Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I'd rather point fingers at Bing (Score 1) 133 133

To be fair, Microsoft doesn't know. Malware authors tend to have ads that link to non-malware sites at first, and change to malware after the ads have been vetted. They know how to detect when Google/Microsoft/etc checks up on them and serve innocent data at those times.

There are ways to detect this, and ways to avoid the detection; it's an arms race. Google is better at this than Microsoft, so studies have shown that you are safer on Google than on Bing. But nothing is 100%, and sometimes people slip malware past Google too.

So it's not malice on Microsoft's part, as you seem to imply. Less competence maybe, or a lack of resources thrown at the problem, or a lack of corporate will; I don't know.

Comment: Re:What Wu does not write: (Score 1) 133 133

That's a very good point, though it doesn't disprove the GP. People consider a source trustworthy if the source agrees with them. Most news agencies know this but still try to be accurate or at least not inaccurate (though always with some bias). Some news agencies, Fox being a notable example, have instead decided to use this trait to gain loyal viewers.

Google's personalized search results may have the same effect; if its results confirm your biases, you'll be happier with the results. I don't know if this actually happens with Google; when I want to know the distance to geostationary orbit I don't have much of a bias to confirm.

Comment: Re:Weight Ratio (Score 2) 268 268

Was this a five pound or a hundred pound drone? Both are available and it's hard to put them on the scale when they're a few hundred yards away and flying.

Even a five pound hunk of metal and batteries seems like a bad thing to go into a propeller or a jet engine. A hundred pound hunk of metal? Ouch.

Comment: Re:Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score 1) 1082 1082

So we agree: nobody believed this before the ACA was passed in 2010. It would have been easier if you had just admitted this, though, instead of producing quotes from years later.

Also, Gruber is a "key architect" only in the minds of those who want to inflate the importance of his comments (look, they lied about this too!). He was heavily involved in some of the economic models underlying the bill, but hardly key or an architect. (He has called himself a "key architect of Romneycare", but since Romneycare is a model of conservative values from the Heritage Foundation while Obamacare is a socialist takeover of health care, I don't see how that matters. :-) ) I think he's also said he was mistaken in those comments, but whatever; he believed it enough at that time to say it even if he was the only one.

Comment: Re:Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score 1) 1082 1082

What? Nobody interpreted it that way. Hell, originally nobody thought that any state wouldn't set up their own exchange; the federal exchange was mostly for "what if some moronic state thinks they'll protest by not setting up an exchange, we better cover that loophole".

Seriously, find a news story from before the ACA was passed which has that interpretation. Show, don't tell. It was invented after the fact by folks who found that democracy wasn't getting them their way so they tried judicial activism instead.

If you actually believe that people interpreted it that way, then I assume that you've been listening to pundits who have been lying to you. I suggest you verify this, then find some people to listen to who don't lie to you. There are a lot of lies about the ACA out there, and you cannot make a good decision if you believe lies instead of truths.

Comment: Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score 1) 1082 1082

Agreed. The government should just stay out of regulating marriage. And that's what the SCOTUS said today, that the government cannot regulate who you can marry (except in the cases of non-consent). Not the federal government, not the state, not any.

I assume that you are happy that the government is, in this case, more out of our lives?

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

I actually think that polygamy would be mostly accepted now, except that most widespread cases of it in the US (see the Mormans) have been about rewarding powerful older men with new pretty young wives, generally without considering the opinion of any of the women. For some reason that has turned public opinion against polygamy, but I expect that to change over the next few decades.

Also, property rights are tightly tied to marriage and would need some major rewriting if you could transfer property tax-free by "marrying", transfer, "divorcing". I'm actually surprised nobody has tried this yet.

Comment: Re:Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score 1) 1082 1082

Actually, the ACA opinion basically said "if a law has an unclear section, then it should be read as agreeing with every other section of that law, rather than completely on its own". Scalia's dissent was "no, you must interpret the law exactly! No changes!"

As opposed to his Hobby Lobby opinion, which was "the law says this, but clearly we should interpret it to mean all this other stuff too!".

Scalia: strict textualism always ALWAYS unless it's inconvenient.

I don't usually agree with Roberts, but he seems mostly willing to rule based on the law, as opposed to Scalia and Alito who seem to bend the law to fit their politics. I mean, changing the meaning of the ACA would have been the very definition of "activist judges", making laws from the bench.

Comment: Re:I hope it rolls out in more cities (Score 1) 68 68

"Okay" is relative. I often wish the world were different, but given how the Internet works and how HTTP works, privacy is really hard. Given that, I don't waste time trying to put genies back in bottles.

So I'm trying to make a world where I don't have to be ashamed of (and cannot be fired from my job for) a diaper fetish. Where I cannot be refused insurance if someone finds out I have an expensive illness. Where I can be any gender (or no gender) I want. Cameras on phones and on streets are never going away, so I want just as many cameras pointed at police and at corporations as they have pointed at us.

Ads are not going away, so I'd rather the money they generate helps support the websites I like.

Comment: Re:I hope it rolls out in more cities (Score 1) 68 68

You mean that advertising companies that put ads on both Facebook and eBay know how to look at referrer links? So they're sending you ads for something that you are interested in, rather than personal lube and adult diapers? (Unless that's what you searched for on eBay, of course.) Seems like a relative win. Sure, facebook without ads would be better, but then you'd have... no facebook, so as much as I personally dislike facebook, that would not be a win.

Comment: Re:How valuable is this to Google? (Score 1) 68 68

I have fuck all money and so buy very little of anything apart from food. Will my local supermarket be Googlified in some way? Will I find myself suddenly drawn to a different aisle?

Not unless you've had wifi implanted in your spinal cord. (Maybe that's after the self-driving car is released?)

I take the subway back and forth to and from the same stops. Will Google influence how I do this?

Only if you use google maps to determine which subways stops to use. Which I did last time I was in NYC; it worked great! Rather than worrying about how I would get from hotel -> dinner -> entertainment -> hotel, I just followed the directions to the appropriate station; the only difficulty was figuring out which direction train I should take.

Comment: Re:I hope it rolls out in more cities (Score 1) 68 68

I would like to stop seeing irrelevant & useless ads, and I would like the websites I use to continue getting enough money to operate.

If I see no ads, then I get one wish but not the other (more important) one.

If I see relevant & useful ads, I get both wishes. Sure, I'd rather see no ads, but if the cost is "lose many websites I like", then the price is way too high.

I am curious why you think that getting rid of google would decrease the number of ads you see? It seems like on google sites I see a few ads and a lot of content, while on other sites I cannot find the content behind the flashing, auto-playing, screen-covering ads.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.