Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Just because it's patented... (Score 2, Informative) 381

Most stolen iPhones are jailbroken. It makes getting them on to a new contract easier. And a way to lock down or locate stolen phones that can work despite jailbreaking would be a very nice thing to have.

If Apple actually tried to use a process like this for what the tinfoil hat brigade is imagining, I'm sure they'd lose the lawsuit.

Comment Re:Same old Nintendo strategy (Score 5, Insightful) 133

Just look at all the nearly empty boxes at supermarket, that are way too large for their content, or look larger in volume than they are. Same strategy.

Bullshit. Where is Nintendo lying about the capabilities of their hardware? Where are they selling something that doesn't do what it says on the box?

It always takes two. The fault lies just as much on the idots who buy it, as it lies on the fraudulent (in my eyes) companies.

How is the fact that Nintendo isn't putting the emphasis on graphics performance to the exclusion of other factors somehow dishonest? And how is basing the decision to buy a videogame system on something other than graphics performance stupid? And finally, what is the great crime here for which "fault" needs to be assigned? Marketing a product that you don't want to buy? What a grievous sin that is.

Comment Re:Both, of course (Score 1) 468

Indeed. So long, that is, as we understand that all forms of concentrated wealth arise from government interference -- landlordism, corporate ownership, inheritance, et cetera -- and eliminate them.

So government pre-dates concentrated wealth in the history of mankind? I find that claim difficult to accept. I believe that with no government interference, wealth will concentrate in the hands of those with the greatest willingness and ability to use force. The fact that this is currently the government does not escape me.

Comment Re:This is why Android could take over the market. (Score 1) 186

An one can point to numerous examples that show the fallacy of this thinking. The Debian openssl fiasco is a prime example.

That doesn't imply a fallacy (more accurately, you haven't provided a counterexample). It would if the original statement were: if you can see the source, you must trust it.

Of course, you can't point to an example of closed source code that is 100% trustworthy. Only closed source code that hasn't been proven untrustworthy yet.

Disclaimer: I use and write closed source code every day. I just try to be realistic about trust.

Comment Re:This is why Android could take over the market. (Score 1) 186

If you honestly believe trust is 100%, then how can you trust anything, ever?

Even for the things in which I invest the most trust (my family and close friends), the chance they could betray me is small but nonzero.

I tend to use source code availability as a mark in favor of trustworthiness. The developer is willing to expose the code for anyone to examine, it's less likely that they're hiding something. The chance that they still are even in the best of cases is, of course, not zero.

You are, of course, free to exercise your own criteria for trust. Consider the possibility that people can disagree with you without being liars.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...