Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:By facts, not links? (Score 1) 345

by swillden (#49163233) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

> it was shown that Wikipedia is on par with dead tree encyclopedias

The linked article above is from 2005. A LOT has changed in a decade.

What has changed that's relevant? The existence of mobile devices? Bah.

> What makes it more true now than it was then?

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology and the rise of political correctness fanatics

Political correctness is new since 2005? Ummm, let me guess, you're under 30, aren't you?

You have groups openly state on Wikipedia that it's their goal to push their viewpoints on articles.

Which was also true before 2005.

Clickbait sites written by people close to these groups get turned into sources.

Also true before 2005.

I'll stop here, but nothing you mention was any different previously.

Comment: Re:By facts, not links? (Score 1) 345

by swillden (#49161921) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

It had come a long way, then it started being manipulated by ideology pushing extremists that have become very adept at abusing the hell out of labrynthian policies to the point that even when the author of a news article flat out says "They're lying, I never said that at all" it's the author that gets punished.

This exact same complaint was common before it was shown that Wikipedia is on par with dead tree encyclopedias. What makes it more true now than it was then?

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 1) 184

by swillden (#49161885) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Yes, but it's not progress if it destroys the more technical constructs that allow more knowledgeable people to be more productive. Replacing whole interfaces with a search box does just that.

Does it? I don't think so. The omnibox makes me more productive, not less. The difference is tiny, granted, but it's non-zero.

Comment: Re:Inproper influence (Score 1) 81

by pete6677 (#49161411) Attached to: Oracle Sues 5 Oregon Officials For 'Improper Influence'

That's not just Oracle. That's every IT consultancy. I've never heard of a large outsourced IT project that wasn't overbudget, behind schedule, and ultimately did not do what it was supposed to do. Of course most in-house projects suffer the same fate. And there's positively zero correlation between certificationed personnel and project success.

Comment: Re:Pretty pointless (Score 1) 297

by swillden (#49158817) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Does One Verify Hard Drive Firmware?

You are assuming the company would know the legal limits of an NSL. you are assuming the company would care about legal limits. If the NSA agent makes a good case of "Terrorism" then they will likely get what they want.

Of course the company would know the legal limits. They have attorneys.

That they might not care I addressed in the second paragraph.

Comment: Re:Pretty pointless (Score 1) 297

by swillden (#49158471) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Does One Verify Hard Drive Firmware?

I guess even if there was a way, the vendor would probably just get a NSL to put the backdoor in himself

NSLs can't do that. The law is quite specific about what an NSL can request. Not only can't it demand pro-active measures like backdoors, NSLs can't even demand the content of communications that the recipient already has. NSLs are limited by law to demanding communications metadata only.

Well, I suppose a letter can be issued that demands anything at all, and companies may choose to comply, but they don't legally have to if the letter specifies more than what is allowed by law.

Comment: Re:do no evil (Score 1) 184

by swillden (#49158419) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Perhaps they should be asking for a ".google" gTLD, for that purpose, instead of trying to monopolize a generic identifier.

I was about to suggest the same, but with ".goog", to make it shorter.

They've applied for and received (been delegated) both.

https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1429

https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1430

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 1) 184

by swillden (#49158367) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

URLs have a reason to exist, and they will. The same way that IPs have a reason to exist and will, even though we rarely use them today.

Clearly they're important, and will be whether or not people see or use them. To the degree we can build infrastructure that hides the technical details and provides people with more human-friendly interfaces, we've made progress. Of course, the security engineer in me worries about the attack surface provided by these additional layers of abstraction.

But 10 years ago, I knew the IPs of all my servers by heart. Today I need them rarely, but sometimes I do and I know where to find them.

A few years from now you'll be glad that you need them rarely. Even with zero-compression, IPv6 addresses are unwieldy for humans.

Today I know all my domains by heart. Maybe in 10 years I will use them rarely, but when I do, I know how to do it.

It will be interesting to see what direction we go.

Comment: Multiple whiteboards + Google Hangout (Score 4, Interesting) 162

by swillden (#49154779) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Whiteboard Substitutes For Distributed Teams?

Okay, so the submitter asked for "good" solutions, and this may not qualify, but it's what I do: A whiteboard at each location, with a camera pointed at it. I can't draw on your drawing, but I can see what you draw, and you can see what I draw. I've experimented with various web-based shared whiteboards, but they all require drawing on the computer. Even with a tablet (either Wacom-style attached to a laptop/PC or a mobile device) and a pen, a real whiteboard is better.

In my case, generally there are at most three locations in the meeting, and usually only two: My home office and a group of people in a conference room. Having more may make the "real whiteboards" solution less effective.

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 4, Funny) 184

by swillden (#49154727) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Well, then that's their limitation, not mine. I am tired of this trend of dumbing things down to the lowest possible.

Damn straight. It's like all these stupid GUI interfaces. I mean, I can see using a graphical interface if you're editing photos or something, but for reading and writing text? It's ridiculous and just makes it so that stupid people can do it without having to understand anything.

It all started with visual text editors, you know? Line editing was good enough, heck, you could argue that it made things too easy, too. What was really good was when we used toggle switches to enter data and read the output from a sequence of lights. If you can't mentally translate binary to ASCII you don't deserve the power of computation.

</sarcasm>

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 2) 184

by swillden (#49154699) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Right on. It annoys me when I see people using google search to go to a specific website, rather than use the address bar to go there directly. If you try to explain to them that the address bar will take them there without having to click the first search result, it's like they don't even want to know.

I think this is just a further extension of the location bar vs search bar change.

I remember when I first saw the Chrome omnibox. It offended me. Mildly, but still. I know the difference between a search and a URL, and I am perfectly capable of clicking into the correct bar. Then I actually used the omnibox for a while (because Chrome was so blindingly fast compared to other browsers at the time) and found that when I jumped back to Firefox I got annoyed at the mental effort required to use the split location/search fields, even though it was trivial.

The fact is that low effort is not the same as zero effort. I like the omnibox because I just click and type, no need to spend a millisecond deciding which box I should click into.

I can see what you describe as the next step, so people don't have to bother understanding, or thinking about if they do understand, the difference between "cnn" and "cnn.com". Or I suppose those who type slowly may prefer to omit the last four characters purely for that reason.

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.

Working...