Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Let's see (Score 3, Informative) 352

by HangingChad (#49366321) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Isn't Florida supposed to be underwater ?

Since you obviously haven't been here for a while, many parts of Florida are underwater at high tide. In Palm Beach and parts of Miami storm drains flow backwards and boat docks are underwater. Just across the inlet, West Palm Beach has a massive project going on to raise sewer lines so toilets will confinue flushing and there are several similar projects in Miami. They're also spending hundreds of millions to reinforce the well casings in the wells Miami gets its freshwater.

Florida is fighting that losing battle quietly. It's not like an area dependent on tourism and investment can announce they're sinking and there's no way to stop it but that's the reality.

Climate deniers are the most ignorant fraction of our society.

Comment: Re:Wrong target (Score 2) 56

by Just Some Guy (#49358493) Attached to: Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

The target should be Apple not Google.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

Comment: Re:python and java (Score 1) 485

by Just Some Guy (#49338871) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

Python's string library isn't remotely what I'd call "overweight", but its strings are immutable. Some algorithms that are quick in other languages are slow in Python, and some operations that are risky in other languages (like using strings for hash keys) are trivial (and threadsafe) in Python. But regardless of the language involved, it's always a good idea to have a bare minimum of knowledge about it before you do something completely stupid.

Comment: RMS's ego isn't as big when one examines evidence (Score 4, Interesting) 165

by jbn-o (#49323921) Attached to: RMS Talks Net Neutrality, Patents, and More

Looking at the kerfuffle around LLVM/Clang you can find more of the same attitude from RMS—he doesn't have the ego invested in the work as his detractors claim he does (often without examples cited at all, sometimes as with the grandparent poster with wrong examples cited):

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.

Those aren't the words of someone who places ego above the good of the project or the public. For software freedom seekers, software freedom and defense of software freedom is the goal and good for the public.

Comment: Software freedom for all software. (Score 2) 120

by jbn-o (#49293235) Attached to: Persistent BIOS Rootkit Implant To Debut At CanSecWest

Firmware is software and computer users still need software freedom for all published software. This hasn't changed since Richard Stallman reached conclusions about the ethics of software over 30 years ago. Changing what device the software is loaded into or the form it takes when loaded doesn't change any of the underlying issues that all have to do with how people treat each other. This is also not an issue to be properly understood by "open source" focus on convenience, caving into business desires, or developmental methodology.

Comment: Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... (Score 1) 451

by HangingChad (#49291069) Attached to: Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't.

And that list gets smaller and smaller all the time. When you look at the progress that's already been made, the last mile of automation is totally achievable. Around here a good third of the drivers on the road are old people who can barely see past the hood and another 10 percent are functional alcoholics. The handful of relatively competent people are texting or talking on the phone while they're driving. As someone who commutes by bike in this metallic soup of human incompetence, the transition to self-driving cars can't happen fast enough. I'll take my chances with machine intelligence and machine reflexes any day.

The underlying assumption to your comment is that human drivers are competent. That may be true in BF Nowhere Utah but, here in the civilized world, human drivers are fucking idiots. So, sure, go ahead and drive your pickup to the market. Around here I'd rather see a computer at the wheel than grandma.

Comment: Placating consumerism leads to loss of freedom. (Score 1) 214

by jbn-o (#49288419) Attached to: The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

If you want to say that RMS's position is pedantic, that's fine. Just understand that RMS has slightly different values than open source advocates and he works to keep those values. RMS views open source as dangerous to the freedom to have all changes made available because open source does not make any guarantee about it. Others, like ESR, aren't quite as concerned about that as long as some version of the source is available. Thus, you get open source. Free and open source software are not exactly the same thing though.

Open source advocates think that proprietary software is acceptable and free software advocates don't think proprietary software is ever acceptable, as RMS points out in his essays and talks dating back many years (1, 2). I'd hardly call that difference pedantic—being overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning like a pedant. And the preservation of software freedom copyleft makes real can sometimes be okay to forgo but only after careful consideration. But the open source movement doesn't distinguish among licenses based on copyleft because that would draw attention to the very thing that movement was designed to silence and distract discussion away from talk of—software freedom.

Comment: The Intercept has interesting & important Q&am (Score 1) 216

by jbn-o (#49288221) Attached to: France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism

Glenn Greenwald asks a more interesting and important question than /. encourages its readers to consider when Greenwald asks "What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name?" and then he answers it, "More damage has been inflicted historically by censorship than by the "terrorism" used to justify it.". Considering how little of a threat terrorism is in the US relative to other known dangers ('Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella', 'Gun Murders vs. Terrorism by the Numbers') one has to wonder about other western countries such as France.

Comment: They *still* libel Linux (Score 4, Informative) 169

by Just Some Guy (#49285251) Attached to: Not Quite Dead: SCO Linux Suit Against IBM Stirs In Utah

According to SCO's website:

The UNIX ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux®. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux®, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.

Wasn't it proven that Novell owned any and all copyrights involved here? How long do you get to publicly libel someone (like everyone who uses Linux) before a judge can order you to cease and desist that idiocy?

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.