or selling, or using, or importing it). For example, say I get a patent on a chair - seat, 4 legs, and a back. I can sue you if you make a chair. But can I make one? What if some AC has a patent on a stool - seat, 4 legs? I can't build chairs without infringing his patent. So my patent doesn't give me a right to make anything.

Apple's patent doesn't give it a right to make a lockout system, just prevent others from doing so - not that they've done such. So, no, the family has no claim whatsoever. This is just a money grab by some lawyer who thinks he can make headlines to extort a big settlement.

Comment Re:Rape by fraud? (Score -1, Troll) 215

Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.

So when I take a girl home from a bar and fuck her, only to wake up the next day and find the makeup, pushup bra, high heels were all part of a fraud, and my princess is actually a monster can I claim rape?

No, because you're desperate enough that you'd still have banged the monster, so there was no fraud.

Comment Re:Revolutionary! (Score 1) 73

If only someone else had thought of a way to use magnets to attach things to your ear! This is courage taken to a new level, we're talking iCourage levels here...

That's my thinking too - how in hell could a patent ever be granted for this, given such obvious prior art? The fact that a company would even be bothered to apply for such a patent is proof positive that the patent system is horribly broken. But then, everybody here already knew that.

It's not a patent, it's a patent application. Your outrage is misplaced, but oddly ironic considering you're complaining about the patent system's ignorance, without actually knowing what you're talking about.

Second, they're not simply claiming a magnet connected to something for your ear, but a very specific implementation. But realizing that requires reading the application, and again, you thought it was a patent, so... yeah.

Third, even aside from that, there are some obvious difficulties incorporating a strong magnet next to (i) an aural transducer that requires (wait for it) a magnet to function, and (ii) a Bluetooth antenna that requires (wait for it) a stable EM field to function. Simply gluing a magnet to your Bluetooth earbuds is likely not going to work well.

Disclaimer: while I haven't looked into this particular patent beyond the above info, I'm an audio engineer, former exec of a chapter of the Audio Engineering Society, and a patent attorney who regularly deals with earbud design.

Comment Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score 1) 268

The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.

It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.

Except that CR ran the tests with Chrome and the battery life was both long and consistent. So, no, it couldn't be that the battery life is actually inconsistent - there's nothing wrong with the hardware, and it's a software issue, probably due to some caching behavior. So, there's either a flaw in Safari, or a flaw in their testing software. But they won't reveal details about the latter.

On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.

There isn't - apparently, some people did think it was confusing to have the estimated time remaining go up when your usage goes down. Hey, people are stupid - don't ascribe to malice what may be adequately explained by idiocy.

Comment Re:What that tells me (Score 1) 268

Problem with disclosing your full test protocol is it tends to result in producers making their item specially tuned to look good for your protocol--while still being bad in actual use.

OTOH, if you don't disclose it, then it's no more reputable than Rossi's E-Cat or any other "you just have to trust me that it works" test.

Comment Re:What that tells me (Score 1) 268

The customer is not your QA lab. CR ran their tests, and saw what they saw.

Then why haven't they disclosed the full test protocol so that Apple could repeat it? If I test your product, publish a review saying it catches fire, and never mention that my test protocol was throwing it on a fire, are you really to blame? And is my excuse that I'm not your QA lab at all reasonable?

Comment Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score 1) 268

It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.

In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.

They're getting inconsistent results here, so either there's a flaw in the test, or there's a very intermittent issue. And given that (i) CR hasn't disclosed their full test protocol, and (ii) CR apparently did a second test using Chrome on the Mac and got consistently high results (ruling out hardware issues), there are very good reasons to suggest there's a flaw in the test.

Comment Re:Rape by fraud? (Score 2, Informative) 215

I'm not sure how fraud can possibly apply to sex unless there is a quid pro quo involved in the sex, in which case it's not consensual sex but prostitution, sex in exchange for something.

Well, you see, when a boy and a girl wuv each other vewwy much, sometimes, they want to have sex. And they both decide, mutually, to do so. This is what's called "consent". Without "consent", it's illegal. If there's fraud, then the consent is void. Void means that it's legally "not there". So if there's fraud, there's no consent, and if there's no consent, they can't has legal sex.


Most of the plausible situations which might involve "fraud" seem to center around therapists or other medical practitioners who claim that sex is somehow necessary for treatment, and that's already covered by laws regulating professional conduct or the inherent coercive relationship involved.

"Sorry, that wasn't rape with a punishment of 15-to-life, that was professional misconduct, which means, uh... we remove his license for a year or two? Lolz."

I think a good number of women would LIKE it to be rape if a sex partner who says he cares for them and then turns out not to, but of course how would you handle the cases where a man decided he didn't like you AFTER having sex?

This is really very simple. When something occurs AFTER, then it doesn't travel back in time to BEFORE. When you have sex, you need consent then. If you have consent then, then "regret" the next day is irrelevant. But the consent has to be legally valid. So if it was obtained fraudulently, there is no consent. So don't have sex without real, honest, legal consent.

If this is at all difficult for you to understand, you're not mature enough to have sex.

Comment Re:Rape by fraud? (Score 1) 215

Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.

You didn't answer the question.

The (rhetorical) question was "I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?" I explained how fraud removes consent, and so sex-by-fraud is sex-without-consent.

Besides, sex is not a contract. Sex is an action.

So is punching you in the face. But I still need your consent to a boxing match or I've committed battery.

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "fraudulent sex".

Legally speaking, you're wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong