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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment A piece about content... without content. (Score 3) 129

Either that article was very poorly written, or the author doesn't know what they're talking about. What, precisely, do they think is going to replace clicks? 'cause "passive scrolling" is pretty vague (and doesn't seem to me to meet the goal of advertising).

I also love the idea that Google Analytics made clicks popular. Because, y'know, this couldn't possibly have been a popular metric long before Google ever came on the scene...

I guess to the hipsters, the Internet starts with Google.

Comment Re:Easy answer (Score 2) 489

Depends on the perspective.

It's a lot like dating. The flashy appearance makes you drool so you buy in. It's only after you've had time to get over the initial euphoria that you realize exactly what you got yourself into...

The people who drive businesses want your buy-in; it's their sole reason for existing. They don't care if the product is actually any good.

Comment Re:You can stop funding the people that harm you. (Score 1) 146

In my view, having followed this from the beginning, Paramount's most likely motivation was to protect the consumers.

Couple of interesting points:
1. They never sued Renegades, even though they had highly recognizable names in it. And that's a completed movie, not an "in production" movie.
2. They never sued Horizon, another completed movie, and one that was leaps and bounds more watchable than Renegades IMO, especially given the minimal budget.

There is a lot of speculation that Peters has not put the 1.4 million dollars he raised toward the actual film, but instead toward various personal expenses, the construction of a studio intended for commercial use, and the lawsuit of course (pro bono isn't actually free). Donor money should not have gone to any of those things (though in the case of the studio, it could just be a case of poor judgement on his part; rental studios are a dime a dozen in Hollywood, and far cheaper than building your own).

Lo and behold, it's only Axanar they went after.

My guess? I think they were concerned about the Star Trek brand being associated with a con man. Do some research on Alec Peters; at best, you'll find a great many questions (even if you ignore the legitimate haters -- and there are FAR fewer of those than Peters himself would have you believe).

Comment Re:Goodbye, good movie (Score 2) 146

He didn't just copy the look and feel.

He took entire designs wholesale; Klingon ships, at least one Federation ship, etc.; he took the exact names of the fictional nations involved; he even used actual Star Trek screen-used costumes. But most damningly, he took at least one whole character for use in Axanar.

Interestingly, the character I'm referring to isn't from TOS, but rather from Enterprise, which is much more recent.

Comment Re:Systemd, WTF? (Score 1) 167

Add 'nofail' to your nfs mount options. Now your boot won't explode on failed NFS mounts.

Or at least, that's what fixed it for me.

Systemd as a concept isn't bad, but the current implementation (and the horrid naming of the command-line utilities) is barely tolerable, and strikes me as wholly untrustworthy. I'm also quite shocked that RedHat has let it consume so much (and especially non-init-related) tried and true functionality without giving previously consumed subsystems time to bake.

I'm currently a bit unhappy with the technical leadership at RedHat. A simple replacement for init would have been great, but the snowball effect with systemd makes me cringe.

Comment Re:MSJ (Score 1) 455

Apple was aware that the possibility existed. Apple was NOT aware of the specific driver being a douche.

There's also the fact that Texas does not have blanket "no phone while driving" laws at the state level. Some locales do, but not all. In some areas of Texas, it's perfectly legal to text (or do anything else on your phone) while driving. Stupid, yes, but legal. Each state in the Union, and, sometimes each city in each state, has different rules regarding this.

In order to respect those rules, Apple would suddenly be responsible for keeping track of the laws in every city and town in America. That's overly burdensome.

You can't have differing laws like that and then apply a stricter standard to the device manufacturer. Blaming the device manufacturer for a stupid use of the device is... stupid. It wasn't defective. It worked as advertised. That the user used it poorly is not, in ANY way, Apple's fault.

It sucks that a child died because the driver was a flaming moron, but that doesn't mean the manufacturer of an improperly used tool should be responsible for footing the bill. The driver, on the other hand, should have his wages garnished for life.

TL;DR: The fact that the technology exists and Apple was aware of it is irrelevant. Even the government can't yet agree that this should be prevented in every location in the US. Until they can, Apple shouldn't be held responsible for making a value judgement that's no different than the one the various lawmakers have made when considering this issue.

Comment Re:MSJ (Score 4, Informative) 455

It's bad law because, in the end, Apple had nothing to do with the accident. He could have just as easily been eating a Subway sandwich. Should Subway have been liable because the guy was a douche and their Sandwich bag lacked a mechanism to prevent him from eating it while driving?

To put it a more relevant way: car manufacturers have the technology to prevent rear-end crashes. Some production vehicles actually implement this (Infiniti has that system if memory serves). Automatic braking. This guy's car obviously didn't have it; the kid would still be alive if it did. Should they be able to sue the car manufacturer for leaving out a safety feature that the law doesn't mandate?

The law does not currently mandate that cell phone manufacturers prevent the use of cell phones while driving.

Now, if there was a legal mandate and Apple left it out, then that's a different thing, but that's not the situation. Apple broke no laws. Apple wasn't aware of the situation. It's well known by now that you shouldn't use a phone while driving, and they're not responsible for educating drivers on that fact. Nor are they responsible for dictating what their customers may or may not due with their technology.

Drivers are held solely accountable for the responsible operation of their vehicles. Apple was not operating the vehicle in any way, shape, or form. Sandwich or iPhone running facetime, the guy was being an idiot and should have known better. There is no excuse.

If this case succeeds, it paves the way for manufacturers to be sued for just about anything that goes wrong. This is not a sane thing. You may think it's okay because "Apple had the technology and should have implemented it," but you're not thinking about the precedent this would set.

We're talking about a body of resulting case law that would end up requiring manufacturers of ALL products to predict every possible misuse of their products, and actively prevent them, or end up the victims of every ambulance-chasing lawyer in the country (more than they already are). The patent is a red herring; well known technology exists to do lots of things, and the fact that it's patented is irrelevant. The manufacturers know about these technologies.

Forcing them to be responsible for their customer's sanity in such a situation is an unrealistic goal unless you want to destroy every hardware business in the United States.

Apple was not at fault. The driver was. The driver should be nailed to the wall for it, and passing blame won't help with that.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...