Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Google glass choices (Score 1) 112

by Raumkraut (#49290639) Attached to: How To Make Moonshots

If you want a device which covers most of your vision, get some VR or AR glasses - Google Glass is not what you're looking for. But if you want a mostly unobtrusive, hands-free display; to occasionally reference while you actually get shit done in the real world; then perhaps Google Glass could help you.

Contrary to the media headlines, Google Glass wasn't a complete failure, and wasn't shut down. Perhaps it was failure in the *consumer* market (which they never actually released into); but AFAIK it is still available, supported, and well used, in various medical/industrial settings.

Comment: Re:Convenience (Score 2) 214

by Raumkraut (#49283455) Attached to: The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

If you lock yourself into using only things that are 100% free (as in speech), how are you more free than someone who has a choice of 100% of all the offerings available?

If you "lock yourself into" using something, you are necessarily less free than someone who doesn't. The difference is that by definition you cannot "lock yourself into" truly Free things, as you are always Free to unlock yourself, should you choose to.

However, becoming reliant on, or merely handing over your information to, a third-party black-box service effectively means that you can never be totally free of that third-party's influence.

Comment: Re:Convenience (Score 5, Informative) 214

by Raumkraut (#49282053) Attached to: The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

Though I consider myself an open-source programmer, and an open-source advocate, it's not for the same reasons as Stallman.

FYI, Stallman would never describe himself as an "open-source advocate".

"Open Source" is a software-development methodology - that software is better if more people can access the source code. The primary concern is toward the interests of developers.
"Free Software", as advocated by RMS, is a philosophical position - that everyone should have certain rights over the software they use. The primary concern is toward the interests of the end-user.

I believe that RMS takes the position that Free Software is a moral and ethical issue: That it is immoral and unethical to deny a person knowledge of, and control over, the software which they use. At an extreme, consider what rights people today have to so much as audit the code in their car, their insulin pump, or their implanted heart defibrillator (spoiler: they have no such rights).

Comment: Re:Video games of physical games. (Score 1) 171

by Raumkraut (#48563233) Attached to: Preferred Type of Game?

"Tee" sound like a variant of what I knew as Kabaddi. It had a brief burst of popularity in the playground, as I remember, after UK TV broadcast it for a while in the 90s.
Involved rather too much holding hands for working/middle-class white boys though, I think.

Kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi kabaddi *wheeze*

Comment: Re:Comodo's certificate extortion (Score 1) 237

by Raumkraut (#48504843) Attached to: Firefox 34 Arrives With Video Chat, Yahoo Search As Default

You realise all browsers do that, and for a good reason, right?

Nope. Chrome does it much more elegantly IMO. They show that the site uses SSL, but that it is not secure (there's a red strike through the "https" IIRC).

Self-signed SSL certs actually break part of the point of how SSL certs are used on the web...

You know what breaks SSL even worse? Not using it at all. Yet non-https sites are often indicated to be *more* trustworthy (ie. there's no warning) than a site that uses a self-signed cert.
Self-signed certs don't prevent impersonation of the site, true. But they do prevent passive eavesdropping.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Comment: Re:Fun While It Lasted.... (Score 1) 265

by Raumkraut (#48357767) Attached to: Worrying Aspects of Linux Gaming

The point was to refute the statement:

most Linux users don't like paying for software

Which has been proven false by pretty much every Humble Bundle which included a majority Linux-compatible games, since the very start of Humble Bundles.

revenue from linux users compared to total revenue for the humble indie bundle is only 11%

But the numbers show that those 11% of customers are willing to pay more for the product/s than a large proportion of the other 89%.
If the product is being sold for more than $1, then those who are more willing to spend more are generally more valuable customers - as they will still be in the market for the product at a more expensive price, while the majority of free-loaders and cheap-skates disappear from the product's viable target market.

Comment: Re:popular = compromised (Score 1) 96

by Raumkraut (#48316045) Attached to: EFF Begins a Campaign For Secure and Usable Cryptography

Diversification is the tradeoff between "some people get compromised sometimes" and "everyone gets compromised rarely".

If there is one development team, and one client, then if that client is found to be insecure, the only secure course of action is for everyone to stop using that protocol altogether.
If there are many teams, and many clients, if one client is found to be insecure, people can just switch to a different client and continue on as before.

Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein