Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 103

Maybe it'd solve privacy in reality. But it wouldn't solve privacy in the minds of the narcissists who think the camera is there to record them. And if their minds were grounded in reality instead of their self-importance, they'd already realize that the vast and overwhelming majority of people don't care about them and aren't trying to spy on them in the first place.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 103

> And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-
> sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the
> nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-> of-sight does not meet their criteria.

And that would be a fine and sensible restriction. I have my own doubts about bandwidth and autopilot issues on consumer-level kit operated by uncertified amateurs that make that sound like a reasonable safety precaution. And if I were to drop... What do they start at? $800?... on essentially a toy, I don't think I'd want to let it out of sight while flying it anyway.

But if the issue really is out of line-of-sight operation, then that's the restriction that should be put in place, not the one on cameras. And don't cater to the "ZOMG, everybody wants to record me, ME, ME" mob.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 103

Your argument still presumes, though, that the only reason for the camera to be on the drone is to film the people in the FOV of the camera. And really, it doesn't matter if the operator is present or not. The principle is the same. The cameras are required for very legitimate and perfectly innocent reasons that have nothing to do with spying on anyone. A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight. And (the eventual successors of) Google Glass requires a camera for augmented reality overlays within the user's FOV to function.

Comment Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score 1) 417

Here in California, a couple gun shops tried to stock and offer a smart gun. This one didn't use a fingerprint scanner, it came with a watch with an RFID chip, and validated that connection to fire. And it wasn't even the sort of gun anyone would use in a "life or death" situation. It was a little .22LR pistol, the likes of which would probably only be bought as a gimmick by collectors. (It even *looks* like something Q-branch would issue to 007.) It was the Armatix iP1:

It never got the chance to succeed or fail in the market. The NRA types flipped their shit, demanded that the store stop selling it, called for boycotts, and even fired off death threats against the store's owner. So even if you wanted one, you can't buy one because the pro-gun people don't want you to be allowed to own one. The hypocrisy there is so thick you could cut it with a cake knife.

How about this: Take a page from your own book. I hear the "if you don't like guns then don't buy one" like a lot when topics revolving around gun control come up. So if you don't want a smart gun, then don't buy one; and lay off the manufacturers and stores that try to introduce them. If enough other people want smart guns, STFU and let them succeed in the market. If enough other people don't, let them fail on their own accord.

Comment Re:I'm glad somebody is on the case (Score 2) 191

Amazon lets third party sellers use their platform. The fakes are usually stocked and sold by these, and not Amazon themselves. And they don't make it especially obvious that you're not actually buying from Amazon either. I wish to hell they'd either knock off the crap, or at lease give me the option to see only items sold by Amazon themselves. You can separate out most of the shysters by filtering only for items available with Amazon Prime. But some of the crooks still get through. You can see these with the "Sold by $x, fulfilled by Amazon" text.

Comment Re:easily made up in peripherals. (Score 1) 509

Oh, so much FUD...

Eh? If your company is spending money on Beats by Dre headphones for any reason other than you've been hired by Apple to produce marketing collateral, you're a bunch of fools. They're crap. Apple didn't but Beats for their hardware. They bought Beats for Jimmy Iovine and his music industry experience and relationships.

The "Magic" lineup is actually quite good kit, so far as I've experienced. I don't like the keyboard, but that's personal preference because I like the full-sized keyboards and those extra USB ports are handy. The trackpad is fantastic though. I switched from a mouse after consulting with my doctor; and pretty much every hint of carpal was gone in less than six months. (Suffice it to say, I don't use the Magic Mouse though. So it could very well be utter crap for all I know.) And pinching pennies over peripherals is just stupid as hell. The cost of buying your people gear that is ergonomically correct for their needs... even if you go full out with the top-of-the-line Kinesis lineup... is TRIVIAL compared to reduced productivity, increased health insurance costs, and the potential for workman's comp claims, if RSI becomes a problem.

And there's no voodoo to restoring a Mac. You can maintain an official image and clone it to the hard drive just like any windows or Linux box. Or if you want a "out of the retail box" state, you just boot into recovery, start the install, and go do something else while it does its thing.

Comment Re:Well done (Score 1) 509

Well, "PC" does by default imply Windows, or at least a Microsoft operating system running on x86 hardware. I know it's a bit pedantic, but I still grate my teeth a bit when people lump Macs, PCs, Linux boxes, and the like, all under "PC"; the correct term being microcomputer. An IBM-er making the mistake is especially egregious; considering it was IBM that marketed the terminology "Personal Computer", "PC", "PC Jr.", and the like... specifically running Microsoft on Intel... as their entries into the microcomputer segment.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 343

> Yeah, imagine a huge swath of land with no purpose
> other than being covered with solar cells that have to
> be kept clean and maintained. A chunk of land
> nobody can be allowed to enter, no trees or animals
> can be allowed to inhabit.. just imagine it all.

Not do be anti-nuclear or a solar fanboy... I'm actually a fan of both. But we do have quite a lot of uninhabited desert that would do perfectly fine for solar farms. Plus there are rooftops, which are otherwise essentially unused.

Comment Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score 1) 218

> Those teeth are too sharp.

If not jail time, what punishment would you suggest for people who file fraudulent DMCA claims then? If you take the automatic mass takedowns out of the equation, and make the individual content owner or lawyer responsible for reviewing and filing the claim; you take any chance of an honest accident out of the equation. So false claims in this case would be, at the very least, willful negligence in the case of a more mercenary lawyer who just went: "Ready, Fire, Aim" at the orders of his client without verifying the claim; or in the case of the content owner himself, or a lawyer who does do due diligence and yet files a false claim anyway, acts of deliberate and malicious fraud and/or perjury. So why hold back on punishing those people.

Comment Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score 2) 218

Seriously, this... very much this. I don't think I'd even go so far as 28 years though, or require anyone to go through the hassle of filing for the extension. I'd just go with a flat 20 years. For the life of me, I can't think of a single good reason that a copyright should last any longer than a patent.

Comment Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score 3, Interesting) 218

Even in the case of very highly-paid CEOs though, the annual salary of that employee still won't sting a big corporation like Samsung very much. Now, make it 1% of their annual revenue, and then we're talking.

Personally though, I think the DMCA could be fairly easily reworked to put some parity between the parties into the system:

1) Forbid any automated, multiple, and/or electronic takedowns. Each takedown should be for a single alleged infraction, and delivered by registered mail, FedEx, or some other similarly-reliable delivery service that provides evidence of delivery.

2) Those claims of infringement need to be made by a single, identifiable, individual. It doesn't matter if that's the actual owner or their lawyer; so long as the claim can be traced back to that person claiming, under penalty of perjury, that the content is owned and infringing.

3) Give the "under penalty of perjury" part some teeth. If the content is not actually owned by the claimant, covered by fair use, or in any other way determined to be non-infringing; the individual from step 2 above goes to jail for perjury. I think a nice schedule would be:
1st false claim: 30 days in county.
2nd false claim: 90 days in county.
3rd false claim: 1 year in state, plus felony conviction on their criminal record and disbarment if the claimant is a lawyer.

Three simple steps. And I'd bet that we'd eliminate nearly all false and frivolous DMCA claims; but, more importantly, equalize the risk and power differential between the plaintiff and defendant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus