Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Pity there isn't a -1 ; Conspiracy Theory mod (Score 1) 231

Please point me to the place where the information where Microsoft provides the detailed information about what telemetry data is collected. I don't think you can because I've checked and such a document does not exist. It is not 'out there' and while I only present a hypothesis, you are simply factually wrong (aka full of shit).

>Also a thought for you: Your OS, by definition, has access to anything any program on the system is doing. What would stop it from looking in at any 3rd party SSH server you ran, if you think it does that?

Exactly. The point is that it shouldn't be doing anything remotely close to that. And with Windows, I have no way of knowing if it is. You just supported my point.

Comment Re:Queue the haters (Score 1) 84

> "a browser's chrome has to be the least important thing I can think of."

This is a similar statement to :

1. "whether a phone has buttons or a touchscreen is the least important thing I can think of. As long as it makes calls."
2. "whether a car has a steering wheel or a joystick is the least important thing I can think of. As long as it runs on roads."

You have a lot to learn about UX, Sir. It is a real thing.

Also, people wanted the minimalism of chrome. Australis was minimalistic. It was also ugly. This is clearly indicated by the fact that the most downloaded theme for Firefox is FXChrome (which essentially reskins Firefox to look like Chrome.).

The fact is Firefox has lagged behind for long , its not even worth discussing it. And this time, it is plainly Mozilla's incompetence. No more "oh..IE comes prebundled ..its so unfair *cry* " type arguments to make. Chrome is simply technically better than Firefox. As for privacy concerns, this has been discussed enough times to everyone ought to know that you can turn off all the data collection activities in Chrome. Those who don't turn them off , don't care. Those who care, already do.

Comment That's it people. (Score 2) 84

It is time to accept it. You see, Firefox is essentially abandonware. Mozilla does not want to make the browser anymore. I can't blame them - they probably figure that they have already lost to Chrome.

So now they are seeing what can they hack together with all the good work they did in making the platform. Firefox went against Chrome and lost. Firefox OS went against Android and lost. Now Firefox OS is trying to not go against Google. They are trying to pick an easier fight.
Google made Chrome OS - which arguably was not an idea that really took off. That's because Google kept this light "browser as OS" very limited and tied to the Internet. Neither has Google particularly encouraged Android on the IoT. The most Android did was make some entry into media stations and such.

That's where Mozilla now thinks Firefox OS has a chance. Maybe FirefoxOS will do what Android and ChromeOS never accomplished beyong phones and netbooks. It's a gamble Mozilla is taking mainly because this way they won't have to compete with Google (yet).

This also means that we should no longer expect them to fix Firefox in the near future.

Comment Responsibility it yours. (Score 1) 540

"Why didn't they email me to check I knew these payments were being made? I got nothing from them."

Why exactly is it any company's problem that they check up on whether you are an idiot or not ? You agreed to bought the device, agreed to terms and conditions , and gave them your credit card. Now they much check if you weren't being a drooling imbecile when you did all that ?

Comment Re:Wouldn't it be more properly referred to as (Score 1) 288

So you have a problem with the mathematical hypothesizing that is involved in string theory? Hypothesis generation is an integral part of science.

The fact that the degree of adjustment required in string theory is unsatisfactory to you is perhaps indicative of the fact that string theory is a poor model of reality. On the other hand, it could indicate that reality is actually rather messy.

It is true that simplicity and elegance often seems like characteristics of correct models of reality. However, "messiness' and "beauty" are subjective human perceptions. Continuing the former example, Einstein's relativity might be thought of as unnecessarily complicating simpler equations by bringing in shifting time frames and speed of light everywhere. You only see that its elegant when you think of the bigger picture. Turns out that the reality of length and time is messier and more 'relative' than Newton thought.

As such, the floaty hypothetical numbers have no bearing on whether a model is useful or correct. String theory is a hypothetical model until it is contradicted or tested. That is all.

Comment Re:Wouldn't it be more properly referred to as (Score 4, Insightful) 288

Exactly. It is a model. It might even be a useful model with some explanatory power. But the same can be said of many belief systems. The only difference is that the other belief systems have been shown to be inaccurate by showing their contradictions with reality. With string theory, we are not aware of any specific such contradiction yet.

I don't think we should have any problems with models, as long we understand very clearly that they are only models. Like Newton's laws - they are strictly inaccurate but as approximate models of reality that are valid under some limited set of conditions, they remain useful.

Comment The ridiculousness is appaling (Score 4, Insightful) 347

It's come to this now? The US agencies don't even pretend to respect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. They are now openly asking for Orwelian features in products produced by private companies?

Are American citizens so lost that they do not see how ridiculous that sounds ? They might as well just as every citizen to spend a mandatory year in prison ...just in case they get incarcerated later in life.

Comment Re:Next up: Stone candy. (Score 1) 159

Your body never correlates the enough calories signal with the satiation signal while eating anyway. Satiation is mediated by Ghrelin and Ghrelin levels fall rapidly after eating leading to a feeling of satiation irrespective of caloric intake.

Caloric intake is sensed through a complex interplay involving the liver. Your overshoot theory doesnt seem to hold.

Comment Re:Meh, nothing is going to come of it. (Score 1) 311

There are 8 physical cores on the chip by the definition of a CPU core :
"A central processing unit (CPU) is the electronic circuitry within a computer that carries out the instructions of a computer program by performing the basic arithmetic, logical, control and input/output (I/O) operations specified by the instructions."

The problem is that each core in a pair cannot do it without compromising the partner core's performance. This is something AMD never claimed anyway.

Comment Meh, nothing is going to come of it. (Score 1) 311

A judge is likely to ask : Were there 8 cores ? If the answer is yes, which it seems to be , then AMD is in the clear.

No multi-core CPU box ever came with a statement that all 8 cores would be capable of processing instructions in parallel at the same time. It does however mean, that AMDs 8-core is significantly worse than Intel's 8-core.

Comment One of many ways (Score 1) 204

The Twitter thing is just a new way to bypass journal restrictions. It has been going on like this for years -

1. It is perfectly accepted by journals that scientists share their own paper, under 'fair-use' regulations. Simply dropping a line to original authors will usually get you their paper without any cloak and dagger tactics.

2. Sites like Libgen have an expanding archive of papers. Running the site is illegal, but downloading material from Libgen isn't (at least in Europe).

3. Posting on the r/scholar sub-reddit will also usually get you the paper within a few hours.

4. A friend/colleague/collaborator at an institution with access to the journal will usually gladly forward you the paper.

5. Many smaller institutions maintain collaboratory VPN access to larger institutions. This allows you to piggyback on their subscription.

If these scientists using regular unencrypted email, it is hardly private. However, the reason the journals will never come after individual scientist is that scientists are their content generators. Any journal suing a scientist will immediately be boycotted and will go out of business. Instead, journals try to make it harder to download papers, while letting scientists read them if they have a subscription (eg: Readcube). Of course, this is a fool's errand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes

Working...