Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Google+ failed becuase it's GOOGLE (Score 3, Insightful) 145

by Jane Q. Public (#49558019) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

They already have too much of my online attention. Sharing anything except my searches with them is a non-starter. It doesn't matter how well implemented the service is. Because it's Google, there's just absolutely no way I'm using it.

I've started moving away from their search, too, now that they decide for me what constitutes "mobile friendly" and what doesn't. Fact is, some "desktop" work better on my phone than a lot of the "mobile" sites do.

I don't want a nanny-search moving the things I'm looking for down the page. Just give me what I searched for, nothing more, nothing less, no "judgment" about what I want to see.

FWIW, I think it was the "single real name policy" that actually killed Google+. At that point I stopped commenting on YouTube, stopped using Google+, and in fact just stopped "signing in" to anything at all Google.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 53

by Jane Q. Public (#49549667) Attached to: Microsoft Opens Vulnerability Bounty Program For Spartan Browser

The "information highway"? WTF is this, 1995?

No... more like 480 BC. It seems reasonable to think that "Spartan" refers to "Sparta" which in turn implies (with deference to Slashdot's notably horrible character handling): "Molon labe"... which would mean in this context: "Come and get it." The reply to Xerces when he demanded they lay down their weapons was "come and get them".

The historical reference hit me right away, and if Microsoft didn't really intend it, they screwed up bigtime. Because the name of their browser is historically a challenge to "try to go through me". So...

Let's go try it. I kind of doubt if seriously attacked it would stand as they did.

Comment: Re:privacy? (Score 1) 274

The cost would seem proportional to the users.

Of course. Did you not see in my sample calculation "$3.5M given 1M users"?

However, the economies do not scale linearly. You make an investment in infrastructure, and it's good up to X users. Then you make another investment, it's good up to X times 10 users. Etc. In practice it's mostly a step function, not a straight line.

Comment: Re:Question still remains (Score 1) 124

by Jane Q. Public (#49534387) Attached to: Google Adds Handwriting Input To Android

Then why did she dispute the fact that women are a minority in positions of power like government, CEO's, etc.?

Because your original statement

No, you're just part of the gender which is a minority in positions of power like government, CEO's, etc.

Can be interpreted at least two ways:

"part of the gender which is a minority in positions of power like government, CEO's, etc."


"part of the gender which is a minority in positions of power like government, CEO's, etc."

I admit, I read it pretty fast, but it struck me the second way. I could have thought about it more. I did wonder why you were saying I was in a position of power. :)

But just FYI, I didn't claim to be any particular gender, or belong to a minority, or be in a position of power.

Comment: Re:Question still remains (Score 1) 124

by Jane Q. Public (#49534367) Attached to: Google Adds Handwriting Input To Android

Yeah, you know why? Because they didn't have the horsepower to drive the resolution that users expected from a display at larger sizes. It's only recently that the hardware has become efficient enough to actually provide a larger display with the features users expect.

I repeat: my Tungsten at 320x480 was very nice, pretty fast, and the graphics were pretty impressive for their day. As I mentioned before, Bejeweled (for one example) played and looked great.

My point -- which you still seem to be not getting -- is that if they'd simply stuck a phone in it, we'd have CLOSE TO what we have today, years before it actually happened. No, the screen was not AS big. No, it did not have AS HIGH a pixel size. But neither did anything else. It would have been a phone that decently ran apps, AND had pretty good (again for its day) handwriting recognition.

Comment: Re:privacy? (Score 1) 274

by Jane Q. Public (#49534325) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Features Would You Like In a Search Engine?
Well, my comment was really meant in the context of ISPs.

Sure, there are small innovative companies. Like Instagram and even Netflix (it didn't start out big). BUT... what about companies that bring those services to the consumer? The ISPs? That's where Net Neutrality really comes in, and they have erected huge barriers to entry for anybody small (or innovative).

Comment: Re:Not just about terrorism (Score 1) 201

by Jane Q. Public (#49531231) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them.

No, I don't believe that's true. While they might know the words, they haven't really studied it, or its history, enough to UNDERSTAND the intent of the words when they were written.

Further, many of them think they don't have to... that it's a "living document" that changes meaning over time.

I call bullshit.

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, founding father

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 4, Interesting) 252

by Jane Q. Public (#49522679) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

Twitter's hypocrisy was eyeroll worthy before, but it's just outright silly now.

I could be wrong, but I took your "SJW" comment to be a reference to those who abuse the "report for abuse" button.

This is a real phenomenon. Twitter has a history of suspending people for reported abuse, when in fact the "offending" party hadn't abused anyone or anything at all. For some people, like modding "troll" rather than "disagree", it has become synonymous for "I don't like this person, so I'm going to do something nasty".

To compound the problem further, Twitter doesn't tell the "offending" party what they did wrong. Occasionally -- not always by any means -- they will let people know what the "offending" Tweet was, but not specifically what was wrong with it or why anyone objected.

Twitter could easily do that without revealing the name or names of the complainants. But insisting that people stop "abuse" when they don't even know WHAT people complained about, is completely unreasonable in an atmosphere of "report abuse because I don't agree".

Comment: No, he's not (Score 3, Insightful) 191

by Sycraft-fu (#49509271) Attached to: Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference

The UK handled everything per the law. They received an extradition request from a country they have a treaty with regarding this. They are required by the treaty to deal with these, they can't ignore them. So they reviewed it in court, to make sure it was a valid request per the treaty and decided it was. He appealed and the case moved up the chain until the high court heard it and decided that this extradition request is legitimate under the treaty, the UK has no standing to refuse.

Up until this point, Assanage was in no trouble in the UK, he hadn't broken UK law, they were just acting based on the extradition request. However then he fled. That is now a violation of UK law. He violated the conditions of his bail. That makes him a criminal in the UK. Skipping bail doesn't make you a "political prisoner" it makes you a standard criminal.

An egghead is one who stands firmly on both feet, in mid-air, on both sides of an issue. -- Homer Ferguson