Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:I believe you've already found tge problem. (Score 1) 533

This is the problem with your analog headphone jack -- there's no vendor lock-in possible! This grievous error must be stopped.

Apple almost had this going on with the original iPhone... And what could Apple do? ... Apple can make money without lifting a finger now... I can't wait to hear how Apple spins this as being a good thing at the next iPhone announcement in a few months here.

Yeah, Apple sure are horr- wait, what was the summary?

In the Android camp, phones like Lenovo's Moto Z and Moto Z Force and China's LeEco have already scrapped the 3.5mm headphone jack; to listen to music on the company's three latest phones, users need to plug in USB Type-C headphones, go wireless, or use a dongle.

So, Apple has done nothing yet, while Lenovo and LeEco have, and yet all you rant about is how terrible Apple is, and not them. So, which is it: hypocrite, or Android propagandist?

Comment Re:because it's universal (Score 1) 533

That's exactly the problem. The companies want proprietary. Hell, this goes back the earliest Macs, with their unique mouse, keyboard, and printer ports, and their scuzzy drive connectors..

SCSI, or the small computer system interface, was a set of standards created by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), not Apple. You want a unique port? Look at PS/2, created specifically by and for IBM and IBM-compatibles.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 268

Except of course that before "marriage equality" was imposed by the courts many states were passing domestic partnership laws. Domestic partnership laws solved all of those issues.

Except of course that the case that "imposed" marriage equality, Obergefell v. Hodges, invalidated a statute that barred domestic partnerships:

Ohio Rev. Code 3101.01(C)(3):
The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio.

So, no. Stop trying to rewrite history, and particularly history from just last year.

Comment "First of three.. no fatalities" = FUD (Score 5, Interesting) 166

In response to the third reported Autopilot crash, which was the first of three where there were no fatalities

The first crash in Florida was the guy who got killed going under the truck while watching his DVD.
The second crash was a gallery owner in Detroit and he and his passenger survived without any injuries .
The third crash - the one apparently without autopilot - hit a guard rail in Montana. "The two occupants walked away without major injuries."

I don't know why this "fatalities in two crashes" myth is so pernicious. It was also falsely claimed in this Slashdot story on the third crash last Monday. But all of the linked articles are absolutely clear that there's been only one fatality, so it's not like the various submitters are just getting bad information from the media. Instead, the Subbys appear to be making up the second fatality out of nothing.

A more skeptical person than me would wonder if someone shorted TSLA.

Comment *Two* of which? (Score 5, Informative) 297

Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities

The first one was the guy watching the DVD who went under the truck. Or at least, all of him below the neck did. Fatality!
The second one was in Michigan, and the driver "survived a rollover crash."
This is the third one, and "the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip."

That's one fatality, Subby. These are your own links and summary. We expect you to read them, even if none of the posters or editors here do.

Comment Re:Experience with Government & Police Compute (Score 5, Insightful) 393

I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.

Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?

You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.

All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.

A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?

The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!

I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".

I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:

It's about respect not about an officers authority.

Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.

Comment Re:Suicide by politician (Score 2) 1010

Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."

Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.

Look up CIA Director John Deutch.

Comment Re:Prison for this not likely for anyone (Score 2) 1010


There isn't even an entry for people who were sent to prison for being careless about top secret security clearance.

The most likely occurrence for being sloppy would be a reprimand and extra training classes.

People are prosecuted for intentionally releasing top secret material to enemies or to the public.

People are not prosecuted for being careless or incorrectly configured servers.

It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here. They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.

In December 1996, CIA Director John Deutch resigned after it was discovered that he had stored highly classified documents on his home computer, which was connected to the Internet.
After a criminal investigation, Deutch agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and pay a $5,000 fine. But before the prosecutors could file the papers in federal court, President Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office.

Comment Simple economics (Score 1) 359

Star Trek has replicators and limitless power. At that point, everyone is effectively a billionaire, so concepts like poverty and hunger disappear. Instead, "wealth" is gained through recognition, military rank, etc.

Star Wars is a more realistic and traditional economy, albeit a very large one. Hence, there's an aristocracy, a middle class, a lower class, etc.

Comment Re:Fuel ?!? (Score 1) 265

especially on fue

I know I'm repeating myself from the thread about Oasis-class ocean liner, but... How come this kind of mega-ship is powered by burning fuel ?!

Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.

I agree with your query, but not your conclusion - I'd go the other direction. These are giant transoceanic ships, and the economics of capacity and costs are much more important than speed... So let's see a return to multi-masted schooners.

Comment Re:News for Nerds? (Score 1) 301

This is the kind of stuff that belongs on tmz. The saddest part (other than it making it to /.) is that a bunch of other renowned journalists praised the original article about trump's hairpiece.

The article discusses alleged copyright infringement for publishing a threatening cease and desist letter online. That seems right up the alley for yro.slashdot.org.

Comment Re:Yeah, right... (Score 1) 173

"this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something."

But TSDF isn't implying that they are going to release a copy of the full script, which would be a copyright violation, but rather the simple name of a character. If, per Twin Peaks, they don't accompany that with substantial verbatim excepts from the script, then it is quite likely that the release of a name would be be fair use (if the publication of a characters name would even violate copyright at all, which if it didn't wouldn't even need a a fair use exception)

For copyright purposes, yes... However, it would still be misappropriation of trade secrets, which has no fair use defense, and is just as illegal.

Comment Re:Yeah, right... (Score 2) 173

According to Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use summary (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/) that Twin Peaks case might not be the precedent they say it is.

Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)

(emphasis added)

It may be... FTA:

“AMC is aware that The Spoiling Dead Fans site is promoting your claim that you have received copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead,” the letter begins. “You also state that you plan to distribute this purported highly confidential information despite your knowledge that such distribution, if the information is indeed accurate, is unauthorized and will greatly damage AMC, distributors of The Walking Dead as well as Walking Dead fans awaiting the new seasons’ release who wish to watch their favorite show unspoiled.”

While we can't know for certain without seeing the letter and/or what the Spoiling Dead folks claim to have received, this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.

Many gravitists treat the existence of gravity like a fact just just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, gravitists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.

So, is believing in gravity a religion? Or might religion require some of those "religious practices"?

Slashdot Top Deals

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"