Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Conversely ... (Score 1) 1

The article also claims most exploits are being sold to agencies of the U.S. government. It does raise a concern though. What if Black Hats got more serious, and the US government would become a victim?"

Conversely, what if the cyberwarfare units of certain other countries (one in particular comes to mind) stepped up their game ... and we weren't ready?

Comment Re:Treaspassing (Score 1) 376

None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.

This paint is designed to overexpose photos from cameras that use a flash to illuminate the license plate (i.e. most redlight cameras). It's doubtful that these cameras are using a powerful flash to illuminate each passing car or they wouldn't be so stealthy.

There are a few of those flash types around where I live. Damned irritating, especially at night where I get my retinas blasted on the way to the grocery store.

Comment Re:Treaspassing (Score 2) 376

Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".

Maybe not. But we still have to right to know where the Hell our tax dollars are going. The police may have the "right" to put up those cameras (and that is debatable) but to deny knowledge of the things, or who or what is monitoring them ... well. That simply should not be allowed. Having no expectation of privacy does _not_ mean that anyone can put up a camera on public property.

Comment Re:That seems corrupt (Score 4, Interesting) 200

I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.

They're not, and you're right ... they just ban stuff because a lawyer makes a convincing argument to a bureaucrat who hasn't the slightest idea of what the subject matter is, or how it relates to the product class in question. This will still go to court, and ultimately I suspect the ban will be lifted. The ITC is where everyone goes to get fast action without any court time.

Comment Re:Justice was fairly served (Score 0, Troll) 200

Google has a long history of trying to weasel out of agreements and payments just because they're 'Google'. In turn, Microsoft spends billions an year towards their R&D (Microsoft Research). They also work with the pioneer in the industry, Nokia, which has developed pretty much all the technology we base mobile phones today on. They deserve to be paid. Not only do I see victory for justice, but a long term crackdown on Google's illicit business practices. It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.

Troll, do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

No?

Well, okay then.

Comment Re:Short Answer (Score 3, Insightful) 492

I dunno. The only products which have really made my jaw drop in the last decade have come directly from Google (Earth, Street View, ...etc)

Everything else has been pretty much evolutionary.

Actually, this comparison to Dropbox is largely irrelevant. Google has long had the stated intent to move everyone into the "cloud" (whatever that is at any given time.) If anything, this is another piece to their plan to unseat Microsoft as the dominant operating system supplier, and you do that by eliminating the very need for Windows and Office. Logically, if you want people to use your Web-based operating system and practice ubiquitous computing, you have to permit them to store their data online as well their applications. "The Network is the Computer." Oh wait ... that was Sun. But where Sun Microsystems failed, Google is succeeding.

This isn't so much competition to Dropbox as it is a logical and necessary step along the path they've been on for some time now. Now, whether you agree with where they're going, and whether it will ultimately be good for society is another issue entirely. But this is not Google being like Microsoft and deliberately stepping on a smaller competitor (although that may be the result), but rather Google being entirely consistent with their long-stated goals. It just took them a while to get here.

Keep in mind that there's already plenty of competition to Dropbox, besides Google Drive you have Box, SkyDrive, Amazon's CloudDrive, and a host of other similar services, both free and paid. Google isn't even giving away the most free storage, either ... I got a 50 Gb. Box account awhile ago. It has certain limitations, but it's free and it's ten times bigger than what Google is offering.

Ultimately, though, the key to Google's approach is not how many gigabytes their giving away, but the integration with their other services. If all you want is free online storage, there are many better options to Google Drive right now, Dropbox being one of them (functionally Dropbox is about the best of them, I'd say.)

This is Google going head-to-head with Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon for as big a piece of the online pie as they can manage to convince us to give to them.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...