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

 



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:"...disabled by default." (Score 4, Interesting) 245

The exact same thing was said when Apple introduced Gatekeeper in mac OS Mountain Lion four years ago. The default when Mountain Lion* shipped was to allow apps from the App Store or signed apps from other sources, and it's still the default today. The blanket option to allow all apps and go unprotected is now hidden, but it can be re-enabled from the command line. And you can still override Gatekeeper for individual apps from at least three different interfaces (attempt to launch the app, then open the App Store prefpane; right-click the app in Finder; use spctl from the command line). As far as I'm concerned, that's all as it should be. It's still possible for a user to selectively bypass Gatekeeper, but it's harder to do so accidentally or globally.

(*: The back-port to Lion allowed all apps by default as a concession to users of old hardware that were left behind when Mountain Lion dropped support for 32-bit EFI.)

That's no guarantee that Microsoft will be as wise as Apple has been. Instead of code signing, Microsoft is encouraging developers to wrap Win32 apps in UWP containers so they can be published from the Windows Store, so probably not as wise. Closed-source OS developers aren't idiots, though. Apple and Microsoft both know that the "default walled garden on desktop" button is wired to the self-destruct system.

Comment Re:Yes, but it won't happen any time soon (Score 1) 120

Streep is an exception (and good for her if she can still pull in that kind of money.) Most actors don't pull in anything like that amount of money, and even those that are able to pull in six digits or, occasionally, seven, digits per movie do so usually knowing they have a shelf life, and that Hollywood will discard them when they get into their 30s. At that point, many know they'll be difficult to hire in any other professions, as they just devoted much of their lives to a single profession, and have no skills outside of that, and have fame as an added handicap.

20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much), and the right star can be the difference between a $60-250M movie (which is more the ballpark) either making a loss, or making an outrageous profit. The ticket price, which seems to have held steady at around $10 per adult for the last 20 years now, is what the market has determined is what people will pay, so that's not going to come down if studios were to cut actors salaries. So... why complain about this, specifically? If they're the ones making the movies profitable, and if the money's there, why not let them have a cut?

Comment Re:Time for USPS to sue him for defamation (Score -1, Troll) 150

USPS DID loose the package!

They they also lose your elementary school text books in transit right at that critical moment when your teacher was trying to get you to understand the difference between "loose" and "lose?"

the box was sitting in a Atlanta for over a month

Which was probably the same week when you'd have been learning about using "an" in front of words that start with vowels, though that still doesn't help that sentence make any more sense. An Atlanta what?

the recipient who's address is on the box

The recipient who is address on the box? Or did you mean "whose?"

It's getting pretty bad out there. It's a good thing people are spending thousands of dollars and hours reviving old 8-bit video games! Whew!

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 169

They're announcing this shortly before the Model 3 goes into production, which will be a mid-budget vehicle.

(Also worth noting: the AutoPilot++ or whatever it's called, the version that's supposedly SAE 5 level that'll be released before the end of the year, isn't free. It's an extra people will have to pay for. If you assume SDC technology will reduce accidents by 66%, and if regular insurance is $1000 a year, then they need to price this at around $3,000 assuming a normal average ten year lifespan of each vehicle. IIRC that was the ball park for the price for the SDC add-on they're going for, so this is quite believable. You're not paying for the technology - that's already paid for, you're buying insurance for the lifetime of the vehicle.

Comment Re:motivation (Score 1) 192

Yeah, he'll never get around, for example, to orders reducing regulatory burdens. Oh, right! Already done. Or any movement at all to start to undo the financial stranglehold that Obamacare has put onto people forced to fear IRS enforcement if they don't go broke buying insurance they can't use ... oh, right! Already done, with more under way. I guess we could run down the long list, but you already know it and you're pretending you don't so you can engage in more lefty denialism. Carry on! It obviously is your coping mechanism.

Comment Re:motivation (Score 1) 192

Hey, look! Somebody with reading comprehension and cognitive problems attempting to spin something in a childish way, and feeling smug! Which is exactly how the Democrats managed their last several elections, resulting in the loss of over 1000 legislative seats, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. But please, carry on! That would be awesome. Thanks.

Comment Just to add useful information (Score 5, Informative) 63

Alphabet are alleging they have specific evidence the former employee downloaded the designs to a laptop, which he then tried to wipe to hide any trace he'd done this. Alphabet are also alleging the same former employee actually bragged about what he was going to do before he did it.

So... assuming they're not lying, this is pretty much open and shut. I guess we'll find out over the next few weeks.

Comment Re:so non dealer service or not paying for softwar (Score 2) 247

Sometimes the user is at fault. Maybe that means not updating software. Maybe that means after-market software or hardware modifications. Maybe that means extreme neglect of maintenance leading to mechanical failure (which happens now with non-self driving cars), assuming that self-maintaining cars will be way off in the future.

Not only can this be out of the user's control, it should be. The car should be constantly monitoring itself, and the car - being self driven - is capable of driving itself to be serviced, or calling a tow truck if it isn't capable of driving, with core functionality disabled if the car detects a state that means it can't guarantee a safe journey.

There's absolutely no reason not to take this out of the hands of the car "owner". The car doesn't have to be capable of servicing itself, it just needs to be capable of getting qualified people to provide that servicing.

Comment Re:The owner should be liable (Score 1) 247

So in other words, you believe Truth in Advertising laws should be overturned? If someone advertises a car as self driving, the consumer should be on the hook for believing them?

If a car is self driving, the manufacturer is making a claim they should stand behind. The consumer shouldn't be blamed for a fault they could not possibly predict or know about.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 247

I'm not following. At worst, you'd expect the additional costs to be equal to, or less than (if the manufacturer believes their cars are less likely to get into an accident, or that the accidents will be lesser in cost, than a human car) to the cost of the liability insurance human-driven car owners pay.

So anyone looking at a self driving car vs a regular car will see a lower TCO, all other things being equal. In reality, right now the SDC will cost slightly more due to the cost of the actual driving equipment, but what we're looking at here is something that brings the cost down, not pushes it up.

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 195

It really depends on the algorithm. This is apparently about the type of language used, not the opinions expressed. If the algorithm mostly removes one word replies like "Fucktard", and leaves in place "I respectfully disagree with you that Mr Trump's policies will have the effect you describe", then, well, it's fine. What's the problem?

What I find interesting right now is that the word "Toxic" is used to describe the kinds of comments that'll be removed, and immediately rather a lot of people on Slashdot (not you) immediately assume it's anything that's anti-StrawJW.

Kinda tells you something about the people who use the term "SJW" to describe opponents of their own beliefs, doesn't it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Working...