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


Forgot your password?
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 It was bound to happen... (Score 1) 594

...sooner or later. Let's face it, Tesla is doing much better than you might think, given the short amount of time they've been in existence. They're very high profile, and Musk has a lot of money. That alone is enough to attract the inevitable parasites.

As to the claims that this worker is a UAW shill, he may be, or he may not. UAW certainly is not going to own it, nor will he, if this is true. He could simply be a disgruntled worker upset over X condition, and failing to make headway with local management, he is proceeding along his legally available options (rather than doing the easier thing and voting with his feet). HOWEVER, that's giving him and the UAW both a great deal of benefit of the doubt. It is entirely within the scope of union practises to use shills and other underhanded dealings (political donations, anyone?) to get what their leadership wants. It is completely plausible that he is, in fact, on the UAW's payroll. This has been the case longer than most of you posters have been alive.

Unions may have had their time and place once, but it sure as hell has passed them by. Nowadays, they exist to enrich their leadership, and keep their mediocre to piss-poor members employed, at the expense and on the backs of their members who actually give a shit about their job and perform well. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and thanks to crooked leadership raiding the pension fund for personal gain, that's all I'll get for time served.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, anyway. Popcorn anyone?

Comment Ironic (Score 1) 28

Firstly, that the Tor browser has not, according to this article, been sandboxed from the outset. Given the nature of the beast, you'd think this would have been a design consideration from the get-go.

Secondly, that we have an explanation of a sandbox in the summary of the article, as well as the linked article. Wherefore art thou, /.? Thy news is more fit for PHB than BOFH.

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

My viewpoint is that if you can't operate you vehicle safely while making limited use of your smartphone, you can't operate it safely while not using your smartphone.

This. So very much this. Mind you I'm a huge proponent of hands-free, but the overwhelming point is that if you are unable to drive safely without both hands on the wheel, you are unable to drive safely at all. Cars and other motorized vehicles do have more control inputs than just the steering, accelerator and brakes.

Comment Re:Not so ridiculous (Score 1) 408

I'm not surprised they are collecting that sort of information, at that detail level, for a feature which is in beta testing/still under development. How else are they going to get the level of in-the-field information needed to work out the kinks? Now, if they were to store all of that information from purchase to whenever, indexed by owner, and so on, that might get creepy, but again, in this day and age of litigation for everything, it might be prudent to defend against lawsuits (they don't want to be another Toyota).

User Journal

Journal Journal: Almost 2015

I'm surprised at a few things.

1. This site is still here.
2. I am still on this site.

TAFN, etc.

Comment Good for Google, etc. (Score 1) 341

Good on Google to attempt to combat rampant bad manners using their tech. Unfortunately I don't think it'll work. Tact and social graces have been dead since long before Google even existed

Bad to all you brain-dead cave dwellers who are so damn hung up on this piece of tech somehow taking your picture that you think physical violence is ok. Here's a news flash for you bright sparks:

1. Nobody in the public sphere gives a fuck about you. Not me, not them, not anybody. Don't believe me? Go walk down a sidewalk in Manhattan and start randomly complaining to passers by about oh, cameras or something.

2. You're already on quite a few cameras, whether you're in public or on private property. Lots of them are manned by underpaid staff whose only bright spot to the day is uploading footage they find amusing to social media sites.

3. You assaulting someone who happens to possess a piece of hardware you don't like does, in fact, make you a criminal in a whole lot of jurisdictions. As opposed to your glass wearing nemesis, whose mere inclusion of you in the background of his photo of something else is either not typically culpable, or at the most a slap on the wrist.

I personally have a use case that I'd like to try Glass out for. It does involve wearing them in public. However, I do possess sufficient tact to remove them when interacting with someone. Were I to be assaulted for possessing them, or threatened with such, my response would be very much the same as to an attempted mugger. Being that I do reside in a country with rather widespread firearms ownership, engaging in this sort of self expression could earn you a well deserved perforation.

So far it seems as if the number of assholes wearing Glass are vastly outnumbered by the assholes who consider physically assaulting someone for such to be acceptable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees