Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:If You're not rich (Score 2) 366

Why Trump? And why rentals? You are the owner of the vehicle moving the contents around, you just have to operate it manually today. Tomorrow, while your auto-car ubers users around, you'll make money while sitting in front of your keyboard. Uber going to use its own cars? Use your own service / app. No one owes you anything because you are alive. Not uber, not taxpayers, not passengers. Provide a service, be market-competitive, and receive compensation.

Comment Re:Yea (Score 4, Insightful) 110

They will conduct a witch hunt in public, of course. Their response will be in public, of course. The blame will be covered well by the media, the retaliation made public. Not to set an example. No. The real reason all of this will be done in public is because it keeps the media (and everyone the media then manipulate into accepting that the important things are whatever the media spins in our "culture of outrage") focused on the wrong thing.

Keeping the conversation on the leaker, and not what is being leaked, is the only way for them to perpetuate their continued violation of law, their intelligence systems functional, funded, and their ability to persecute whomever they want, for whatever they want, liberty be damned.

What we should be talking about is: How can they sit by in good conscience, and exploit the mistakes of the very industry that boosts the economy of the 21st century? How can they leave us exposed? How do they expect other governments (of countries more populated than we are) to not have the same skill set to discover these flaws? Where is our protection?

The intelligence community has clearly lost track of its real mandate. It needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up. J Edgar's legacy is alive and well, and it is a pox on our house. Focus on that, and thank the leakers, whomever they are for pressing this issue with the American people.

Comment Re:So, if Apple "rolled out a patch" for this ... (Score 1) 43

I admit, I didn't click on your link to the fix documentation, so I'm not sure what apple said about the bug when it was patched. Usually the patch needs to be out in the wild for a little while before disclosing it, so the majority of users are protected before hackers get a chance to exploit it. Therefore it may have been 4 months from notice to apple, to patch from apple, which is great. It may have also been a few more months between patch release and disclosure, so > 50% of users are already immune.

Even if thats not how it went down, thats the right way to do it.

Comment Re:Great (Score 1) 304

Are you kidding me? I can't explain the rational to fix the memory onto the board, but one thing apple is not afraid of is cannibalizing their product line. I mean, their iMac was their best seller, until laptops. Their iPod was their best portable product, until iPhone. Their Macbook Air was until iPad. iPad, iPhone Plus. No. Cutting into other product lines is not the reason here.

Comment Re:What about the batteries?? (Score 3, Interesting) 304

Apple can service the batteries for you. This isn't the same as having swappable batteries, since you can't extend the battery runtime by swapping batteries in the middle of your day, but you do get longer run times with the built-in batteries (given a certain laptop body size) since they use more of the internal space for housing them vs. a battery case, latch and release mechanism, circuit contacts, unit protection, etc... And, the units themselves can be sturdier since the case can take a simpler shape, with no seams for the batteries.

The cost of switching them are pretty reasonable at an apple store too. I was surprised, as I would have assumed it would be an egregious price (because... apple). The only painful part of the process was losing the laptop for a few days.

Comment Re: Look for a vast increase in donations to Clin (Score 1) 197

I'm by no means expecting them to go along, tax free. I'm only stating that by paying the agregious tax IN ADDITION to the foreign taxes, they would be disadvantaged in the global market. We should encourage "USA" companies to make sales over seas and return said profits to domestic investment. That's what any country wants.

Comment Re: Look for a vast increase in donations to Clint (Score 3, Interesting) 197

No, I think the ball is clearly in the Republicans corner concerning tax policy. The goal of Democrats is to have government control the spending, not private entities.
First off, that money would benefit America greatly IF it was used domestically to create more facilities, hire more labor, or encourage R&D spending by acquisitions or investment in US companies, or organic R&D spending, etc... etc... so I would propose making the cash import taxable, but giving a write off for spending it domestically, bolstering domestic investment. Paying dividiends or share buyback not included, since the majority of these companies shares are foreign owned.

As far as Apple specifically is concerned, they have had their fare share of bad press on these issues. They do have a valid argument as to why they operate this way: local competition.
When a company in Japan sells goods in Japan, it pays Japanese sales tax. It then pays Japanese income tax on its profits. When Apple does it, it pays Japanese Sales Tax, Japanese income tax (for that entity ( the local Apple subsidiary)), and then American income tax on top of that, three taxes. It minimizes this third tax by diverting the income to Ireland and holding it there. They and everyone else knows that this third tax creates an unfair playing field against global or international companies because domestic ones don't have to pay that transfer costs. If you feel that this tax is fair, every company will eventually build it's headquarters in China, since long term that's where the majority of their income will be generated.

Stiglitz is wrong here.

Comment Re:Sheep. (Score 1) 126

I beg to differ. I think its about 333 Million... Because: Apple has sold 1 billion iPhones. They have 1 Billion active devices.
Two out of three device sales apple HAS EVER SOLD is an iPhone.

Ergo: Two out of three active devices must be iPhones, the rest are in landfills. Maybe one could argue 350-400 million, because a lot of devices were scrapped / replaces without a sale. I'm making the mathematical assumption that iPhones last on average as long as other devices, which judging from the comments above, sounds right.

Comment Re:Try again. (Score 4, Informative) 94

Well, for starters at the very least, they STATE that their end-goal is to be secure. So thats a good starting point. Now lets look at the biggest tell-tale sign: no evidence to the contrary. We have discussed on ./ and have come to the consensus (yeah, right!) that no secret can be kept for very long since it would involve a large number of people. The Snowden's of the organization would leak it, if for nothing else, to be seduced by Anna Chapman , or it would be common knowledge among LEO investigators. It is not currently.

There have been many people, including FBI Director James Comey whom have sworn before Congress that they can not crack iOS 9 on modern iPhones. Not in a round-a-bout testimony either. Doing so while having knowledge of the contrary is flat-out illegal, and Comey doesn't have the political clout of Hillary to lie to Congress and keep his freedom. He would not lie so willfully, he would bob and weave to avoid answering the questions related to it.

But even IF he lied, and even IF the govt was able to keep it a secret, and even IF Apple believes one thing and does another. So?

It's obviously too important a secret to blow open for the likes of whatever information you have to hide, and so in a court of law, you would simply use the fruit-of-a-poisoned-tree defense to get whatever was being held against you thrown out, effectively disarming the threat against you. iPhones are pretty secure.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you do something right once, someone will ask you to do it again.