Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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 Bloated POS (Score 1) 138

It was a combination of the facts that Adobe didn't have good lawyers and that there weren't neophobic executive types at Apple that could force us to keep using it. I mean that's why Java and Flash stuck around on the browser for so long. Before Steve Jobs was like "hell fuck no" to client side Java and Flash, the browser makers had zero guts to take on the legal and perceived market share ramifications of saying no.

Remember when Microsoft tried to ditch Java they got sued:

Yeah so I think Steve Jobs did have a huge role in eating rid of Flash. It was a bold move that started the chain reaction. Basically he showed that you can be successful without it. If anyone at Chrome, I.E., or Firefox would have suggested getting rid of Flash they would have been told by executives that Flash was a leading and popular technology that a lot of people depended on for ads and games and even corporate intranet applications. It sucks, but we do have to give Steve Jobs and the unknown Apple engineer who probably pitched it to him credit where it's due, Flash would still be around if Apple hadn't told Adobe to fuck off.

Comment Re: While its not my cup of tea (Score 5, Interesting) 624

It's fantasy role play. It doesn't mean they actually believe or would act in real life on that stuff. At least I hope not. Not all of them anyway. My guess is if there isn't allowed to be a controlled outlet for a person's needs it would fester until they can't control it. We need people to be able to quasi-experience their harmless fantasies without repercussions or harming others. Where that is not possible we have to provide them with mental health services. Otherwise their brains may scramble even more and they may end up doing something harmful not just to themselves but to others. Hey it sucks but there isn't any other option.

Comment Re: Why not? (Score 1) 131

The get-tough on crime comically macho idiots are usually the first ones to commit a crime if they were in a circumstance where they needed to and felt they could get away with it. Tablets are really cheap nowadays. My only concern is that the Lithium Ion batteries could be dangerous. I think the highest priority for prison is cameras with audio and night vision capability everywhere inside including aimed at the cell (when they need privacy they could have a small designated area in the cell that is out of the camera field of view. Also, the footage and audio from in-cell cameras should be archived such that only a search warrant issued by a judge can retrieve them. This provides some level of privacy in the cell while being able to investigate inmate on inmate or guard on inmate violence. Prisoners should not have a total expectation of privacy.

Comment Efficiency is useless. (Score -1) 133

Cost is everything. Unless these panels are to be installed in Manhattan or on a satellite efficiency is not much help. If efficiency goes up 2x and cost goes up 10x is that any use? No.

On the other hand if efficiency goes down 2x but cost reduces by 10x we could put solar panels out in the desert and get good use out of it.

Comment Manually? (Score 1) 50

Why does it need you to remember to manually mark your spot? It seems this can easily be done with some logic (no AI needed), especially when you combine it with the fact that google should know all the parking spots if not from maps then from noting where cars stop. The accelerometer should be able to provide the phone with an indication of when you are getting out of your car. Also, it can save your GPS track point by point every 10 seconds with a timestamp (locally so no privacy issue) so that in the worst case you can retrace your path back to the car. It should probably periodically delete your paths for privacy reasons if you do choose.

Comment Re: That's their job (Score 1) 448

The more you tax companies, the more expensive things you buy will become. In other words, you will be paying extra. When something is high priced, less people buy it. It becomes a luxury item. Less people will have an improved quality of life. In other words, if you buy the item you are better off paying more in tax. Taxing companies will only make things more expensive for you.

Comment Put everything there then (Score 1) 71

If they were going to put the fingerprint scanner in the back, they should have gotten rid of the front facing camera too and put a display on the back. With even a small rear display, the bezel on the front facing side can be eliminated entirely. Sure the phone might be slightly thicker but it would look awesome. As for the speaker grille .. I suppose you can have one that is nearly invisible, have it face a different way, or deal with not having one.

Comment Is this the right approach? (Score 2) 73

Is this really the right approach? I get that Verizon used taxpayer funds and government brute force to obtain their state sponsored monopolistic market dominance. But then, how would suing them achieve anything? This lawsuit will result in them writing a fat check to Blasio rather than them actually rolling out fiber to anyone. If you want fiber grab your metamucil new yorkers because this isn't the way to get it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!