Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Absolutely fair.. (Score 1) 114

by BasilBrush (#48884565) Attached to: Apple Agrees To Chinese Security Audits of Its Products

Losing the additional security that closed source gives over open source.

Note that the phrase "There's no such thing as security through obscurity" is a nonsense. Security through obscurity alone is poor security. But it does indeed add a level of security when combined with other security practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment: Re: a better question (Score 2) 585

by BasilBrush (#48844955) Attached to: Why Run Linux On Macs?

Even most of those getting an iMac really want a real tower (such as a Mac Pro) but are stuck with the iMac because they can't afford it.

This isn't true. Marco Arment for example bought a Mac Pro, then traded it in a year later to get an iMac. Clearly he could afford the Pac Pro, but the year later iMac offered a better display, without compromising the speed.
http://www.marco.org/2014/10/1...

Comment: Re:Bitcoin (Score 1) 290

by BasilBrush (#48828023) Attached to: Bitcoin Volatility Puts Miners Under Pressure

In a rational market, the stable price of any commodity will be slightly more than the cost of production + distribution.

That's a no true Scotsman definition. For any number of examples that contradict the idea, you can just say "well they aren't rational markets."

For example, where I come from bottled water is more expensive than soda, and about the same price as milk. Has been for years, probably decades now. That makes no sense from the production+distribution side, and is stable. So you'd just say it's irrational. Without having defined rational other than the implied "doesn't conform to your model."

I don't disagree with you that "The peak price of Bitcoin was pretty much a classic case of a bubble caused by irrational speculation". But I'd take it further and say that ALL of the value of Bitcoin is speculation. Without a government backing it, it's worthless, other than to speculators.

Comment: Re:Apple is a horrible counterexample (Score 1) 141

by BasilBrush (#48827973) Attached to: Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass

Sorry, but the other poster is right. 1997/8 was essentially a reverse takeover of Apple by NeXT. Not just Jobs, but the rest of the XeXT management team also. And Jobs had plenty of time when he knew he was dying to put the company into a state where it would continue in a good direction. None of your examples come from the last 16 years, and there's no reason to think that current Apple would ever become anything like the mismanaged company of the late 80s early 90s.

Comment: Re:the Edsels keep on coming (Score 1) 141

by BasilBrush (#48827901) Attached to: Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass

Google Glass is real, completed, and released.

It's none of those things. If it was, Google certainly would not have stopped selling the developer prototype. They'd have ramped it up into full production.

Google Glass is dead in the the form demoed. There's a chance they might come up with some different concept. But there's a bigger chance that this removal of the Glass team from the Google incubator is a first step to selling it off or closing it down.

Comment: Re:Just when I donate to the EFF, they go off agai (Score 1) 220

by BasilBrush (#48778609) Attached to: EFF: Apple's Dev Agreement Means No EFF Mobile App For iOS

I already suggested it be a $1 app to add the UI for the feature to switch. That'll keep out the young kids.

Nice idea.

do you also advocate vehicles have dealer locked hoods that only they can open?

I know car metaphors are de-rigour here, but that's really not a good metaphor. This is approvals of add-ons and consumables, not repairs. And there are a few other examples. Games consoles, printers, razors.

The bizarre thing is it's framed as if it's imposed on consumers. But of course it isn't. It's entirely opt-in. There's a large number of people that are willing to pay a bit extra for the safety and quality that the iPhone platform gives. And one of the important mechanisms by which that safety and quality is delivered is by controlling what can be installed.

People aren't being MADE to be safer. They CHOOSE to pay extra for the service of being made safer.

Meanwhile, these 35 year old kids are using the PC or Mac computers without such restrictions.... Why is the phone or tablet sacrosanct?

If a phone ever needs the kind of maintenance a PC or Mac needs it's a failed phone. Consumers these days have got something that for most of their casual uses is better than a PC. That's progress.

Sure, there's a need for an industrial grade computing device too, for a start to develop the apps on the more casual devices.

But to make modern consumer computing devices with as troublesome a set of ideas as a PC would be silly. Consumers need reliable appliances, not unreliable boxes of bits that continually degrade and require maintenance.

Comment: Re:Just when I donate to the EFF, they go off agai (Score 1) 220

by BasilBrush (#48769035) Attached to: EFF: Apple's Dev Agreement Means No EFF Mobile App For iOS

They're not clueless, just unwise.

Take a look around sometime.

And certainly they do need protection. (Where clueless kids using smartphones is a wide category from about 5 to about 35.) Insightful knowledge of the dangers of the internet does not come along at the same time as the ability to switch on other app-stores.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...