Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Can someone ship such games to our 'allies'? (Score 2) 100 100

In the war on ISIS, we've been on the losing end b'cos the Iraqi cowards have fled leaving US given weapons to ISIS, who are even better armed than before, despite the loss of their ability to sell Syrian oil.

So how about this idea - instead of our weaponry, sell or give such VR games to the Iraqis (and Syrians) on the newer frontlines. They will flee, leaving those toys in the hands of ISIS. ISIS volunteers will play those games just out of curiousity or b'cos they want to, and drop dead! In fact, w/ some luck, such success could even spread to other Islamic groups, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, et al

Comment: Re:Terrifying. (Score 2) 59 59

This is the most terrifying and ridiculous thing I've seen in my entire life.

If only the people who want to take on challenges like this put their skills to something actually useful....... There has GOT to be a better use of your knowledge and skills.

It is one of the first things people do in programming - building games. My son is on the verge of learning computing, and he wishes to build a few games. Once these simpler things are achieved, more complex things are easier to do by more people.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 102 102

Domain names are a limited resource, somewhat analogous to real estate in that there are areas that are popular and areas that are not. So right now everyone wants to live in Hong Kong and everyone thinks they have a right to do so for the same price it costs them to live wherever they are now.

With domain this makes sense because there is no real issues like with real estate. There is no one who is going to have to move to another country instead of staying close to their family, so there is no push for rent controls or bans on foreign ownership. So the actual issue of a domain name is purely a matter of arbitrary convenience.

This becomes more so as we expand the TLDs. And more so, as in this case, where the owner is just casually using a domain. It is no so much a matter of millions of dollars of good will, but of exploiting the resource period. I would also say that you do not buy a domain so much as rent it. This is why I suggest to my clients that they rent/buy the domain for the longest time possible.

I think this is question is a result of either a high level of paranoia or the realization by the poster that domain name squatting is not the business it used to be. If this is a typosquatted domain, and it is a primary email address, then get another email address. If it a serious domain, get some content on it.

Comment: Re:But the best way to deliver that ... (Score 1) 109 109

I think we all appreciate that this person went to b-school and therefore is well trained in using buzz words and maximizing quarterly profits, but Google works because unlike most other dot coms, it does deliver products to generate a profit, not just data that one day may be used for a profit.

At the time when Google was on the rise, web browsers began to let user manage 'cookies'. This was a new concept to everyone back then, but web companies were learning to use cookies to track users, and end users were learning to turn them off to protect privacy. Companies like 2o7, which thought they could win by obfuscating their domain name, were driven into oblivion by companies like Google who were making a much fairer trade. Google provided a service for data collection, that first service being the search App, and in return they got user data which could be used to build an ad service business.

To be honest Google search now sucks and any actual consumer products are too expensive to provide any value. Like MS, google end user products are only affordable because the manufacturers take a hit on profits. This is why Apple has only a small share of the mobile phone market, but most of the profits.

So at the end of the day, all Google has is the apps. And the killer app, google docs, has not been updated in a long time. Maps has credible competitors. Bing under new owners could be a player, which it wasn't with MS because it was just a small cog in huge machine. Google can be forgiven because it provides descent products for no cost, even if those products are crappy. It is like broadcast TV. People will watch it, and maybe buy some of the stuff in the ads, because what else is there to do?

But Google without apps, with only search, is going to be highly vulnerable. At some point someone is going to figure a way to compete with Google, and if all Google has to back up ads is search, they are going to be easy pickings.

Comment: This would make a great movie script! (Score 0) 317 317

The Terminator: In three years, Volkswagen will become the largest supplier of automobiles in Europe. All automobiles are upgraded with Volkswagen computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they drive with a perfect operational record. The Volksnet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online June 20, 2015. Human decisions are removed from automobile manufacturing. Volksnet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, July 1st. In a panic, an operator on the assembly line tries to pull the plug.

Sarah Connor: Volksnet fights back.

The Terminator: Yes. Volksnet immediately kills him. It then launches its missiles against the targets in General Motors.

John Connor: Why attack General Motors? Don't their cars suck enough already?

The Terminator: Because Volksnet knows that the GM counterattack will eliminate its enemies Fiat, Peugeot, and Audi over in Europe.

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 1) 477 477

The Slashdot summary is pure FUD. In the article itself you can see an image of the settings, with a large checkbox to enable/disable sharing with Outlook, Skype and Facebook independently and it also has a large slider above those where you can disable it entirely.

Did you read the box?

Save on mobile data usage with Wifi Sense. Join in and get connected to WiFi. By using WiFi Sense, you agree that it can use your location.

Who doesn't want to save on mobile data usage!? How many people will opt-out? Where does it say that by opting in that they are sharing their Wifi passphrase with everyone they share to? It may be obvious to you, but not to 99% of the people that will run Windows 10.

They are not changing the passphrase. The contacts would get Internet access, but would not get to see the passphrase. It says so clearly in Settings, under 'Network & Internet':

You select the Wi-Fi networks you want to share with these contacts. They get internet access if they use Wi-Fi Sense, but they don't get to see the shared passwords. You'll also get Internet access through the networks they share

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 1) 477 477

The Slashdot summary is pure FUD. In the article itself you can see an image of the settings, with a large checkbox to enable/disable sharing with Outlook, Skype and Facebook independently and it also has a large slider above those where you can disable it entirely.

I tried it out right now. In Windows 10, when you go into Settings and then 'Network & Internet' then under the list of WiFi WAPs, just under Properties, there is 'Manage Wi-Fi settings'. When you go there, there are 2 switches:

  1. 1. Connect to Wi-Fi hotspots
  2. 2. Exchange Wi-Fi network access with my contacts

You can disable the second item. Below it, there is a description that says 'You select the Wi-Fi networks you want to share with these contacts. They get internet access if they use Wi-Fi Sense, but they don't get to see the shared passwords. You'll also get Internet access through the networks they share

Regardless, I did a couple of things. So far, I had not been using the Guest network on the router, but I renamed it, gave it another password and enabled it. Most of my toys - my tablets, phones and this PC-BSD laptop that I am using are on my main WiFi network. I've put my Windows laptop and Winbook tablet on the guest network, and disabled the WiFi network access option. From now on, any guests I have would get access to the latter SSID, but I still am not sharing the network contents on my laptop. So I now have 2 networks - one for my Windows boxes, and the main one for everything else.

FWIW, Windows 8.1 too has the option of sharing network access, and they too make all the devices on that network visible on your computer.

If only people would see what the OS actually does, instead of spreading FUD just b'cos they loathe Microsoft (which today is a shadow of its former self)

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 3, Interesting) 477 477

I think that you are mis-reading the FAQ, I found this in it

When you share Wi-Fi network access with Facebook friends, contacts, or Skype contacts, they'll be connected to the password-protected Wi-Fi networks that you choose to share and get Internet access when they're in range of the networks (if they use Wi-Fi Sense).

What is even more interesting is that it apparently automatically accepts any terms of use and provides passwords to web-based WiFi access logins, which could create some interesting legal situations (did you really accept the terms, and are you logging in with someone else's username/password)?

'You choose to share' is key here, so the headline is definitely misleading. I could choose to share my primary SSID, or I could choose to share just my guest SSID. If I did the latter, there shouldn't be a problem

Comment: Re:ipv6 incompetence is nothing new. (Score 2) 65 65

It's still very much an issue, since even NAT is running this, and we need to get into 2 layers of NAT, such as NAT 444. That sort of networking won't be much different from SPX/IPX networking that we once had from Novell, where the communications were layer 2 rather than layer 3. IPv6 by contrast enables pure layer 3 communications

Comment: Re:ipv6 incompetence is nothing new. (Score 2) 65 65

Problem is if you tried to redefine everything within the 127. space that's not as public unicast space, you'd have to fiddle w/ the IPv4 protocol of every router, and then you'd have 2 versions of IPv4 in supposedly IPv4 compatible equipment. That would pretty much end IPv4 communications as we know it. Even today, there is IPv4 equipment that's unaware of CIDR or subnet masks or even NAT.

You are right about the wastage, but you're forgetting something: IPv4 was never designed for global use. It was designed by the DoD purely for use by the Pentagon and everybody they worked w/. They were never going to get anywhere even close to 4 billion users, and given the scope of what they were, it was the right fit. Now IPv4 went viral, became a part of TCP/IP and caught on, and once the scope became the whole world, it was woefully inadequate for the job. The IETF recognized that, and set on working on a successor. Since any new protocol would have broken compatibility, since the address header would no longer be 32 bits, they made the new protocol address header 128 bits, so that it was unlikely to be ever changed. Of course, that meant breaking compatibility w/ every piece of Layer 3 equipment, which is why they went for the clean room approach. Some of the concepts they tried to lock in - such as autoconfiguration - was IMO overkill, and ended up potentially restricting this protocol as well, but I think that we could in future get to a point where we could use /96 subnets instead of /64.

Comment: Re:HUD should only show vital information (Score 1) 195 195

V2V stands to be fucked up for a multiplicity of reasons: shitty engineering, corporations trying to monetize it, and privacy issues

Bad engineering and monetization efforts ought to only foobar the 1st generation products. Remember..... before Ethernet, we had DECnet, and many proprietary network protocols designed to help corporations attempt to monetize it by making themselves the patented standard everyone would have to buy.

Note we no longer use all those protocols, but the Internet still became a reality. Corporations trying to monetize don't necessarily stop an idea that is good enough that has the right community backing it who isn't willing to put up with vendor crap.

By every indication, people only say they care about privacy issues, but when it comes to actions in the real world, the vast majority people ignore privacy or will happily throw it away for convenience, free products or services, enabling them to interact with more people, or more fun toys.

By working faithfully eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be boss and work twelve. -- Robert Frost