Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Talking down the competition never has been goo (Score 1) 478

Tablets i do enjoy.
A few examples, private web browsing while at work. My work machine is heavily loaded with corporate big brother-ware so I use it for as little as possible.
Some companies will fire you just for talking to a recruiter.
Reading email, web browsing, even movie watching in bed.

Comment Talking down the competition never has been good (Score 1) 478

in my book.
a MAC IS a PC.
If I want an ipad i will get it on its merits. Same with surface.
Although neither are likely in my world.
I get by perfectly well with android devices both for my mobile and tablets.
I get by perfectly fine with linux and windows-based PC's and laptops.
For the most part I buy them refurbished or second hand. Can get 3 year old professional grade top performing laptops for $200.

Comment Re:How much? (Score 5, Insightful) 61

That's dirt cheap. You have to realize what it's used for. It's built for speed, not storage capacity.

What matters here is the IOPS per $.
Your 2 TB spinning HD fro $100 might seem cheap, but it only gets some 200 IOPS. So lets say 2 IOPS per dollar.
These puppies can do some 480k IOPS in a 75/25 read/write workload, which gives us 48 IOPS per dollar.
So it is in fact 24 times cheaper than a regular HD.
Then consider electricity, cooling, floor space, floor weight etc.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 92

Well, it was more than one market. Mainframe, minis, open systems, embedded, home, small business (channel), office, manufacturing, supercomputing, etc.
Some markets completely disappeared, other markets were overrun by players that expanded beyond their britches.
Capacity and performance wise, x86 could have ruled the roost already in the 90's, the only reason the *Nix vendors still had market share was strongly held myths about performance, and that it is an expensive undertaking to move off legacy software. Many folks, including seasoned Unix vets kept claiming that only the older unix architectures could offer the needed performance and reliability. Now these have moved on to board rooms or retirement, and guys that grew up with linux in the 90's are the ones speccing out new data centers. Some get their decisions made for them, as the old vendor goes belly up or discontinues the product.
If cloud transformation had happened a few years before, while AMD still held a significant performance edge over Intel, we might have had a duopoly instead of monopoly.

Comment But there would be no need for this chip (Score 2) 92

If only Oracle revised their licencing policies.
It is impossible to build a cost-effective production ready system with industry standard components, such as proliant blades, vmware, etc, because of only 1 thing: Oracle's hostile licensing policies and metrics. First is the 25 users minimum per processor license. Then there is the fact, that you have to license the full physical server, unless you deploy on very specific Oracle VM hypervisor configuration. And these days, you can't get blades with less than 4 cores. SO if you need a few Oracle software products, you will easily spend more than half a million. So now we have all these shops, trying to streamline their IT into easy to provision private clouds, only to find out that they have to toss it all away.

Comment You can't legislate stupid and you can't revise (Score 1) 318

Going back and changing the past never really worked.
Those doing that are called revisionists, and are generally vilified as whacked out nazis, which they generally are.
And those who have tried time travel know that rule number one, is don't change anything, because it can completely mess up the present (past future).

Besides that, once you send something out on the internet, it is FOREVER, no matter what the law says. A picture, an article, a saying, a clip - it could go out to millions of users, and many of those again likely to hoard information. Storage density and capacity is increasing exponentially, much faster than the population, so less and less will be thrown away. I am sure some folks will not only keep track of where they have browsed but also store all content they have ever accessed. If it taken down from public web sites, it will live on in underground web sites, it will circulate in chain emails, people will talk about it. If you are lucky, the story, film clip or picture was of so little interest, that only someone explicitly looking for it, such as a future employer would ever go looking for it. If these cases go though court, when for example an internet provider refuses to comply with the request, you can be assured that there will also be a small cottage industry of folks that aggressively collect exactly the kind of information you want to hide, trolling court records for targets. They will resell to private detectives, potential employers doing background checks etc. So in effect, trying to erase the info will have the opposite effect, the info will be marked as valuable, and indexed and made available to nobody, except exactly the people you wanted to hide it from. You would have been better off hoping for th e company storing the content to go bankrupt one day, or discontinuing the picture hosting service.

Comment WHY property? (Score 1) 1197

What is this american obsession with property.
Privacy is someting you can expect, regardless of property. It in fact has nothing to do with property.
Privacy is something you can excpect even in a public place.
Even at the beach. Someone talking a picture of you without permission can not publish that.
Whether you own thy beach or not.

Comment Better capture it (Score 1) 1197

With a net or something.

If the drone pilots show up looking for their precious treasure, say they can have it back after some things have happened, They must bring you to their home so that you can gawk to your hearts desire at their family for a day. install a spy cam to check out their mom or wife or sister, etc. The creepier the better. They must [ay a 10% finders fee to get it back, and also sign a contract agreeing to pay some large sum if they ever are caught flying over your property again.

Comment Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 1197

Eh, no, but if I found a spy cam in my shower, I would have no qualms against smashing it with a hammer and tossing it. Which would be the more appropriate analogy. The peeping Tom may bring the police for me destrying his property but I don't think I'm the one who would be going to jail. People with Drones need to be careful and respect other folks privacy, and failoing to do so, they shoud expect people to shoot them down, and consider themselves lucky not to be procecuted. It is enough with the NSA spying on everybody. Don't need a sky full of peeping tom drones.

Comment Re:No kidding. (Score 1) 259

It is truly an epic fail to believe that some random visitor to your website is going to want to install your app just to read a piece of content—particularly if that user got there through a Google search. Yet for some reason, just about every forum out there pops up one of these idiotic app interstitials when I try to view some random post on their site. I didn't go there because I want to be a regular visitor to the site, which means I sure as h*** don't want to install their app just to read the tiny piece of content that may or may not even contain the information I need to do whatever I'm trying to get done.

The right time to ask a user to install an app is when the user creates an account on the site. Up until that point, the user is probably an infrequent visitor and is unlikely to want to install the app. Even at that point, the user may not want to install the app, but at least there's some nonzero possibility that he or she might.

Of course, the real train wreck is that there's no standard for making websites' contents available for app use, which would allow a user to install one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in. There's really no chance of me installing an app that only lets me read content from one website, because A. it is unlikely to be much better than viewing the website (because probably the same people designed it), and B. I already have more apps than I can deal with anyway. But if every website I visit standardized on a feed scheme, along with a common authentication system and a common reply system, I could see myself installing a single app that worked with all of them.

And despite what you say, the facebook app is pretty much standard on every user's smart phone, and the app only shows content from facebook, So, don't walk about thinking you just wrote a new law of nature. A billion others just disproved your law. You're not so special, kid. If installing apps was the only way you could get to content you wanted, you would be installing apps left and right. We all fly our flags high, until we get trampled by the hordes and become part of it,

Use the Force, Luke.