Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Windows 2000 was my last version. Here's why: (Score 1) 315

Apple has had their own missteps with regards to privacy concerns. Even if that wasn't the point, at all I might add, of my prior post.

Yosemite, default action (can be turned off at least), direct from Apple:

Everything gets sent to Apple servers, and it's on by default after upgrading to Yosemite.

I'm glad you could figure out what "chmod" was talking about. I thought he was talking about OS X Spying on you, like Windows 10.

By the way, what WAS he talking about?

Try reading the post, it's pretty damn obvious.

Comment Re:Windows 2000 was my last version. Here's why: (Score 1) 315

And yet OS X does the same thing that is being complained about here.

When upgrading from 10.x to 10.x+1 incompatible programs get moved to the "/Incompatible Software" folder of the OS drive. There is no warning until after you finish the upgrade, at least there wasn't for me when I went from 10.9 > 10.10

The real annoyance I have with Apple and OS X is that unlike MS, unless you have a Time Machine backup there is pretty much no way to easily step back to the systems prior state after an upgrade... unless you re-install the prior release and lose all applications and settings you had up to that point.

At lease with MS they have system restore points that sometimes work, and now the Windows.old folder ( that worked for me at least ) that you can back out the Win10 "upgrade" from.

Comment Re:What kind of Terrist-Fearin' FUD is this? (Score 1) 143

It does make some sense in a way: most, if not all, of the U.S. power grid is heavily interconnected and controlled by networked computer. If the computer network would be compromised, and this is much "safer" and easier than physically severing connections, it would actually be rather simple to induce a cascade failure that takes down a significant portion of the nationwide grid. It is even possible that the cascade could be designed to significantly overload substations and interconnects past what the breakers are designed to handle, making it much easier to destroy essential equipment.

That doesn't hide the fact that there is almost no physical security pretty much anywhere other than the actual power generation facilities, but it is an area where concern should be had.

Comment Re:How could the Earth heat it? (Score 1) 95

And the "article" was misconstruing the actual research. The actual study didn't say RADIANT heat from the Earth somehow magically went through the vacuum of space. The latent heat of the impact could very well keep many silicate minerals in a gaseous form on early Earth though.

The study indicates that mathematically, higher levels of reflected solar radiation ("Earthshine") - which again, could be possible with post-impact silicate gas atmospheric compositions - contributed to the side that always faces the earth, while the side that only faces the sun had much less solar radiation heat input so cooled much faster.

Comment Re:Two things: update to 1970 and running unmounte (Score 1, Informative) 42

I know this is /. , but god damn, read the fucking summary at least.

Oh, and your analogy is flawed as well:

Until the mid 1980s, computers were used via terminals. The company would have one computer used by dozens of people. Obviously, one person shouldn't be able to mess with a different person's files, processes, etc. Since these computers were used over a network, they ran a network operating system such as Unix...... Consider also my use case, the model that probably should be used by anyone who actually cares about the security of certain files. I don't decrypt and mount my most confidential information every time I want to read Slashdot or XKCD. I mount my encrypted volumes only when I need to access those confidential files. So 99% of the time, my computer is -running- and those files are completely -inaccessible- . A Flash exploit which provides access to my machine shouldn't mean they have access to my encrypted file system, which I haven't opened since July.

First: these "exploits" being mentioned require someone have access to the system already (in other words you are boned from the beginning). In your analogy this would be someone looking over your shoulder when you log into your terminal session and copying down your username and password, then later logging in to see / copy your files.

Secondly: if you would bother to take the time to read TFS you would realize that the entire second half of what you posted is exactly how truecrypt volumes are working right now. As of right now there are no known vulnerabilities or exploits to read (or write) usable data from an UNMOUNTED truecrypt volume.

Comment Re:If you don't like the textbooks, (Score 1) 337

Should heavily pro-AGW academics be allowed to remove any references to critics of anthropogenic climate change?

Is there any repeatable and testable data sets that argue against AGW?

No, there is only hand-waving and vague ideas that have already been incorporated into current and past working models? Then you mention the doubters in a brief passage and actually teach science .

As for the rest of the drivel, that is exactly why there should be a mixed board reviewing what is being taught, so bullshit without fact can be caught and stomped out. As a matter of fact, without a review and fact checking body, it is more likely that your examples can happen.

Comment They ran out of their own? (Score 3, Insightful) 158

You can now contribute to VS Code:
Submit bugs and help us verify fixes as they are checked in.
Review the source code changes.
Contribute bug fixes through pull requests.
Update and add to the documentation.

Anyways, joking aside, it's cool that stuff is being released in a more open way than it was traditionally with Microsoft. Hopefully they will keep up the trend and not revert to their old ways.

Comment Re:Odd choice (Score 1) 337

Umm, you are aware that we are talking about the "Surface Pro", not the discontinued "Surface" that came with the crippled ARM version of Windows right? Pretty sure the worst processor you can get on the cheapest pro4 is a m3 / i3, or for ~100$ more an i5, with options to get an i7. RAM and HDD specs are pretty similar to my Macbook Pro as well, with lowest being 4GB RAM / 128GB ssd.

It's basically a desktop in tablet form with an optional keyboard case ( no idea how good / bad these are, but can't be worse than some of the bluetooth crap that gets peddled for Android / iOS tablets).

I will also admit I don't know what real usage battery life is like on these either, but if it is in the 6-8 hour range it could be a pretty damn nice machine. If I was in the market for something new I would definitely check into it some more since at first glance the specs are pretty decent, but the machines I have now serve me well enough.

Comment Re:Odd choice (Score 2) 337

If it can't do everything a desktop can do, people are going to need the desktop.

Neither can my Macbook Pro ( or Windows / Linux laptops ) since laptop GFX cards suck compared to Desktop GFX cards. Should I throw out all of my laptops since obviously a desktop is better?

Guess what I usually use my laptops for.... Office apps, some games, and some more demanding programs like Lightroom / PS.
  A surface Pro would work just as well as any of the laptops I use on the go, better in some cases because of the digitizer and pen.

Comment Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident" (Score 1) 129

In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.

Actually reactor 3 more than likely could have cooled itself. The problem was that the operator took power levels down way below what the tests had been designed for, and then tried to overcompensate for the xenon core poisoning by retracting way too many control rods manually to raise power levels instead of doing the sane thing and aborting the test and finishing with a full shutdown.
      That said, the reactor did have some rather large design flaws that after the initial operator error that lead it to an extremely out of spec state allowed it to cascade out of control, but it should not have ever encountered those states in normal operating conditions.

Operator error does not indicate an underlying test failure of the base principle being tested. It merely indicates a point of failure other than what was meant to be tested.

For all we know right now, the train could have been going exactly the speed that was calculated as safe for the tracks being tested, but some unforeseen variable contraindicated that speed being safe in real life conditions.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 1) 622

There are no technical limitations other than artificial ones in this case. If their network can't handle the traffic after using QoS, then it only means they should have taken at least a small portion of the utterly fucking massive profits they rake in on service charges and stuck some back into the network.

That's it, end of story. Period.

The whole shitstorm of carriers not wanting to offer unlimited anymore is because they realized they would have to actually spend money on infrastructure since they vastly over-estimated what their shitty network could handle. But it is easier to gouge more money out of customers for less services sold.... and the best thing? You don't have to SPEND any money. At all.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 1) 311

No one said ARM would instantly replace X86 hardware, there would be no reason for it.

But software will follow hardware, if Intel _would_ suddenly, or even over a period of time, increase prices to an extreme amount both companies and consumers would opt for the much cheaper alternatives that would crop up. Especially companies, once the price points of hardware outweighed the cost of porting to a new architecture... it's porting time. And once companies start switching it will trickle down to consumers faster and faster, much like how windows is used the most common in business and so is also most used commonly in the home since it is what the PC purchasers were familiar with.
      Basically you have the time T1, the span of time where prices start to increase to the breaking point and the time T2, the span of time from the price breaking point, where life of the hardware in use should last. T1 + T2 would be years, possibly up to a decade or longer depending on hardware stockpiles.

That is more than enough time for things to be ported. Even if it was a short lead up time, I am very sure Microsoft and Apple, much less Linux, would have very little trouble coming up with something like Rosetta, the program that let Power architecture Mac software run on Intel Macs on their own OS.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 1) 311

I do dread the day when Intel becomes the sole x86 - vendor and can practically demand whatever they want, do whatever they want and laugh all the way to the bank.

The likelihood of that happening now is actually fairly small. ARM chips these days are getting pretty decent, with some ARM servers even being looked at for datacenters. If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM.

Add in that there is already a - rather crippled right now, but easily open-able - version of Windows that runs on ARM, as well as many Linux distros and O/S.X builds that run on ARM.... it would be pretty much a death sentence for Intel and X86. There might be some pain at first for hardware integrators, but with what is already out there right now, it wouldn't be impossible to phase out ( majorly expensive ) Intel X86_64 systems for ARM systems in a short amount of time.
  If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM. Then Intel would be relegated to the high end server market, until ARM or another architecture ( IBM ramps up POWER CPU, someone releases cheap OpenSPARC chips ETC ) and either forces them down in price or just outcompetes them from the market.

What would be truly interesting would be if you could get an ARM system that can use all of your existing external peripherals I.E. PCI / PCIE addon cards. You could run a few "high end" cores for stuff that is good for single threading, and have tons of lower / slower cores you can dynamically power up for stuff that benefits from massive parallelization, all in approximately the same thermal envelope as X86.

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo