Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: (Beware the auto-playing video advertisements) (Score 1) 112

Thanks for the warning, but the solution is very simple: stop linking to IBTimes.

To the best of my knowledge it is just IBTimes that does this (if you stop the video they wait a little bit and then resume it), and yet slashdot has recently become very fond of promoting IBTimes by linking them in their story summaries.

Comment: Re:What's the difference? (Score 1, Interesting) 268

by Qwavel (#43695255) Attached to: DRM In HTML5 — Better Than the Alternative?

It's about choice. If the web does not have DRM then consumers can only use services like Netflix where Netflix deigns to create an app (plug-ins are on their way out). That will generally be the few dominant platforms.

If DRM is a standardized part of the web then anyone with a standards compliant browser can access those services. This isn't guaranteed - there are various ways that Netflix (etc.) could still stop that from happening, but their support of this standard suggests that they actually want me to be able to use their service on my Playbook.

I want the choice to be able to stray beyond the dominant platforms and still use Netflix.

Comment: Re:Really want this to suceed (Score 1) 100

by Qwavel (#43602995) Attached to: An Exploration of BlackBerry 10's Programming API

Yes, we all want our mobile apps to be efficient, but please don't lump Davlik in with javascript. I concede that Java/Davlik are not quite as efficient as native code, but running an Android app on your phone is not in the same league of inefficiency as using a web app.

While I admire Google's continued to push to improve and promote the web, their continued insistence that web apps are the future even for mobile - in spite of Android doing so well - seems crazy to me.

Comment: Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (Score 1) 106

I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.

So now they have been fined, sued (class action lawsuits), and pilloried in pretty much every jurisdiction of the world for this.

Do you really think that is not sufficient deterrent, and why do you even need deterrent there isn't really much of an upside?

Comment: Mining for bitcoin, undermines bitcoin (Score -1) 132

by Qwavel (#43379321) Attached to: New Skype Malware Uses Victims' Machines To Mine Bitcoins

This idea that you can 'mine' for bitcoins is what makes me not take it seriously. It seems so arbitrary and ridiculous.

In the future, if they want to issue more bitcoin, I hope they will instead allow people to exchange other currencies for bitcoin, and setup a foundation (or something like that) which will use the currency that is raised to further the interests of the bitcoin ecosystem.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 4, Insightful) 216

by Qwavel (#43343833) Attached to: Why You Should Worry About the Future of Chromebooks

Comparing Google's Chromebooks to Reader is silly.

For one thing, Chrome and Chromebooks are central to Google's future.

And for all the fuss about Reader (i'm a heavy user myself) switching away from Reader has been dead simple since it is just a viewer based around a standard protocol. Google turfing it was annoying at most, and no indication that they will kill off their core initiatives.

Comment: Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score 5, Interesting) 307

by Qwavel (#43190705) Attached to: Should We Be Afraid of Google Glass?

"ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times" is already happening and it has nothing to do with Google Glasses.

If you care about your privacy, Glass is the least of your concerns - there are already many ways to record everything secretly. And, if you want to invade people's privacy like this, Glass is the last thing you should use since it is so conspicuous.

Britain already went through this debate as they installed their ubiquitous CCVC network. Privacy lost.

Comment: Re:Remember when Google said WebM was patent-free? (Score 1) 112

by Qwavel (#43110831) Attached to: Google and MPEG LA Reach VP8 Patent Agreement

These days, if a big patent holder in a related field (e.g. MPEG-LA) says they are going to gather all their patents and attack you, then they can do serious damage regardless of what any experts might say about actual infringement.

A company deciding to license patents that it believes it hasn't infringed it pretty common-place unfortunately.

Comment: So MS may now back WebRTC??? (Score 3, Insightful) 112

by Qwavel (#43110589) Attached to: Google and MPEG LA Reach VP8 Patent Agreement

TFA indicates that MS was only holding back on WebRTC (which uses VP8) because of patent concerns, so they may now move forward on it.

That seems to defy history. MS drags its feet and tries to undercut every new web tech it can. That's just MS - their strength is the desktop and they see the web and the Internet in general as a threat.

I can well believe that MS said that patents were the reason, but making random excuses for why they won't support a web tech - and then creating new ones as necessary - is just how MS operates when it comes to the web and open standards.

I would like to urinate in an OVULAR, porcelain pool --

Working...