Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:And Microsoft 'saved' Apple... (Score 1) 106

It's news because it wasn't known before and it tells us a lot about Google that we've only had hints on before. It's also an interesting recap on the early days of Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be the first company that released (despite their best efforts, I'm not blaming them) overpriced underspec'd crap at the beginning that could have severely dented their future business, but it's often hard to remember that.

Remember the original iPhone? EDGE only? Required special SIM cards? Barely supported text messaging, and didn't support MMS messages at all? Didn't run third party apps at all? You don't? Nobody does? It's true!

Yet the iPhone survived all that and nobody remembers how awful the first version was. Turns out Tesla's original sedans were a similar story. I didn't know that. I thought they were always cutting edge.

Comment: Re:The first paragraph of TFA ... (Score 1) 69

by squiggleslash (#49510575) Attached to: Chrome 43 Should Help Batten Down HTTPS Sites

No that's what the summary says, but is not what Chrome is actually doing.

Spoiler for those not reading TFA: Chrome did do what the summary suggests in current/earlier versions (as do IE and Firefox), but will instead change "http" to "https" behind the scenes in future for internal links on a page fetched using HTTPS.

Is this a good idea? In my view, I'm going to be bold here and answer with a firm, unambigious, "perhaps"...

Comment: Are things back to normal now? (Score 1) 270

by squiggleslash (#49496347) Attached to: Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

This sounds like the kind of reaction our glorious overlords were having to people landing on the Capitol lawn on September 10th, 2001.

A little miffed, patronizing, an official "We have our eye on you", but not guns drawn, no disappearances into Cuban prison camps, no insane over-reactions.

Comment: Re:Shows just how far the U.S. will go to get him (Score 2) 160

The plane of the President of Bolivia was not forcibly grounded.


Assange owes an apology for the President of Bolivia for Assange SWATTing him.

Either the President of Bolivia was forcibly grounded, possibly thanks to Assange spreading a rumor about Snowden, or he wasn't.

Comment: Re:Misplace anger (Score 1) 160

Why exactly are you posting stuff to Slashdot demanding awareness of Russia and China when you could be out helping feed the starving? Have you given all your money to Oxfam? No? Why not? You think wasting your time on Slashdot moaning about how someone's political concerns are slightly less important in your perception than some other political concerns, is more important than people getting food on their plates?

I expect an apology and an immediate commitment to help feeding the hungry.

Comment: Re:Google updates (Score 1) 179

by squiggleslash (#49452867) Attached to: Google Lollipop Bricking Nexus 5 and Nexus 7 Devices

They can force manufacturers to use unlocked bootloaders if they want the official Google version. Microsoft (ironically they're changing this for Windows 10) requires manufacturers use unlocked firmware implementations for machines running the Intel version of Windows on UEFI machines.

There's no reason whatsoever why Google can't make the same thing a requirement beyond being scared manufacturers wouldn't go for it and would prefer shipping a version of Android with no Google services over shipping a device with a bootloader that's open.

Comment: I'm a little baffled (Score 5, Interesting) 121

by squiggleslash (#49443817) Attached to: Has Google Indexed Your Backup Drive?

So there are lots of people out there who are:

1. Enabling FTP on their NAS boxes.
2. Enabling anonymous access on this FTP service
3. Allowing their Firewall/Router to let incoming FTP connections directly to the NAS box.

I mean, the authors suggest those enabling FTP do not realize the implications, but how can you do ALL THREE and not realize the implications? Any one of those, particularly disabling anonymous access, would foil random search engines (and lazy hackers) trying to get at your files. But to do all three at once?

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 4, Insightful) 489

by squiggleslash (#49440743) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Reason wildly swings between presumably corporate funded crackpottery and principled stand. Their expose of the Ron Paul Newsletter for example was highly respectable.

I just wish they'd stop trying to promote ideological arguments with faux reasoning. If you ultimately just don't want the state requiring ISPs provide something predictable when they claim to be selling internet access, then just say so. If there's a logical reason, mention it. There probably are some somewhere. But "Payola is good!" as a justification (it probably isn't, and it's not a comparable situation) is ridiculous.

Comment: Re:Why no deportation? (Score 1) 250

by squiggleslash (#49437323) Attached to: Verdict Reached In Boston Bombing Trial

Because us losing our values and ceasing to be a Democratic Republic under the rule of law is exactly what people like him are trying to get us to do when they bomb us.

If it turned out that the maximum sentence for killing three people and injuring hundreds of others was a heavy fine and six months of community service, I'd be in favor of him being sentenced to that. Of course, I'd also want the law changed, but...

As it is, he'll likely die in prison, he's not going to be let off if we stick to our values.

Comment: Re:These days... (Score 4, Insightful) 892

Moreover the OP missed (as did most of the readers here) a too-subtle point made in the summary: it's not about who's better at negotiating, it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing. It's likely not a conscious decision on the part of those they try to negotiate with, more an unconscious reaction to a difference in expectations, but ill intentioned or otherwise it does actually happen.

I know women I work with who are considered "difficult" by all the (male) colleagues around me, simply because they do actually try to get ahead. For the example I'm thinking of, there's literally nothing she does that isn't done by far less qualified male colleagues who end up in more senior positions. But nobody wants to work with her, because she's "pushy".

We're rewarding people of one gender when they negotiate a salary. We're punishing people of the other when they negotiate a salary. Surely even Slashdot's current infestation of MRAs must see the problem with that.

Comment: Re:Did this really need demonstration? (Score 1) 113

by squiggleslash (#49421945) Attached to: Turning the Arduino Uno Into an Apple ][

Unlikely. Virtually all mainstream 8 bit CPUs of the time had BCD support in some shape or form, including the 8080 and its compatible rival the Z80 series. The vast majority of microcomputers in the late 1970s were 6502, 6800, 8080, or Z80 based.

Visicalc probably started on the Apple II because that's the computer the authors had at the time.

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year