I've never used the headphone on either of my Kindles. I think most people only use them to read, so it makes sense.
I've used it sometimes with books with narrations. It is true that it is not a seldom-used function, but if I were a publisher of a narrated book, I'd be pissed at this.
By the 1990s, floppies were woefully inadequate in capacity and needed to be replaced. In which way is a 3.5 mm analog jack inadequate at delivering audio?
It is inadequate for Apple because it is a widely-adopted open standard impervious to vendor lock-in. That's what's wrong with it;)
Let's continue further and say that this ship is carrying cargo the wrong direction. Benjamin Frankly surely would have been pissed if he knew that his name was stamped on the ass of a megaship designed to carry everything from wind-up frogs to American flags all made in China while the American's shipped back raw materials and money. This ship damn near symbolizes the destruction of almost everything Benjamin worked his entire life to build.
And that part in bold right there is to illustrate you don't know what the blubbery fuck you are talking about.
Be fearful! There might be strangers sleeping somewhere in a property near you.
I bet the hotels are lobbying for this. Airbnb is one thing that is pushing the cost of visiting New York down.
We're fearful because we live in shared doorman apartment buildings. We usually keep our apartments unlocked 24 hrs
And that's a very idiotic thing to do, regardless of the trust you have on your neighbors. This is specially true if you live in a big city. Convenient or not, you are just asking for a Darwin award. Wise the fuck up and learn to lock your doors before a tragedy hits you.
AirBnB drives the cost of all rentals in all cities.
No, it doesn't, for all the cities. The cost of rental is going off the balls in NYC and San Francisco for one reason only: rent control. Everything else that we see is a function of that. Nixing AirBnB does shit to fix affordable housing shortages. But real solutions to that shit are hard, so AirBnB is the perfect scapegoat.
When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.
You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.
SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.
Which emphasizes the point that rent control is detrimental to building more housing space.
Owned by Santa Clara, Calif. based networking giant Citrix
Err, Citrix is based in Ft. Lauderdale, and with the recent layoffs in Santa Clara, it is become clearer Citrix is circling its wagons back to South Florida (for better or worse, time will tell.)
I'm not familiar of such a case where Oracle has sued someone to upgrade.
Oracle licenses do not have timed expirations. You have end of service past the EOL date, but that license is yours to keep for the number of CPUs you paid for. The company I work for has, for better or worse, tons of licenses on many Oracle products, some of them past EOL (which we are migrating mind you.)
The EOL simply means we won't get tech support for any new bug, or problems upgrading the OS in which the EOL'ed version was last certified. But once paid, we can use that till the Sun swallows the Earth. And I've worked with several other Oracle shops with paid professional licenses and stuff. I've never heard of Oracle suing a company because the software it is using is EOL or with an expired professional license.
I'm not a fan of Oracle, but that claim you are making, when did that happen?
Both examples are of hacking bank cards or bank accounts. So these sentences are not just for the hacking, but also for money theft.
Details don't matter in slashdot when it comes to sacred cows. Some folks here would turn a blind eye to even pedophilia if that means changing the goalposts for their sacred arguments.
But you are correct, this seems impossible to be compliant with C.
Obviously, it is not trying to. In fact, it is trying to be semantically different from C in very specific areas, for very specific reasons and for a very specific audience.
This won't gain traction until it's compatible with the C99 and C11 standards.
There is a whole world of development out there that exists outside of such circles. It is obvious that the target market is somewhere else (Windows-specific systems development for instance.)
I honestly can't see how you can't manage children while pushing a cart.
Reading comprehension. That is not what I said. I said that it is a chore, and sometimes an unpleasant one. Yes, people have been doing it for years, but ask any of them if they would prefer an easier way to do things. Yes, idiocracy is upon us, and it started when people forgot how to read.
Because Walmart shoppers already get so much exercise and are in such great shape that any form of exercise is not needed. I am saddened by the fact that we are now to the point where we consider pushing a shopping cart around the store to be too much work.
How about scrapping the electric drive but keeping the locator aspect. That would seem to cut the costs dramatically while giving the greatest benefit. I really think most of the people I see in Walmart could use to push the cart themselves
OK, you are overthinking this shit. I'm going to give you an example from real life. I have two little kids, whom they want to be in the cart one time and out the next. With that and all other things related to kids, shopping is a chore. What you could do in 30 minutes becomes a 90 minutes ordeal. It is more difficult for my wife who is a lot smaller than I am (and we are both in good shape.)
Mind you that we almost never shop at Walmart (we shop at Costco, Target, Publix or Whole Foods.)
A shopping cart that can map where things are (say, with a built-in scanner that you can scan coupons with, for example), that helps tremendously. Even more so if it can gently move itself, controlled by you, of course.
Yes, some people are overweight and need the exercise (actually, most people are.) But people that don't have the time or the inclination to exercise won't necessarily experience an improvement by NOT reducing the physical factor involved in shopping.
Expecting otherwise is the equivalent of local micro-optimization. It make you feel you accomplished shit while accomplishing nothing. Stress reduction and reduction of time for shopping, on the other hand, that can have significant more health and life benefits than whatever you think people get by pushing a shopping cart.
So the robot actually does the opposite of what stores want. Stores themselves like to make the customer take the least efficient way, because that brings the customer in contact with the most products. For the customers themselves, however, this might be useful.
Who said it will take you on the most efficient route? In produce and need milk? Takes you there via hardware, electronics, and socks isles. All while holding your items hostage so you have to follow it.
Assuming that will be the case, that the robot takes a customer into a trip, it is still better than just not knowing where shit is. Even if it were to take me to the front and the to the back and then to the front, if the robot can tell me how and where to go to get A, B, C, and D, that is an improvement, a significant improvement.
Changes are the robot will simply provide a map of the store showing where to find the things you desire, leaving you to chose the route.
Perhaps it's the location that I go to. It's right next to a bus terminal and near a couple of major roads used by commuters. In other words, their customers are bound to be in a hurry. I'm also basing my assessment on where I see people in the store. For that location, milk is conveniently located and there is a lot of traffic in that part of the store. Motor oil is not conveniently located, but it doesn't seem to be an area that people frequent much either.
It's the location. Here in South Florida, Walmart seems to be on a warpath to make their stores clean, organized and streamlined. There is one just in front of my office, and it used to be a dark, unorganized and crappy store sporting some very unhappy (and at times dimwitted employers). One I would avoid like the plague.
The store (and others in the area) have been revamped. Stuff looks clean. Stuff is kept neat and organized, no longer in mounds at the base of aisles. Even the employees are very helpful. These stores are getting up to the level of organization one would expect at a well-run Target store...
... at least here in most of Broward County, Florida. It could be completely different in other locations.
So the robot actually does the opposite of what stores want. Stores themselves like to make the customer take the least efficient way, because that brings the customer in contact with the most products. For the customers themselves, however, this might be useful.
This is not necessarily true, and hasn't been for a while. Stores, at least the efficient ones, go for customer experience, and group products according to how they get currently purchased. Publix stores are well organized with items in standardized aisle numbers. Even Walmart which, until recently, featured some really crappy stores where shit was simply piled up, they are getting their shit together into efficient displays.
Many stores made customers take the least efficient way to products not by design, but by incompetence. That shit doesn't fly anymore.
Just think about what you are saying for a moment, that stores want people to take the least efficient way to a product. Well, which product out of the many, if not thousands of products carried to the store? How does a store go about maximizing inefficiency (other than by being disorganized on purpose)?
Stores groups products according to their natures - food, medicine, stationary, etc. And they go into aisles for one or more categories of product. If things are categorized consistently (which they do), and staff shelves or reshelves regularly, every product will, on average, have the same location efficient with respect to a random buyer.
You can't optimize for inefficiency unless your store is being run by incompetent people... on purpose.
So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.
No. You have to out something that rich person has a right to privacy for. People have a right to a private life, and unless something in that person's private life is a matter of public interest (say, a political figure running an anti-gay platform while being gay), then that shit must remain private.
One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence; the other is a money-bagged a-hole that wishes to destroy the very concept of Freedom of Speech.
Having to decide which one is worse? Yeah, really close call.
"One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence" only makes sense when it is in the public interest.
Throwing people's private life details into the public just for shock value, sorry, no. You have to be a nihilistic sociopath to think that's what freedom of speech is all about. Imagine there is this married couple who happens, every other moon to engage in the swinging lifestyle. They have kids and family from whom they do not want that part of their private lives to be known.
And then come something like Gawker and disclose that private fact to the four winds because of something characteristic of said couple, maybe income, maybe social status, but nothing relevant to policy making or general public interest.
That's what Gawker is, or rather, was. I cringe at the notion of a rich and powerful bankrolling suits against Gawker, but I cringe more at people defending the indefensible (which Gawker's actions really were.)
Punishment yes but it shouldn't be so extreme as to put them out of business, though I expect the fine will be greatly reduced on appeal.
Well, if a business committed crimes for which punitive damages exceeded your ability to pay, then being put out of business is a result (and punishment) of said crimes. That is a ethical/moral failure of the business entity, not of the legal system.
You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)
24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024
That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.
I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.
And you suck at statistics.
Without knowing how many of those billion packages were examined, we can make no inference as to the frequency of their safety violations.
But that is what you are doing. You do not know the number of failures that have gone undetected in those billion packages, and yet that doesn't stop you in making conjectures. If you have a billion units, and you only have evidence of failure in 24, then you use those numbers and try to reason with what you have.
Unless you have more data that give us an idea of undetected failures, you are simply talking out of your statistical ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used the headphone on either of my Kindles. I think most people only use them to read, so it makes sense.
I've used it sometimes with books with narrations. It is true that it is not a seldom-used function, but if I were a publisher of a narrated book, I'd be pissed at this.
If a laptop had a mechanical switch on the side to turn off the camera like most do for WiFi, I would eventually trust it.
This could be arranged. Lets put one mock-up switch just for show to ease your fears, while the real circuit remains beyond your intervention ability.
He's talking about a mechanical switch, something that physically obstruct the lens. With that said, 1st world solution. Put a band-aid over it.
By the 1990s, floppies were woefully inadequate in capacity and needed to be replaced. In which way is a 3.5 mm analog jack inadequate at delivering audio?
It is inadequate for Apple because it is a widely-adopted open standard impervious to vendor lock-in. That's what's wrong with it ;)
40 years ago? Then it certainly was not WEB SCALE
I'm sure this will go GOOOSBH over the collective heads of many slashdoters :/
Let's continue further and say that this ship is carrying cargo the wrong direction. Benjamin Frankly surely would have been pissed if he knew that his name was stamped on the ass of a megaship designed to carry everything from wind-up frogs to American flags all made in China while the American's shipped back raw materials and money. This ship damn near symbolizes the destruction of almost everything Benjamin worked his entire life to build.
And that part in bold right there is to illustrate you don't know what the blubbery fuck you are talking about.
Be fearful! There might be strangers sleeping somewhere in a property near you.
I bet the hotels are lobbying for this. Airbnb is one thing that is pushing the cost of visiting New York down.
We're fearful because we live in shared doorman apartment buildings. We usually keep our apartments unlocked 24 hrs
And that's a very idiotic thing to do, regardless of the trust you have on your neighbors. This is specially true if you live in a big city. Convenient or not, you are just asking for a Darwin award. Wise the fuck up and learn to lock your doors before a tragedy hits you.
That's not true.
AirBnB drives the cost of all rentals in all cities.
No, it doesn't, for all the cities. The cost of rental is going off the balls in NYC and San Francisco for one reason only: rent control. Everything else that we see is a function of that. Nixing AirBnB does shit to fix affordable housing shortages. But real solutions to that shit are hard, so AirBnB is the perfect scapegoat.
Well the problem with housing affordability is that property in new york is in demand because it is desirable.
And when you coupled the increased demand to artificially-made short supply, well, we see the results in NY and San Francisco.
When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.
You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.
SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.
Which emphasizes the point that rent control is detrimental to building more housing space.
Owned by Santa Clara, Calif. based networking giant Citrix Err, Citrix is based in Ft. Lauderdale, and with the recent layoffs in Santa Clara, it is become clearer Citrix is circling its wagons back to South Florida (for better or worse, time will tell.)
Whoever mentions the word "Agile", do the opposite of what they say.
In other words, don't do unit testing.
It works for Oracle...
I'm not familiar of such a case where Oracle has sued someone to upgrade.
Oracle licenses do not have timed expirations. You have end of service past the EOL date, but that license is yours to keep for the number of CPUs you paid for. The company I work for has, for better or worse, tons of licenses on many Oracle products, some of them past EOL (which we are migrating mind you.)
The EOL simply means we won't get tech support for any new bug, or problems upgrading the OS in which the EOL'ed version was last certified. But once paid, we can use that till the Sun swallows the Earth. And I've worked with several other Oracle shops with paid professional licenses and stuff. I've never heard of Oracle suing a company because the software it is using is EOL or with an expired professional license.
I'm not a fan of Oracle, but that claim you are making, when did that happen?
Will Self-Driving Cars Destroy the Auto Insurance Industry?
No, it won't. It will change it, though.
Both examples are of hacking bank cards or bank accounts. So these sentences are not just for the hacking, but also for money theft.
Details don't matter in slashdot when it comes to sacred cows. Some folks here would turn a blind eye to even pedophilia if that means changing the goalposts for their sacred arguments.
There's no quotes around perfectly acceptable.
But you are correct, this seems impossible to be compliant with C.
Obviously, it is not trying to. In fact, it is trying to be semantically different from C in very specific areas, for very specific reasons and for a very specific audience.
This won't gain traction until it's compatible with the C99 and C11 standards.
There is a whole world of development out there that exists outside of such circles. It is obvious that the target market is somewhere else (Windows-specific systems development for instance.)
I honestly can't see how you can't manage children while pushing a cart.
Reading comprehension. That is not what I said. I said that it is a chore, and sometimes an unpleasant one. Yes, people have been doing it for years, but ask any of them if they would prefer an easier way to do things. Yes, idiocracy is upon us, and it started when people forgot how to read.
Because Walmart shoppers already get so much exercise and are in such great shape that any form of exercise is not needed. I am saddened by the fact that we are now to the point where we consider pushing a shopping cart around the store to be too much work. How about scrapping the electric drive but keeping the locator aspect. That would seem to cut the costs dramatically while giving the greatest benefit. I really think most of the people I see in Walmart could use to push the cart themselves
OK, you are overthinking this shit. I'm going to give you an example from real life. I have two little kids, whom they want to be in the cart one time and out the next. With that and all other things related to kids, shopping is a chore. What you could do in 30 minutes becomes a 90 minutes ordeal. It is more difficult for my wife who is a lot smaller than I am (and we are both in good shape.)
Mind you that we almost never shop at Walmart (we shop at Costco, Target, Publix or Whole Foods.)
A shopping cart that can map where things are (say, with a built-in scanner that you can scan coupons with, for example), that helps tremendously. Even more so if it can gently move itself, controlled by you, of course.
Yes, some people are overweight and need the exercise (actually, most people are.) But people that don't have the time or the inclination to exercise won't necessarily experience an improvement by NOT reducing the physical factor involved in shopping.
Expecting otherwise is the equivalent of local micro-optimization. It make you feel you accomplished shit while accomplishing nothing. Stress reduction and reduction of time for shopping, on the other hand, that can have significant more health and life benefits than whatever you think people get by pushing a shopping cart.
helps customers find items on their lists
So the robot actually does the opposite of what stores want. Stores themselves like to make the customer take the least efficient way, because that brings the customer in contact with the most products. For the customers themselves, however, this might be useful.
Who said it will take you on the most efficient route? In produce and need milk? Takes you there via hardware, electronics, and socks isles. All while holding your items hostage so you have to follow it.
Assuming that will be the case, that the robot takes a customer into a trip, it is still better than just not knowing where shit is. Even if it were to take me to the front and the to the back and then to the front, if the robot can tell me how and where to go to get A, B, C, and D, that is an improvement, a significant improvement.
Changes are the robot will simply provide a map of the store showing where to find the things you desire, leaving you to chose the route.
Perhaps it's the location that I go to. It's right next to a bus terminal and near a couple of major roads used by commuters. In other words, their customers are bound to be in a hurry. I'm also basing my assessment on where I see people in the store. For that location, milk is conveniently located and there is a lot of traffic in that part of the store. Motor oil is not conveniently located, but it doesn't seem to be an area that people frequent much either.
It's the location. Here in South Florida, Walmart seems to be on a warpath to make their stores clean, organized and streamlined. There is one just in front of my office, and it used to be a dark, unorganized and crappy store sporting some very unhappy (and at times dimwitted employers). One I would avoid like the plague.
The store (and others in the area) have been revamped. Stuff looks clean. Stuff is kept neat and organized, no longer in mounds at the base of aisles. Even the employees are very helpful. These stores are getting up to the level of organization one would expect at a well-run Target store...
helps customers find items on their lists
So the robot actually does the opposite of what stores want. Stores themselves like to make the customer take the least efficient way, because that brings the customer in contact with the most products. For the customers themselves, however, this might be useful.
This is not necessarily true, and hasn't been for a while. Stores, at least the efficient ones, go for customer experience, and group products according to how they get currently purchased. Publix stores are well organized with items in standardized aisle numbers. Even Walmart which, until recently, featured some really crappy stores where shit was simply piled up, they are getting their shit together into efficient displays.
Many stores made customers take the least efficient way to products not by design, but by incompetence. That shit doesn't fly anymore.
Just think about what you are saying for a moment, that stores want people to take the least efficient way to a product. Well, which product out of the many, if not thousands of products carried to the store? How does a store go about maximizing inefficiency (other than by being disorganized on purpose)?
Stores groups products according to their natures - food, medicine, stationary, etc. And they go into aisles for one or more categories of product. If things are categorized consistently (which they do), and staff shelves or reshelves regularly, every product will, on average, have the same location efficient with respect to a random buyer.
You can't optimize for inefficiency unless your store is being run by incompetent people... on purpose.
So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.
No. You have to out something that rich person has a right to privacy for. People have a right to a private life, and unless something in that person's private life is a matter of public interest (say, a political figure running an anti-gay platform while being gay), then that shit must remain private.
One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence; the other is a money-bagged a-hole that wishes to destroy the very concept of Freedom of Speech. Having to decide which one is worse? Yeah, really close call.
"One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence" only makes sense when it is in the public interest.
Throwing people's private life details into the public just for shock value, sorry, no. You have to be a nihilistic sociopath to think that's what freedom of speech is all about. Imagine there is this married couple who happens, every other moon to engage in the swinging lifestyle. They have kids and family from whom they do not want that part of their private lives to be known.
And then come something like Gawker and disclose that private fact to the four winds because of something characteristic of said couple, maybe income, maybe social status, but nothing relevant to policy making or general public interest.
That's what Gawker is, or rather, was. I cringe at the notion of a rich and powerful bankrolling suits against Gawker, but I cringe more at people defending the indefensible (which Gawker's actions really were.)
Punishment yes but it shouldn't be so extreme as to put them out of business, though I expect the fine will be greatly reduced on appeal.
Well, if a business committed crimes for which punitive damages exceeded your ability to pay, then being put out of business is a result (and punishment) of said crimes. That is a ethical/moral failure of the business entity, not of the legal system.
You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)
24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024
That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.
I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.
And you suck at statistics.
Without knowing how many of those billion packages were examined, we can make no inference as to the frequency of their safety violations.
But that is what you are doing. You do not know the number of failures that have gone undetected in those billion packages, and yet that doesn't stop you in making conjectures. If you have a billion units, and you only have evidence of failure in 24, then you use those numbers and try to reason with what you have.
Unless you have more data that give us an idea of undetected failures, you are simply talking out of your statistical ass.