Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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:The coping mechanism is to fix the room (Score 1) 95

by matbury (#49186589) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Wireless Microphone For Stand-up Meetings?

Parabolic mics pointed at the participants?

Neither parabolic nor super-cardioid mics would work very well in an echoey room. The sound reflections from the walls would still get picked up pretty well.

Wireless body mics?

Expensive. You'd not only need a bunch of wireless mics but also a mixer to channel them all through at the same volume ratios to the person/people at the other end. Personally, I like the "talking-stick" mic idea. It'd be a great way to manage the dynamics of turn-taking in conversations that some people seem to have difficulty with.

Comment: And Google's epistemological basis is? (Score 3, Interesting) 375

by matbury (#49161107) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

I wonder what the Google staff's and consultants' philosophy of epistemology is. What do they mean when they say fact? What assumptions underly that definition? Are they naive positivists or social constructivists? Ultimately, it requires people to decide what constitutes truth, fact, and knowledge - machines are nowhere near being able to do that and perhaps never will. Do they expect to automate this ranking system with an algorithm? I can't wait to see it trip up over criteria-matching random string generators that regurgitate scraped "facts" off the web (by simply following Google's own "fact" ranking results) to push their porn, malware, and sales/scam/phishing sites up to the top of Google's page rankings.

This post was brought to you by Carls Junior, makers of Brawndo, the thirst mutilator. It's got electrolytes.

Comment: Re:What presure? (Score 4, Informative) 136

by matbury (#49156595) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

What they meant was that use end-to-end encryption and users hold the keys, not Mega. It's impossible for any government to put a gag order on Mega and then force them to hand over the keys, because they haven't got them to hand over. Like Silent CIrcle and LavaBit before, if a service provider offers real privacy and security, the govt. do whatever they must to compromise it or shut it down. Once you understand this, you understand that Google, Apple Inc., etc.'s talk about encrypting stuff and protecting their users' privacy is ineffectual hot air.

The five eyes; USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia; believe we have no right to privacy. And if they can get at our online accounts, so can hackers and criminals.

Comment: Re:Don't dismiss RMS (Score 1) 248

by matbury (#49153379) Attached to: Lenovo Allegedly Installing "Superfish" Proxy Adware On New Computers

This is the usual argument against taking steps in more positive directions; "Because it is insufficient, it is pointless." It implies dichotomous, binary states of win or lose, good or evil, us or them. The real world is never so simple and such dichotomies are merely constructed arguments to frame and force decision making in a particular direction. If someone ever offers you an A or B choice, ask them why they've narrowly and manipulatively framed a complex situation in that way. We need FOSS, we need transparency of people in positions of influence and power, we need privacy for the rest of us, we need democratically organised and controlled regulation.

Comment: Re:Bring on the lausuits (Score 4, Insightful) 599

by matbury (#49128205) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Dave Steer of the Mozilla Foundation said, "We've been outspent, outlobbied. We were going up against the second-biggest corporate lobby in D.C., and it looks like we've won."

Mmm... why are the only asking the "little guys" for statements in support of net neutrality. The whole fiasco has been a power struggle between two groups of corporate giants from the start. Those who profit from providing the infrastructure (telecoms) and those who profit from using the infrastructure (content providers). The winners here are Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., Netflix, etc. and now they don't have to pay even more of their share of the profits to the telecoms monopolies. The US public just happen, by sheer coincidence, to be on the winning side.

Comment: Google and censorship... (Score 3, Insightful) 285

by matbury (#49119051) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View

Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?

Comment: Industrial scale use right at home (Score 1) 224

by matbury (#49117019) Attached to: 100 Years of Chemical Weapons

Erm... aren't we using the world's most popular chemical weapon on a massive industrial scale right in our own countries against our own populations? Yes, tear gas is a chemical weapon. It's the 1%'s chemical weapon of choice these days. We're not even allowed to calmly and peacefully protest our oppression.

Comment: Re:I RTFA, he is blowing smoke. (Score 1) 207

by matbury (#49105735) Attached to: Wired On 3-D Printers As Fraud Enablers

This is the kind of "debate framing" hype that Wired's clients, their corporate advertisers, love. It frames their advertisers as victims of crime that must be defended against an onslaught of lawlessness. Ahhh, poor corporations. They might have to adjust their business models to adapt to technological changes.

Comment: Re:Fixed that... (Score 1) 44

by matbury (#49091213) Attached to: Darkleaks: an Online Black Market For Selling Secrets

Yes, don't like how they slipped "whistleblowers" who take great personal risk to do the right thing and bring important issues to the public's attention purely as a civic responsibility and for no personal profit whatsoever (I guess they can sell their story when it's all over though). Despite the Whitehouse's claims to the contrary, whistleblowers aren't criminals, deviants, seditionists, terrorists, or perverted sex fiends.

Comment: Don't dismiss RMS (Score 4, Insightful) 248

by matbury (#49087545) Attached to: Lenovo Allegedly Installing "Superfish" Proxy Adware On New Computers

Richard Stallman is spot on regarding free and open source software (FOSS). He warns us about how proprietary, closed source software can be abused and that our dependency on it is a danger to civil society. In case you didn't see it the first time round: Only an idiot would dismiss the concerns he raises.

Comment: Re: Nothing is possible. (Score 1) 249

by matbury (#49074173) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question

It has been proven over and over that the only people who always behave according to game theory are economists and sociopaths.

Yes indeed! What's more, economists and psychopaths (sociopath isn't a recognised term in psychology) require the cooperative aspects of the rest of the population in order to take advantage of them. All mamals, from birth, by definition are cooperative and altruistic in nature. Otherwise young wouldn't get nutured, fed, and protected. Anyone recall Maslow's hierchy of needs?

I do with these idiotic game theorists would refine their claim that their hypotheses describe only competitive and/or psychopathic behaviour.

Comment: Re:Or how about no jobs? (Score 1) 307

by matbury (#49073941) Attached to: The Software Revolution

I think IT is unlikely to change the consumerit nature of our economies. After all, it's their bread and butter. Perhaps they'll destroy themselves by making so many people unemployed that there's no longer sufficient demand for their services since nobody would be able to buy their advertising clients' stuff. People would give up wasting time on the internet and paying connections fees to telecoms giants while trying to find ways to feed, shelter, and clothe themselves and their families. Mass-market, advertising and consumer service-based IT could evaporate quite easily.

How can you work when the system's so crowded?