Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: The solution is obvious (Score 1) 575

You do not have to pay for android source code. It is open source. You can download and compile it right now I'd you wish. That's what Amazon did with fire os and what cyanogenmod did. If you want to use Googles apps on a phone you sell, then yes there is an agreement to get access to googles apps on your companies phones.

Comment: Re: The solution is obvious (Score 1) 575

Yes the fix should come from the OS vendor. And they provided it. The hardware manufacturers are more than capable of updating there devices with it. Google doesn't have the ability to push updates to the phones that they didn't release. They do keep the parts that they have control over up to date, I.e. Google Play Services. They are doing what they can to mitigate these problems by pushing more and more of the is capabilities into google play services so they can update without carriers being involves, but then people get upset at that for other reasons. Its a sucky situation, and I wish Google commanded more control over the OS when manufacturers use it, but people get upset at Google for strongarming already. I can't imagine what people would say in that situation.

Comment: Re: AI is always "right around the corner". (Score 0) 564

If you take an AI course, they usually focus on algorithms. Machine learning is a type of AI and at least at my university had a separate class for it. I think doing an intelligent thing should be considered intelligent. Being able to translate text is something that a human would consider intelligence if they saw someone else do it. So a machine doing it should be intelligence just the same. Its artificial perhaps because we taught it.

Comment: Implementation Detail (Score 1) 327

Random thoughts on it.

1. You can click on the domain and see the full url. It's not hidden completely, just have to click to see it.
2. URLs other than the domain name are an implementation detail. They mean nothing on their own, but only what the webserver behind that domain decides they mean. There's no url standard to adhere to. It's just chrome hiding unnecessary information and providing an easy to click search/url bar. While my initial reaction to seeing it was "WHAT?" after thinking about it a second I realized that I mostly ignore the url bar and just care about the domain most of the time. If I want to copy the link I can click on the domain and the whole url appears and is highlighted, or I do what I actually do and hit ctrl+L ctrl+C.

When I watch a tv show, I don't see all the details about what information is being passed to/from the cable provider and my box. Just the channel name. On the web, we don't see all the urls that are flying by with ajax, or iframes. We just see the main url which is usually not that helpful. This seems like a cleaner approach long term.

Comment: Re:Could somebody explain wayland, please? (Score 2) 77

by biojayc (#46372545) Attached to: Official Wayland Support Postponed From GNOME 3.12
Please watch this video: And then shut up about how Wayland is crap. Seriously. The people that wrote X and maintain it say that X is crap and are working on Wayland... X is nonsensical and is the reason that linux UIs struggle to not suck. Wayland will bring things FORWARD not backward.

Comment: Re:Has Google become EVIL? (Score 1) 480

by biojayc (#42628353) Attached to: Google Declares War On the Password
From the article: "So they’ve developed a (as yet unnamed) protocol for device-based authentication that they say is independent of Google, requires no special software to work — aside from a web browser that supports the login standard — and which prevents web sites from using this technology to track users."

Which part of this sounds like Google being evil or or trying to control everything?

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond