Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment I disagree with your assessment (Score 1) 141

Openness means freedom to speak your mind, to share things that would otherwise be not shared, and to know things you don't specifically need to know.. This includes sharing information that is otherwise confidential, at least to people outside the company. But to do that, you need to be assured that people won't spread information with which they've been entrusted to people outside the circle of trust. It's not just social, either. Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequences to the company itself. So if he has someone who is giving confidential business strategy away to potential rivals, then he won't be able to share things he otherwise would.

Zuckerberg isn't being unreasonable here.

Comment Re:Political categorization theorem: (Score 1) 686

Lots of good things have been done. However the United States elects a President, not a dictator. And so long as Congress correctly represents the dysfunction and division we see present in the US public, where too many believe that all our budget woes can be solved by having the US government not spend money on things that it already doesn't spend money on, we're really not going to get any real movement to solve anything. We seem to be beset by the twin evils of absurd political correctness among the young, spoiled, "Social Justice Warriors", while at the same time suffering the unhinged extremist Tea Partyers put in power by those kids' elderly senile FOX news watching racist grandmas.

Time, I hope, will fix this. The kids will grow up and get a job, while the old racists will simply die off, taking their ugly ideology with it.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 3, Informative) 361

they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed)

If they are, they're not blocking anything, as Monsanto has never sold terminator seeds.

specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)

If they are, they're not blocking everything, because all crops are being constantly bred for disease resistance

as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.

There has never been a lawsuit for accidental wind sprouting. The closest case was Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, in which Schmeiser bred roundup-ready seed, pretending to have had it been part of a wind-blow, but actually having purchased the seed before, and simply bred a new crop without paying for it:

Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.

Lots of luddites on slashdot right now. I thought I ought to correct the record.

Comment Ain't it bizarre? (Score 2, Insightful) 176

We're talking a cool technology here (though not quite as new as many think - I remember cameras being put on model rockets in the 1970s), and all slashdot talks about is how to treat them like skeets. "Hurr durr. I'mma gon' shoot it down with my slingshot. No Clem! Use a waterhose, or maybe toss a polecat at it or somethin'."

When did Slashdot become a luddite website?

Comment Tizen? Don't make me laugh (Score 5, Informative) 80

I worked on a contract in which an auto manufacturer was trying to use that abomination, and we could never even get the source to compile. Literally a year later, it came out that Samsung was trying to use both git/gerrit and Perforce as version control for it, mixed between different teams:

Time went by and Bad Things started to appear. Git/gerrit was official in some teams, but Perforce was official in other teams (even working on the same component). Some patches went there, some there. The management finally decided Perforce code should be used as THE source for building OS images. Again, they only forgot to tell everyone else to stop using git

Both repositories diverged to the point of being almost incompatible. Issues in Perforce code were given to git teams, which resulted in a litany of WTFs. After all, there’s not many things more fun than being tasked with fixing a bug in code that you physically don’t have. ASAP. Meetings took place, arrangements were made to rectify the situation. Months later, the situation is still the same.

One implication was code review process. With gerrit in place, that was a non-issue. But the Korean teams didn’t (and still don’t) understand the notion of code review and pushed everything directly to the repo. The quality of some patches was so bad that enforcing code review became top priority for non-Korean teams. Finally, a solution was developed – MS Word based code review. Each changeset needs to be attached to a bug in the tracker. Each bug can have a Word document attached with a request for code review. That document is a three pages long form with information so useless, nobody even wants to read it. At the end there’s a place for copy-pasting a diff for each file changed, with the explanation why. Reviewers are supposed to fill a Word form with details about which line they comment on and what their issue with it is.

Submitting a patch, clicking through the awful issue tracker and filling the form takes literal hours. All this because using git with gerrit was too tough. Fortunately, the review form has fields listing times taken by various steps in fixing a bug. Maybe someday someone will read how long pushing the code actually takes.

No, they won’t.

Luckily, that contract was short term. But because I put it on my resume, I got a few head-hunters inquiring about it. Quickly though, interest waned. Not hard to see why...

Comment Re:At this point? Really? (Score 1) 76

I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.

Comment Re:This Probably Won't Work... (Score 1) 153

Yes, they could potentially do this legally. Prosecutors quite often twist the law to try to make it cover things it does not. However, Twitter isn't some nearly unknown white-hat security hacker who just happens to know a few things, and can be quietly persecuted. Twitter is a service used by billions of people. And I promise you, "The U.S. government is trying to shut down Twitter because it refuses to turn over foreign data it isn't legally entitled to." is not a news story that will ever see the light of day - because that would move the uncaring populace (and hence, politicians) in ways that many other things would not.

Mark Twain has a good line about this effect: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel".

Comment Expert enough NOT to criticize everyone else (Score 1) 220

I'm a software architect, and after 30 years of experience and many (of those terrible evil) patents, I spend most of my time helping, suggesting, guiding, and giving options to other programmers. And I still learn things, every single day. Yes, even from the Indian kids.

Comment Re:No, they do not care (Score 1) 383

The real question, SuperKendall, is when your hilariously wrong prediction utterly fails to come true, or even better, is an amazingly good deal that helps settle the regiou will you admit that you were wrong and start voting for the Democrats who backed it? Or will you, in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of psychotic far-right ineptitude in the Middle East ("they will greet us as liberators"), just conveniently pretend it never happened, and go on to the next completely inane prediction, backed by a nearly clinically-paranoid world view?

Let me go out on a limb here, and predict that it will be the latter.

Comment Re:*sigh* (Score 4, Informative) 306

Huh? You can just forward classified material to non-secure servers outside of a classified network? I think not!

As Secretary of State she would have access to incredibly sensitive material.

A couple of things, that might set your mind at ease. According to reports:

  1. Ms. Clinton did not "forward" material to her private server. People were just emailing to her at her personal email address at "clintonemail.com".
  2. Those emails she received considered to be official business, her staff forwarded to the State Department for their IT operators to save.
  3. She also produced a huge amount of documents to various Congressional Committees.
  4. None of these emails were classified. They appear to have been sent to her unencrypted
  5. Sensitive material never went through this email system.
  6. Apparently the State Department isn't very good at IT. They only recently were able to figure out how to even just save Secretary Kerry's email; his top staff using the @state.gov address still do not have their email records saved. So by using @clintonemail.com, HRC likely was preserving more email than if she'd saved used an @state.gov address.
  7. Personal emails (and presumably spam) was not sent on. But no law covers that anyway.

This is much akin to the media breathlessly discovering that Hillary Clinton also has a private phone number, which maybe official calls were received. Except that because this is "email", it's totally different somehow. (By which I mean, as she's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the nutcases and conspiracy loons are going to do their nutcase conspiracy theorizing, which Blogs and FOX will pick up - because it sells eyeballs.)

Comment Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 5, Insightful) 416

In short, nothing in science proves the earth is older than 10,000 year old. In only proves that it could be older and doesn't need the creation explanation. Or in other words, you cannot disprove that a supernatural being supernaturally created things with the appearance of a natural beginning simply for our understanding.

You fundamentally fail to understand science, "sumdumass". No hypothesis is ever proven right in science. It simply offers testable hypotheses that would falsify it, and then when such discoveries are made, survives the new information unchanged. When a hypothesis survives enough of these attempts, scientists will call it a theory, and start to believe it to be true.

The problem with the "God planted the dinosaur bones (and the light of the universe, and stratification in sediments, radioactive dating, and the tens of thousands of interlocking details that show us how long the earth has been around, etc., etc., etc.)" idea, is that it offers no falsifiable predictions. There is literally no fact that an adherent to one of these belief systems would accept as proof it is incorrect. All of these ideas stem from magical thinking, and so, in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, they're not only not right, they're "not even wrong".

That is not science. And it is absurd to pretend as such.

(Alas, your attitude is quite common among the religious right and a tiny sprinkling of the kook left, which is a big reason why politics is doing such a disservice to science.)

Comment Re:Last straw? (Score 4, Insightful) 533

Probably not. His head is too far up Mohammed's ass to see the real world.

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, as of "15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition". Please note that this coalition consists of both a backbone of U.S. military power, and surrounding Islam-majority states like Jordan, which the Obama administration has coaxed into the war.

Let me repeat that, in case you appear to misread it. 16,000 airstrikes

I'm not exactly sure how anyone can say we're not "stopping them". Indeed, about the only thing they can really do at this point is make snuff videos of idiots who wander into the region.

But go back to watching your wall-to-wall CPAC coverage and FOX lies. That seems to be what you prefer. No actual facts seem likely to persuade you.

Comment Re:This shifts the weakness in Google's rankings (Score 1) 375

from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.

Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.

You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "fact". Presumably "subversive" and "innovative" thought is simply giving a different take on established fact, as opposed to actually pulling "facts" out of one's ass - which is the way many websites work these days.

I can't help but think this is a good thing, because my opinion is the same as Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Comment Re:YES (Score 2) 375

Google sole arbiter of truth. Just what I need an MIC/advertisement company will define what is and isnt truth for me.

I trust google over random Anonymous Cowards pulling "facts" out of their ass, especially in political discussions. But, you can always choose to not use google. There are other search engines, you know.

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...