Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment A story, and, for some, an opportunity (Score 1) 54

Not a problem here. I've tried CrossOver on and off for a few years now; it's still shite.

Way back when, I was considering releasing my software under Wine on Linux, under the terms of "if you run this product under Wine, you owe us nothing." (I didn't copy protect, I used registration enabling, and would have been delighted to enable everyone under Linux.) So, I got and installed Wine, and tested it. It broke. Really badly. Several system calls that weren't covered, or broken, or whatever -- they flat out didn't work. So I contacted the authors. They said, and I am paraphrasing here but this is very close: "give us money and we'll fix our product."

So, that's why my product never ran under Linux/Wine.

Although, it may be that Wine works now. I'm not saying it does, or doesn't. I don't know. I don't even own/have a Windows OS any more. But if it does, I long ago made enough money from my product and now give it away, and you are certainly welcome try to get it going under Wine, etc. It's here: WinImages and it was last aimed at Windows XP. Docs are here. WinImages is neither Gimp nor Photoshop, but something else. In a very, very large number of cases, it can replace either/both of them, functionally speaking. In other cases, it does things they cannot. And it is extremely fast, offers a small executable, and the last version, which is what is up there, has very few problems that aren't actually caused by bugs in Windows. Feel free to have at it if you like. Under any OS, real or virtual, you can get it running under. Or not. :)

PS: Known to work under [OS X + VMWare Fusion + XP] and, of course, under XP itself.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 461

You can call out Linus but the whole Linux community will turn on you.

Oh. My. Goodness. There are stresses and consequences to being the exception and attempting to remediate an entrenched problem within an existing system that could affect the viability of the system. Who would have thunk it? How could it BE that everyone in the system doesn't immediately send money, flowers and carve your name on a granite wall Time to go home and hide under the bed, clearly. Get going. It'll be dark soon.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 461

A correct action (one of them, there are many) probably is to stand up, say "you're being dismissive of my (whatever) here, and I'm pretty sure you are doing the (business, operation, product, clean floor, collegial atmosphere, whatever) no favors at all with that because (short summary of why). How about you consider my input a bit more carefully and try again, or, please feel free to explain in detail what it is you have in mind that is better than the input I just provided to you?"

There are certainly others.

None of them involve smacking anyone with a keyboard, but also, none of them involve pretending that spirited back and forth is a bad idea, either. Sometimes we don't think through what someone else is telling us. Sometimes your idea is really not worth considering in any depth (hey, let's give away the product, we'll make it up in volume!) Sometimes you're right, but even so, you just have to stand up and make your point. Again, With more oomph. Perhaps even more than once. Without collapsing into a little heap of quivering goo and tears.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 461


Furthermore, teaching people to establish boundaries is way, way better than teaching them to retire to a corner, or a lawyer, or HR.

Almost every time I hear someone say "my life was ruined", and I listen further, it turns out it isn't their life that was ruined, it was their ability to be a complete person, and the ones who ruined that were the ones that taught them that pressure and competition and pushback were only cause for crying for help instead of teaching them how to deal.

These people are of -- end up with -- the mindset that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will turn me into a pile of quivering, never-again-to-be-right-in-the-head-and-I-now-need-therapy jello."

And no, I just can't come around to respecting that. Pull up your big girl/boy undies (or go commando, that's where the real fun is, but I digress) and let it roll off your shoulders, or do something proactive and beneficial about it that isn't the act of a sniveling wimp.

Comment Issue is obvious if you're not a SJW (Score 3, Insightful) 461

Professional behavior doesn't differ by gender. Even the words should be the same.

Yes, because hormones, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, differences in nutrition, intuition, metabolism, ways of thinking, reflexes, strength, flexibility, personal dress, perception of customers and co-workers and workers lower and higher on the totem pole and the product and process(es) at hand, all personal interests that impact business thinking, not to mention (he mentioned) instinct and the male-female polarization evolution has so diligently implanted in healthy human beings, completely disappear (by magic, obviously) when one is a professional. Oh wait, I meant, "when one has been knocked out by a severe impact to the skull." And by "magic", I meant "brain function has been suspended." And by "professional", I mean SJW. Or "moron." No, actually both.

Wow, that was fun. :)

Takeaway: Of course women should be treated differently than men. Because, you know, they're... different. I'm so sorry you haven't noticed that yet. Take my word for it, though. Those differences can be valuable to everyone, if we stop this absurd pretense that we're all square pegs made from the same Styrofoam. Not that there's much chance of that happening.

I have zero problem with a woman who has/earns more money than me, who is smarter than me, who wants to dress and act as a guy or like a classic pinup, etc. Nor do I have a problem being polite to them, respecting the boundaries they set, if they do that, including them in my verbal horseplay (or not) to whatever degree they seem to be comfortable with, for whatever reason that may be. Same thing for the fellows. And I don't give the south end of a northbound rat what someone's sexual preferences are, or what they say, relate, or joke about, sexually speaking, until/unless I am sexually involved with them myself. What I have a problem with is people like you, who try to pretend that we're all the same. We're not. Not only are men not the same as women, men are not the same as other men, and women are not the same as other women. Any drive to present the situation as otherwise is an act of pure disruptive idiocy of real benefit only to lawyers. Should we all respect each other and try to work together smoothly and productively and for everyone's best outcome? Sure. Of course. Should we pretend we're all the same and create cookie-cutter uniform behavior to match? No. Fuck no.

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 327

For anything critical, you'd only give out a URL one time, and of course, you'd encrypt the page containing it so no one could see that URL going out but the person who was supposed to have it. Shopping carts, products for sale, everything.

For that matter, presuming only that encryption actually works, I don't know why the whole web isn't encrypted, other than the money-making scam of having to buy certificates that won't make browsers puke out fear-mongering dialogs from a "certificate authority."

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 327

But I wouldn't mind if my browser informed any website that asked that I'm interested in Python, electronic components, and Stuart MacBride books. This would allow them to collect information about their audience's interests and adapt accordingly. It would allow Amazon to differentiate the shopping experience for my wife and me.

Yes, I'd like to see this as well. There are quite a few interests I would very happy to see a website know about immediately upon my arrival. And again, this does not require the website forwarding my information and my browser all over creation, so that's one big problem not imposed by this.

Of course this would make some people more identifiable because of their unique interests, but browser-fingerprinting is already quite good at that.

Yes. So, your idea + my idea. That way, no cookies -- just turn them off --, and no forwarding, turn that off too. Just a user-controlled DB in the browser that lays out what WE are willing to share, and nothing else. Now the browser fingerprinting won't work, because it absolutely requires cookies. A good browser would go where you told it to go, and nowhere else. And I think that would be a wonderful change in how the web works.

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 327

My suggestion of a "URL cookie", if you want to call it that, allows *you* to allow a site to give you a specific experience, *if* you so desire. That's all it does, because it is unique to the site. It can't do anything more. There is no question that on some sites, the site knowing your preferences is a good thing. For instance, slashdot knows I don't want to see the slashbox, and that's a good thing, because I despise Perl, see. That could easily be done just this way. They don't need to know who I am, they just need to be able to associate my interests with the relevant experience on the site. Doing it this way gives the site nothing to sell or share about me, because no other site can use that "URL cookie" to see that it is, in fact, me.

The "traditional cookie", in sharp contrast, allows *everyone else* to choose your experience, while in addition, sharing your preferences far and wide, which in turn provides information that can be used to identify you, which in turn creates a tracking mechanism as well as a pretty transparent set of footprints of when and where you have been all over the web. Which again, as we have seen and know very well, is a wide open door for bad behavior, the poster child of which is the advertising industry.

Comment Re:RISK vs CHANCE (Score 2) 154

- Global warming - working on it, although it's just moderate quality speculation
- Killer viruses - working on it, very much so
- Rogue black holes - no way to design a recourse
- Rogue artificial intelligence - not a defined problem yet, no way to design a recourse
- Aliens - not a defined problem, not even known to ever present one, no way to design a recourse
- Gamma ray bursts - can't be fixed with any practical tech means we know of or can imagine
- Giant solar flares - for some values of "giant", already addressed in many ways. Otherwise, can't be addressed
- Magnetic field reversal - can't be addressed
- Supervolcanoes - can't be addressed
- Biotech disaster - we have done quite a bit to mitigate this, and can do more if something actually happens
- Nanotechnology - not a defined problem, no way to design a recourse
- Particle accelerator chain reaction -- not a defined or even known problem, no way to design a recourse
- Divine intervention - superstitious bullshit
- etc. - keep trying, silly person

Asteroids and comets on the other hand: Do happen. Have happened. Will happen again. Can be addressed. And SHOULD BE.

Comment Re:RISK vs CHANCE (Score 1) 154

You are so, so silly. Those "terrorist groups" are a near zero threat to us. The risk -- the chance multiplied by the badness -- is just about zero.

Your problem is that you base your reasoning on nonsensical hysteria built on the baseless rhetoric instead of fact.

As for the rest... well, the answer there is clear, and it's my fault for not being specific enough: Brown people with natural resources we covet. The others (like Africa and Bangladesh) we just let stew in their own juices. Iran, them... we're could start bombing any day.

In any problem, if you find yourself doing an infinite amount of work, the answer may be obtained by inspection.