Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:The poison pin ... (Score 1) 303

The second password shouldn't brick the phone, it should take you to a second version of your phone's file system, which contains only the "happy birds" game, a collection of bad but sincere teenage poetry, and a spreadsheet listing the names of each member of Canada's federal government cabinet alongside a 6 figure dollar number.

... just like every assassin's phone.

Comment: They must suspect everyone. (Score 1) 303

yet Border Services thinks they need to inspect the data on everyone's phones?

No, not everyone's phones, just phones of people they suspect of something. It's the same deal with inspecting the contents of suitcases. They don't inspect everyone's suitcases, just some of them.

They must suspect everyone, because every suitcase gets X-Rayed.

Comment: Re:That's the problem (Score 1) 560

by camperdave (#49174903) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
I trust the file name implicitly... as the name of the file. Like Shakespeare said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell...". Rose.jpg is an entirely trustworthy name for a batch file; and it should be designated as a batch file by a file type field, not by hacking the filename.

Comment: Re:Hiding it and always was a bad idea (Score 1) 560

by camperdave (#49174749) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
I disagree. We don't need extensions. We need an entirely separate file-type field. We don't store the creation date in the name, or the security bits in the name, or the archive bit in the name, so why store the file type in the name? Extensions are a hack that should have been dealt with decades ago.

Comment: Re:Good operating systems don't use extensions (Score 1) 560

by camperdave (#49174441) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
I agree. The file type should not be a function of the filename, but its own field, like the date. Hiding the extension gives the illusion of a separate file type field, but it's a hack. It's a hack masking another hack, and like most other such cruft, we owe its continued existence to Microsoft.

Comment: Re:Better idea (Score 1) 560

by camperdave (#49173889) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions

Instead of insisting that modern OS design carry forward an old and archaic standard set of digits describing the type of file, show users visual information about the file type/associations in way that is meaningful to them.

That's an issue of he UI, not how the attribute is atached to the file. Processors still prefer 'digits' to dancing icons. Its up to the O/S to map one to the other consistently and in a manner the user will still understand.

Impossible. The "extension" isn't a separate field. The file name field was repurposed into a combined file name/file type field. As long as users have access to the whole field, there will be problems.

Extensions should be eliminated, and a separate file type field, uneditable by the user except by special program (like the date fields, ownership/permission flags, and backup status indicator) should be created.

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant