"Please folks -- this cell phone case is not a cool product or a good idea. A police officer's job is hard enough, without having to make a split second decision in the dark of night when someone decides without thinking to pull this out while stopped for a motor vehicle violation..."
And further: do not make it so that to unlock the phone, you have to activate its voice recognition and then scream into it, "I'm gonna GIT you mothahfuckah!"
What does it matter if they do have a bias? They're a private company. In the same way that they're free to be unethical (just not outright illegal) about what data they collect and what they do with it, they're equally free to decide that they want to promote scalping baby seals for millionaires' sexual pleasure. The only motivation they have to pretend otherwise is whether they think they'll lose eyeballs/dollars incrementally in any given scenario. Frankly, I *liked* the idea that they were suppressing conservative bullshit. (Not that I matter to their bottom line; I've never had an account and never will.)
Just so you know: when you post a sky-is-falling position about something that seems pretty harmless, and the org in question is one that's up-ending a long-standing cartel that's held the reigns on something tightly, and you don't give any expansion on why (according to you) it is such a catastrophe, AND you post as Anonymous Coward... well, it makes you look pretty likely to be a shill for the industry that's being up-ended.
Just wanted you to know how it comes across.
Or, you know, you could just not text while driving. That might be a cheaper and easier way of avoiding fines.
Your "you know" phrasing is rather condescending; if intended, then (insert expletive). If not, please pardon my misinterpretation and read on.
I was offering this as a way to protect the privacy of one's phone even if you weren't texting... I don't want people crawling over the contents of my phone, whether I was texting before that or not.
Past that: I intend to text while driving. I'm good at it. I know when to do it and when not to. I began texting in 2004 and now have 12 years of accident-free driving supporting the idea that I'm doing pretty well at knowing my limits.
Past that: people are going to text while driving, whether I do or not and whether they are good at doing so or not. I'll advise my kids not to because they're very inexperienced; that might slightly reduce the amount they do it, or it might not. When they get to be good drivers, I won't hassle them about it because it will be their choice and their consequences, and they might even be good at it.
When I hear about someone getting killed because they or someone else texted, I'll be sad. Just like I'm sad when I hear someone died because they drove faster than they were really capable. And neither will shock me, and neither will prompt me to go tell my neighbors not to drive fast or to text while driving. Because that would make me an overbearing busybody that people dislike, AND it won't change their choices.
"if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide"
Response attributed to Snowden: "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say."
So what's to stop a given company from offering a modularly architected product that allows the user to slot in encryption plugins from third parties? And if those third parties are somewhere overseas, well...
Who are you rooting for then? Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
Maybe a more correct phrasing would be: "The US justice system falls the shortest in comparison to its stated principles and the number of people who continue to believe in those principles"?
I'd be ok with the editors reworking the submissions, but what I'm asking for in this case is for the editors to simply have passed over this submission, filtered it out. And filtering is something the editors do as a matter of course, and there's really no escaping the fact that editor bias will thusly shape what appears on the site. The art of being a good editor is therefor not to try not to filter (that's impossible), but to filter in such a way that *good* submissions get through, while keeping out submissions that constitute naked PR and advertisements.
New owners: this sounds like a puff piece for Google, put in front of slashdot readers without explanation of why this is in fact better, just singing its praises. If you don't intend to run the site this way, now would be a *great* time to comment saying so. I'll take the absence of an authoritative response to mean you intended this or at least don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty.
Have the courage to speak for yourself. Everyone here wants you to do that.
I disagree.
"Please folks -- this cell phone case is not a cool product or a good idea. A police officer's job is hard enough, without having to make a split second decision in the dark of night when someone decides without thinking to pull this out while stopped for a motor vehicle violation..."
And further: do not make it so that to unlock the phone, you have to activate its voice recognition and then scream into it, "I'm gonna GIT you mothahfuckah!"
Just sayin'.
What does it matter if they do have a bias? They're a private company. In the same way that they're free to be unethical (just not outright illegal) about what data they collect and what they do with it, they're equally free to decide that they want to promote scalping baby seals for millionaires' sexual pleasure. The only motivation they have to pretend otherwise is whether they think they'll lose eyeballs/dollars incrementally in any given scenario. Frankly, I *liked* the idea that they were suppressing conservative bullshit. (Not that I matter to their bottom line; I've never had an account and never will.)
Just so you know: when you post a sky-is-falling position about something that seems pretty harmless, and the org in question is one that's up-ending a long-standing cartel that's held the reigns on something tightly, and you don't give any expansion on why (according to you) it is such a catastrophe, AND you post as Anonymous Coward... well, it makes you look pretty likely to be a shill for the industry that's being up-ended. Just wanted you to know how it comes across.
Totally cracked me up, thank you
but they are what they are
No they're not.
Or, you know, you could just not text while driving. That might be a cheaper and easier way of avoiding fines.
Your "you know" phrasing is rather condescending; if intended, then (insert expletive). If not, please pardon my misinterpretation and read on.
I was offering this as a way to protect the privacy of one's phone even if you weren't texting... I don't want people crawling over the contents of my phone, whether I was texting before that or not.
Past that: I intend to text while driving. I'm good at it. I know when to do it and when not to. I began texting in 2004 and now have 12 years of accident-free driving supporting the idea that I'm doing pretty well at knowing my limits.
Past that: people are going to text while driving, whether I do or not and whether they are good at doing so or not. I'll advise my kids not to because they're very inexperienced; that might slightly reduce the amount they do it, or it might not. When they get to be good drivers, I won't hassle them about it because it will be their choice and their consequences, and they might even be good at it.
When I hear about someone getting killed because they or someone else texted, I'll be sad. Just like I'm sad when I hear someone died because they drove faster than they were really capable. And neither will shock me, and neither will prompt me to go tell my neighbors not to drive fast or to text while driving. Because that would make me an overbearing busybody that people dislike, AND it won't change their choices.
"if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide"
Response attributed to Snowden: "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say."
I so wish the link you supplied lead to Rick Astley.
Carry a burner phone. When pulled over, turn off your main phone, hide it, and "use" the burner phone, and turn it over if asked.
So what's to stop a given company from offering a modularly architected product that allows the user to slot in encryption plugins from third parties? And if those third parties are somewhere overseas, well...
LOL
Well, that dictates my next phone purchase: I'm getting a Blackberry!
... is troubling. Imagine an army of robotic pigs with no clear instructions on what to do or where to go.
That's a million-quarter fine, or 216,000 more quarters than Dennis stole.
Nerdgasm: 216,000 is 60 cubed !!!
He needs an external enemy to justify his rule.
ha, I pity people who have to live in such an arrangement. (*looks around*) Wait...
Yeah... I guess that's pretty good... but I hope this success doesn't keep scientists from striving for even higher efficiency numbers.
Who are you rooting for then? Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?
Easy: Bernie. Next question.
Louisville was one of the cities identified in 2015 as a potential Google fiber location?
That was the lead sentence of the submitted summary, do sentences just end with whatever punctuation they want :
Apple Is Said To Be Working On an iPhone Even It Can't Hack
It's like that old rhetorical question about if Jesus is all-powerful then can He microwave a burrito so hot even He couldn't eat it?
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
Maybe a more correct phrasing would be: "The US justice system falls the shortest in comparison to its stated principles and the number of people who continue to believe in those principles"?
I'd be ok with the editors reworking the submissions, but what I'm asking for in this case is for the editors to simply have passed over this submission, filtered it out. And filtering is something the editors do as a matter of course, and there's really no escaping the fact that editor bias will thusly shape what appears on the site. The art of being a good editor is therefor not to try not to filter (that's impossible), but to filter in such a way that *good* submissions get through, while keeping out submissions that constitute naked PR and advertisements.
They should have gone bust back around 2003. They're certainly on the road to bankruptcy; it's just taking a painfully long time.
Oy, I know. They're like the SCO of the not-suing-linux world.
New owners: this sounds like a puff piece for Google, put in front of slashdot readers without explanation of why this is in fact better, just singing its praises. If you don't intend to run the site this way, now would be a *great* time to comment saying so. I'll take the absence of an authoritative response to mean you intended this or at least don't care.