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:Just in tech? (Score 1) 313

I can't help but think the recent attention to the gender wage gap is a convenient political distraction. It's a real problem, but the timing is very suspect. To explain, I'll repurpose a joke I once heard about unions...

A CEO, a politician and a male and female worker sit at a table. There are 302 cookies on the table. The CEO rakes 300 over for himself. He gives one of the remaining cookies to the male worker. Then he breaks the second remaining cookie into 6 fragments, gives 5 to the female worker and keeps the last fragment for himself.

Then the politician says to the female worker, "Hey, isn't it unfair that the male worker got more than you!? We gotta do something about that!"

Comment: Re:Sturgeon's law (Score 1) 261

by GameboyRMH (#49337141) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple

I think Apple is one of the top threats to computing freedom simply because their walled garden was the first to be successful on a general-purpose computer and has created a trend toward more curation and less freedom. All previous attempts at walled gardens on anything but dedicated videogame consoles failed horribly, and such attempts were considered a suicide plan for any business. The trend in computing before the iPhone came out was toward greater openness and freedom, and the success of the iThings made that trend do a quick about-face.

"Nasty middleman"? As if Apple provides no value here. Apple created the f-ing platform, both hardware and software as well as the distribution system

There's some circular logic here. How much value would the platform have without the apps? And the distribution system that you think they deserve credit for is the only method they allow for getting apps onto the OS! It's like giving East Germany praise for building the wall. Furthermore, companies have done the same in the past without locking down the platform - Atari, IBM and even Apple in the past come to mind.

So every developer is supposed to live the dream and somehow be part of the 1% and they all develop undiscovered gems but you admit that most of the software is actually crap not worthy of purchase. So which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

No I'm not, that's why I framed the argument as a problem from the users' perspective. It's not their problem if developers don't make money. They should have access to any free apps anyone wants to make, or be free to make their own free apps and distribute them for free. And the costs involved in hosting apps in the App Store actually spur the creation of shovelware - there's no incentive to make them if not to make money, that's why they have ads and premium features in them. They're not creating shitty software as a charity.

Comment: I'm not afraid (Score 3, Insightful) 261

by GameboyRMH (#49335083) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple

I'll diss Apple publicly anywhere, anytime. Their walled garden represents easily one of the top 3 threats to computing freedom, and if you're a developer they're nothing but bad news - a nasty middleman who will dictate what your app can do and take your money for the privilege of doing it. For developers, the app store is a microcosm of the American dream, they'll tell you that you can make it on merit, but only a tiny minority will, the rest will just tread water and only enrich Apple in the process.

For users, it's the worst of '90s computing powered by the latest technology - a store full of shitty shovelware that you have to pay for or be annoyed by ads or restricted by a "trial version." And now you can suffer the latest shovelware technologies such as "freemium" gaming and rampant privacy violation! But because it's on a tablet this time, they think it's OK for some reason...the dumb fucks.

Comment: Re:fathers (Score 4, Interesting) 299

A baby made in a back seat by two morons who can't find a condom is superior, "ethically" speaking, to a baby with maladapted genes removed.

This. We've modified the human genome in most imaginable ways already, most often with no real aim, but the moment we do it intentionally and purposefully it's a big ethical problem?

Reminds me of the idiots who are categorically opposed to all geoengineering.

Comment: Re:Still objects more dangerous than moving object (Score 1) 85

by GameboyRMH (#49268357) Attached to: NASA Wants Your Help Hunting For Asteroids

Sure, there would be the "asteroid deniers" but if the evidence was good enough that people could calculate the trajectory themself and show
that it had a high probability of wiping us out then we could do something about it.

Yes, because we know that the deniers can be swayed by an overabundance of evidence, and that they always seek to find answers for themselves instead of blindly parroting conspiracy-blog talking points!

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.