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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Absurd fear (Score 1) 87

"Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so..."

As long as you get to define "pro model" and "plenty of ports" then sure. We all know how SuperKendall would define these things.

Of course, the topic was Macs, not just Mac notebooks, and the current "Mac Pro" is the very definition of "not plenty of ports" unless all you want is USB and Thunderbolt. No PCIe slots, no drive bays, limited internal storage, no graphics upgradeability. It's a "pro model", though, so I'm sure you say it's "plenty". You have a long history of defining need by what Apple does.

"There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users."

No, except this isn't at all descriptive of Apple and their Mac line generally speaking.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 124

If you do this for a living then I suspect you don't make a very good living.

This isn't for commercial enterprises to bring product to market nor does this burden anyone with losing "precious months" getting an OS running nor is the processor in this inherently "vastly under-powered" nor does $5 dollars of BOM cost translate only into $5 in product cost. None of your points indicate that you understand what a "viable business plan" is.

No one is late to the IoT party yet. It's not clear there's even going to be one.

Comment Re:Wait... Who got that other half of the $$$ rais (Score 1) 33

"Should donors care that the ALS challenge was a little high on the cost-to-raise-a-dollar metric? Well, I look at it this way. People did it because it was fun and for a good cause, and two years later we can point to concrete and significant scientific results from the money raised. That's not only pretty good, it's pretty damned awesome."

Don't let the otherwise informative post persuade you, donors should always care about the overhead costs of the charities they support. Just because an activity is "fun" does not excuse it from excesses and wastefulness. If people truly want to make a difference they should expect efforts be applied to progress, not enrichment.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 150

"Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime..."

You are assuming that the transaction is money laundering when that condition has not been met.

"...is the very definition of Accessory after the fact."

It's the "very definition"!?! Who's being "extremely naive or stupid" now.

"His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime."

You are completely off the deep end here.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 150

"To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid."

No it wouldn't, but regardless it wouldn't make you a money launderer.

"but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away"

Some more hand waving. Profits?

"For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder."

Just for example ;)

If you loaned your friend some cash to buy gas for his car and he subsequently drove 30 mph over the speed limit (a felony) then you "could be charged" with that felony. Sounds reasonable. How dare you promote the endangerment of the public!

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 150

I think you missed the point.

"... was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers."

The assumption here by detectives was that merely claiming the proceeds would be used for illegal activity made the transaction money laundering.

Comment Re:A rational answer to Black Lives Matters (Score 1) 609

"> 4. How many laws were violated by the Dallas Police Department using a robot and an explosive device to kill a man?

Probably none. Police have the right to kill threats, this man was clearly a threat."

We are all threats depending on perspective. Police don't "have the right" to kill any more than anyone else does. While situations where lethal force are legally justified exist, that's different than "having the right" and police aren't special in this regard.

"This man" was clearly a threat but that's not the standard. Was he an imminent threat? If you have to pilot an RC robot with an indiscriminate killing device on it to get to him, it's really hard to claim "imminent". He may have been a bad man but that doesn't mean he wasn't murdered.

Comment Re:Major Colvin (Score 1) 983

Needs to be modded more insightful.

I find the phrase "...but then they had no option..." most telling when it comes to the use of lethal force. It's right out of a poorly written TV show.

There are always options, particularly in this day where there are more non-lethal capabilities than ever. If only police view non-lethal options useful for something other than torture and power tripping.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.