Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Obama is to blame (Score 1) 1092

Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.

I think you desperately wish that to be true. Didn't the democrats have "the taco bowl"

No idea what you're talking about.

and didn't Clinton show up to meetings "on black people time"?

So Clinton is racist because SNL wrote a bad joke?

I have seen so many racist anti-Trump statements, supporters and actions than I have ever seen of Trump supporters.

I seriously don't even know what you're talking about.

Comment Re:Apple (Score 3, Informative) 249

Allow me to demonstrate under the latest macOS (10.12 / Sierra):

1) Go get the screensaver bundle.
2) Open the .dmg
3) Now, from the drawer with all the screen savers, drag out Pipes.saver to your desktop. It's perfectly safe. Double-click it to install it.

Here's what happens:

First, you get a dialog that says "can't install pipes screensaver" from preferences (preferences is what is normally started when you go to install a screen saver.)

Then, from the Apple menu or the prefs icon, you go to preferences / security, and there is no button. Just as I described. Pipes.saver is not installed. And prefs will not install it no matter how many times you try this. You can verify this is the case by going to Preferences, and then Desktop & Screen Saver, and looking at the list of available savers. Pipes.saver is not there.

Okay, so that's the OS install behavior as it stands today.

Now, take the Pipes.saver file, and drag it using Finder into ~/Library/Screen Savers

Now again, open preferences / Desktop & Screen Saver, and look at the list. There it is. If you choose it, it runs just fine.

This concludes our demo of macOS Sierra refusing to install working software from non-appstore vendors.

Comment Apple (Score 5, Insightful) 249

Apple's been boiling its frogs (sorry, I mean, customers) longer, and has moved from the ability to install any app you want, to the ability to install any app you want IF you set up preferences to allow it, to an inability to set up preferences to allow it, but if you try, a button appears (which you have to go into preferences to find) that may allow it (doesn't alway appear)...

They're one or two steps away from "app store only."

The frogs.... sorry, the customers... just one step from boiling now.

Interesting to see Microsoft begin to turn up the heat.

I guess pretty much everyone's a frog now.

Customer. I meant customer.

Comment Re:A case study in overexpansion (Score 1) 316

"The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers."

Monopoly cities are by definition cities in which it's illegal to compete with taxi companies that have been granted status. Therefore no local startups, but if a major company like Uber can become well-liked by both customers and drivers elsewhere, voters in monopoly cities will demand change.

By that definition many of the cities in which Uber is currently deployed are "monopoly cities". It doesn't mean they can't operate, it means that they're vulnerable to fines, their drivers are sometimes ticketed, and they might even get court orders against them. But they often still find ways to operate.

Uber's problem is the regulator is more likely to look the other way for the local start-up, or they're going to make a hole in the regulations that allows the local company to compete but bans Uber. These kind of actions might be challenged in court, but to do that Uber needs to go into those markets and fight them.

I'm not saying that's the only valid strategy, they certainly could try to be the nice guy and only go where they could play completely by the rules, but I'm not sure that's the optimal strategy for their business model. And given their rep as a company I'm not sure they can ever really clean up their image.

Comment Re:A case study in overexpansion (Score 3, Insightful) 316

If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.

The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers.

If you don't have a presence in that market users are going to flock to the local start-up and one of those start-ups might take off and become your main competitor. Uber has a bit of a paper empire, all they really have is their network and mind-share, and ride-sharing apps are a natural monopoly in the same sense as social networks. They're trying to establish their monopoly so they become the Facebook and not the Myspace.

Comment Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score 4, Insightful) 316

Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.

Yeah, the self-driving car focus is odd, I'm sure there's opportunities for some cool AI managing the Uber fleet, but they've never distinguished themselves as an elite R&D company. They'd be a big consumer of self-driving cars but I don't see them as a manufacturer.

I really think they're in a situation where they have too much VC money and don't know what to do with it. Their fundamental issue is how to turn their network profitable before the traditional Taxi companies are able to get their own app out there.

Comment Re:Were they ever in it? (Score 1) 126

Perhaps this is just my perception but I've always thought the plan was to develop the technology and then license it to car manufacturers. Did anyone honestly think that some technology companies were actually going to manufacture entire cars without any experience in the field of manufacturing let alone automotive manufacturing?

I'd classify Tesla as a tech company and they're certainly giving it a go.

I think Apple might have gone for it if Steve Jobs was still around, I think he would be a lot more aggressive in entering new product categories, and car sales are fundamentally about style and marketing, Jobs' strong suit.

It would be very tough to break in but a company like Apple has enough cash to make a bet, note they wouldn't be going head-to-head in dealerships but would aim for the luxury market where margins are higher and they don't need a big footprint.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1092

This is just plain wrong. You should read/watch the news. Land wars, the kind fought with rifles like the ones you say are useless, still make up and decide 99% of armed conflicts. You think because drones entered the scene everything is magic hollywood effects? We blast and just send in soldiers to hand out food?

Don't be so daft. You are the one that is wrong, and the numbers show it.
How about you go tell ISIS how futile a rifle is, meanwhile they're about to seize a landmass a quarter the size of Europe.

Once an armed conflict starts weapons are easy to come by. ISIS is actually a great example of what I'm talking about.

Their origin in Iraq is unusual as they were part of a long-term insurgency partially made up of a former standing army, once you have a violent conflict it's always easy to get more guns into the country (and they got a lot of US military hardware Iraqi troops left behind as they fled).

But in Syria Assad did two things when the Arab spring started, first he started torturing and committing outrages to turn the protests violent, and second, he released all the extremists from his jails. He was faced with peaceful protests and he worked hard to create a violent Islamic insurgency, the reasoning being that while lots of people wanted the peaceful protester to take power no one wanted the Islamists in charge.

It's exactly what I'm talking about, authoritarians want an internal threat so they can be the lesser of two evils, so Assad created that threat.

In the US, if you hate Muslims and want to take away their rights the first thing you want to do is get as many guns as you can into their hands. Inevitably a few of them will use them and you'll have the public outrage to do whatever you want.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.

Working...