Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Quality vs. Quantity (Score 1) 213

This, like nearly every Slashdot headline, is sensationalistic. If you read what Dave said it is clear that he is referencing support for *older* versions of WebKit;

"Even when they have been fixed in the latest Chrome or Safari, older WebKit implementations like PhantomJS and UIWebView still don't have the fix."

Think about it for a moment. IE has had 3 major releases in the past 10 years (I'm not counting IE10 just yet). Safari, on the other hand, has had 6. Chrome has had, what ... 24 now? So, yeah ... if you take a normalization library like jQuery and look at the amount of code needed to support the various iterations of browsers, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to realize that supporting the various bugs in 30 versions will take more code/effort than 3 versions. The latest versions of WebKit, as the title seems to suggest, is not "as broken" as older versions of IE.

Comment Re:Time to haul the red herrings (Score 2) 183

Low yield/Low risk implies exposure to risk. You are saying is that GOOG is, what then? Medium risk? High risk? That's my point. If he views GOOG as risky, people should at least take that into consideration. Furthermore, it isn't like the guy came went directly from rags-to-Google. Prior to Google he was at both Sun and Novell. In addition to all of his stock options, salary and bonuses over the past decode -- Google gave the guy a $100 million gift when he vacated the CEO seat two years ago. I seriously don't think he's worried about retirement.

Comment Re:Time to haul the red herrings (Score 2, Informative) 183

Is it "totally understandable"? Interest rates are basically zero, which means that taking money "here and now" doesn't gain him anything. He might want to invest elsewhere in order to diversify his portfolio but such a move would only make sense given an underlying principle that he a) suspects something may perform better than GOOG or b) has uncertainties about the future of GOOG (to the point where cashing out now and stuffing cash in his mattress is better than holding onto GOOG). It isn't to say either of those reasons are "bad" from a savvy-businessman point of view, but it also doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the action as "totally understandable" either.

"The most important thing in a man is not what he knows, but what he is." -- Narciso Yepes