Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Shellshock doesn't make sense. (Score 1) 64

by steelfood (#48464313) Attached to: The People Who Are Branding Vulnerabilities

Shellshock was a terrible name. Not all shells were vulnerable (especially not non-unix shells), only bash. The name for the vulnerability's name should've had "bash" in it at least.

Heartbleed actually sounds physiologically dangerous. Shellshock (and some of the other names) sounds unfortunate. In fact, Poodle actually sounds cute...

Comment: Re:"Two" times, not ten times (Score 3, Insightful) 201

by steelfood (#48447111) Attached to: Corning Reveals Gorilla Glass 4, Promises No More Broken IPhones

Actually, even the Wikpedia article you linked gives multiple definitions for toughness, depending on application. Which one is used here remains poorly specified and opens up the possibility of ambiguous marketing platitudes. Now, if they said shear strength was improved overall by a certain percentage, that would be information.

Comment: Re:Caring about news and politics instead of trivi (Score 1) 372

by steelfood (#48447081) Attached to: Blame America For Everything You Hate About "Internet Culture"

That was my first impression too. How snobby of the French to care about serious matters like politics and current events. How dare they not be as interested in cats and /b.

There certainly is a problem, and separately a snob problem even, but it certainly isn't with the French in TFS.

Comment: Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 186

Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.

These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.

Comment: Re:What's so special about Google? (Score 2) 331

by steelfood (#48438313) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Everyone does it. It's called protectionism, and no country is guilt-free. It's a matter of how smartly it's done. This move? Stupid. Picking a fight with Google (or even trash talking, which this really is) is a really dumb idea. Nothing's really going to come out of this, except for maybe a bit of egg on some world leader's face at a Google-hosted party. Toppling democratically-elected regimes in unstable regions? Brilliant. Chances of success are almost a hundred percent, and the trade benefits are tremendous. It's only called bullying if you're caught doing it and nobody's really looking that way anyway.

My point being, you shouldn't be so surprised political leaders are making lots of patriotic noise. It's what doesn't get into the papers that's the real eye-openers.

Comment: Re:In an unrelated news item... (Score 1) 331

by steelfood (#48438281) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Your numbers may very well be true, but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending. That means Americans spend more money on products per person than any other country (except the UAE, strangely enough). In contrast, the number for most of Western Europe is around 60% of the U.S.

This is why the U.S. is often considered a special market (consumer products-wise) separate from the rest of the world. The only other market that's considered special is China, but only because of its growth potential due to sheer population numbers.

Now, how much spending is on European products, nobody really knows. But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.

GDP numbers tend to be more relevant for B2B and banks, so it would be stupid if IBM or even Microsoft pulled out of Europe. But Google? Their dollars are advertising dollars, and the ROI on marketing in Europe just doesn't have the same potential. Not that they would want to pull out, as it's lost revenue and certainly opens the door for competition. But to say that Europe is a bigger market for them than the U.S. is flat out wrong.

Comment: Re:House reps are always campaigning, have small d (Score 1) 157

by steelfood (#48437815) Attached to: Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance

Those days are long gone.

You really have to wonder whether "those days" were ever around in the first place.

Money always talks. The more money you have, the louder you can be. Even on the internet, which equalizes this a bit, money just goes into disinformation rather than information.

Comment: Re:This article is useless (Score 1) 91

by steelfood (#48407231) Attached to: Facebook Planning Office Version To Rival LinkedIn, Google

There's a reason for this.

There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many of them spent at work. Workplaces will eventually settle on the most efficient tools. These aren't going to be the most powerful tools or even the simplest to use, but the ones who give people the most bang for their buck.

For communications, there's e-mail, IM, and the phone. For document management, there (should be) CMS. For sharing company documents, there's the internal website. For socializing, there's the water cooler.

Where these tools fit in... well, they don't. It takes more effort ("active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture") to make them work than the benefits gained over using the aforementioned methods.

Social sites like Facebook work because the links between people are usually physically separated relative to the importance of the communication (the more important the communication, the farther the physical separation). The physical networks are wide and slow, so the digital version has a purpose by making the networks closer and faster. At work, the physical network is close and fast. There's no need for a digital replacement, especially a complex one.

Disclaimer: We also "use" Yammer at work, but the conent is asinine mostly (at least when it's not someone being passive aggressive).

Comment: Re:Sad (Score 4, Insightful) 337

by steelfood (#48390535) Attached to: Philae's Batteries Have Drained; Comet Lander Sleeps

Yes and no. On one hand, it wasn't the perfect landing. On the other hand, they waited 10 years for a successful landing. And it happened. That's gotta count for something.

Remember that ESA probe to Mars that died when it got there? These guys could've waited 10 years to find out that their probe crashed into the comet, or overshot it, or some other calamity befell the lander rendering it inoperative.

Instead, they did their science, got their data, and have a chance at doing a bit more in the future. That they couldn't do more is unfortunate, but there's a reason they demarcated certain tasks as primary and put enough juice into the thing to complete all of them.

The probability of abject failure was much higher than the probability of any success, even if imperfect. The fact that this was a partial success, and I would argue it's mostly a success, is worth something.

Comment: Re:Your ancient rules make little sense (Score 1) 237

by steelfood (#48389313) Attached to: Will Lyft and Uber's Shared-Ride Service Hurt Public Transit?

You're relying an awful lot on the service to do the vetting and the work of ensuring passenger (your) safety. Are you sure they're actually doing what they say they're doing?

A lot of regulations are preventative in nature, rather than reactive in the same sense that a metal gate is preventative, but a closed circuit camera is reactive. You seem to think it's sufficient to just have reactive measures in place.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...