Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:And now, things get Ugly. (Score 1) 120

by DrXym (#49336795) Attached to: Uber To Turn Into a Big Data Company By Selling Location Data
Well they should if they don't want to be on the receiving end of massive fines. It's not like their cab service where they're fighting cities and towns.

Europe has strong and clear-cut data protection laws that require explicit consent and limit the data that may be kept on a person to that needed. If Uber sell or aggregate data without good cause in the EU they'll be digging their own grave.

Comment: Re:Nice (Score 1) 119

by DrXym (#49334439) Attached to: GNU Nano Gets New Stable Release

When some inexperienced Linux user has to edit some file in some form of Linux and there is no gui available, I point them to nano, because it behaves pretty closely to what they expect from a text editor (which tends to be something like notepad...sigh).

By which you mean it behaves in a relatively straightforward, least surprising way.

Comment: Re:And now, things get Ugly. (Score 3, Informative) 120

by DrXym (#49334403) Attached to: Uber To Turn Into a Big Data Company By Selling Location Data
Starwood are a predominantly US chain but they and Uber had better be damned careful not to share info in the EU. It's not illegal for companies in the EU to do it, but they must obtain explicit consent and even then there are limits on the data they can share or aggregate and rules on how the data is managed.

Comment: Re:And now, things get Ugly. (Score 2) 120

by DrXym (#49334389) Attached to: Uber To Turn Into a Big Data Company By Selling Location Data

This is not what big data is, this is just selling customers' information. And Google, despite being listed in the summary, never does it BTW.

No, and not for reasons for privacy either. They're simply holding onto it because it's more valuable for them to do so - for similar reasons that casinos and supermarket loyalty schemes might - to mine and profit from the information, layer services on top of it and deny that info to competitors.

Comment: Doomed to fail (Score 1) 68

by DrXym (#49329323) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happened To Semantic Publishing?
I remember a few years back attending a conference presentation from some university types trying to convince my company the future of the web was semantic and RDF. I found it hard to take seriously because a) RDF really sucks to read or write, b) it's a pain in the ass to imbue content with semantic information, c) it's largely irrelevant since web engines do a better job anyway.

If someone produce an uber simple semantic language - just plain text - that could be tossed into a page or link and utilised with some popular js library then maybe it might gain traction, particularly if it was a micro dsl for highly specific jobs (e.g. stock quotes). Or if an organisation maintained an enormous repository of documents that had to be categorized and linked in a way for people find them. But beyond that, forget it. And you might as well be pissing into the wind to think anyone would willingly use RDF.

Comment: Re:Youtube? (Score 1) 197

by DrXym (#49327421) Attached to: Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan
The only way they could do it would be to watermark the image or video stream in some fashion so that even if it were muxed with audio or edited that the watermark might survive in the content. Then they could potentially scan videos in some random fashion and flag up any that contain the free licence for review.

It's still incredibly time consuming and potentially people might notice the watermark and generate a lot of bad publicity. I suspect Pixar would just hope that users would pay for the commercial licence if they were making enough money to be able to afford one. $500 isn't a huge amount.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 131

by DrXym (#49325917) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK
3% does not translate to the number of people who will use your app. And porting an app to another platform is a NON-TRIVIAL task. Even if an app is written with a cross-platform tool (e.g. Cordova, Unity etc.) and relatively small it must still be tested, packaged, signed, uploaded and approved on the other platform and supported. This is a time sink and unless it pays off in terms of revenue it simply isn't worth it.

Comment: Re:Last week I tried to write a Win8.1 universal a (Score 1, Informative) 131

by DrXym (#49325905) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK
Which is great if you use Windows 10 and only Windows 10. Not so great if you want to target other versions of Windows, or other operating systems. Sadly, the lowest common denominator for that kind of work is HTML+CSS with some kind of wrapper such as Cordova.

Microsoft is their own worst enemy. They're trying to break into mobile apps and this is now their THIRD set of APIs for doing it. This amount of churn is extremely annoying and frustrating for devs. At least when Google produces new Android APIs they tend to be incremental and where necessary they'll even backport them.

Comment: Re:Youtube? (Score 1) 197

by DrXym (#49325893) Attached to: Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan
I guess you'd just have to hope that Pixar don't have the time to minutely analyse every single crappy CGI video on YouTube to see if any are produced with their free version and are in violation their licence. Chances are that anybody capable of producing a vid worth watching of commercial value wouldn't be using the free tool in the first place.

Comment: Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me (Score 0) 1089

by DrXym (#49299447) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
I think mandatory voting should come with 2 or 3 simple multiple choice questions that test the voter's grasp of democracy, the state they live in and the USA as a whole. Nothing that could possibly disenfranchise anyone except morons. The vote is weighted by how many questions the person gets right. All right and you get 100%, none right and you get 30%.

Comment: Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... (Score 1) 451

by DrXym (#49294047) Attached to: Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future
1. Ah I see. So you have evidence that this is solved? You know like a paper demonstrating the capability of a car to read a sign, upload this to the web (never mind the bandwidth issues hey?), be told it's a diversion and magically follow all the other diversion signs.

2. So you have evidence that a self drive car can determine intent? Oops no.

3. Superior sensing? I get it now - You're a fucking idiot.


At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.