Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: comparison ? (Score 1) 112

by Tom (#49167509) Attached to: Unreal Engine 4 Is Now Free

Anyone who knows both - how does Unreal compare to Unity? I mean from a developer perspective. I've been using Unity since late 1.x / early 2.x days, and one thing that I like it for is that compared to the other engines I know from that time (e.g. Torque), it was always very easy to use and develop with, especially in the early development phases when you're prototyping and want to see some results, fast, so you can test basic gameplay and mechanics.

How does Unreal compare?

Comment: Re:Did *everyone* miss the point here? :-( (Score 1) 362

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#49166827) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

It remains the case that either my original statement is true, meaning a counter-example for the reliability of fact-based ranking has been identified, or my original statement is false, in which case the statement itself becomes a counter-example because it is widely repeated but incorrect.

Comment: Did *everyone* miss the point here? :-( (Score 1) 362

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#49164283) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

Oh, the irony!

Erm... It was intended to be ironic. Well, paradoxical, technically. Compare my final sentence

Remember, not so long ago, the almost-universal opinion would have been that the world was flat.

with the classic "This statement is false".

If my statement were true, it would illustrate a problem with Google's proposal.

But as my statement is false, it is itself a demonstration of the problem, because it perpetuates a myth sufficiently popular that it even has its own Wikipedia page. I was a little surprised that I couldn't also find it on Snopes.

Anyway, it's disappointing that no-one seems to have noticed that. Were none of you even a little suspicious about a post that in one paragraph said "Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct" and then repeated one of the most popular myths there is? Really?

Comment: Re:FEO (Score 5, Insightful) 362

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#49161057) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

"Fact optimization" is already behind more than one multi-billion dollar industry: advertising, political lobbying...

And this is why I fear this initiative, no matter how well intentioned, is doomed to failure. Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct. Moreover, censoring dissenting opinions is a terrible reaction to active manipulation and even to old-fashioned gossip, because it removes the best mechanism for correcting the groupthink and promoting more informed debate, which is introducing alternative ideas from someone who knows better or simply has a different (but still reasonable) point of view.

Remember, not so long ago, the almost-universal opinion would have been that the world was flat.

Comment: Re: the forces working against us (Score 1) 307

by Tom (#49160209) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

It's not a cop-out.

It's a cop-out if you say "laziness" as if it explains anything. That's like the police finding a crime scene and concluding that the gun killed the man, and then packing up their things and going home.

We need to figure out why people are lazy and check if we can address it. Maybe we're making it too difficult?

Here's an example: Backups. Even I didn't have a good backup regime until Apple came up with Time Machine. It's just too much stupid work. But someone sat his ass down and asked the right question. And that's not "why are these fuckers so fucking lazy?", but "how can we make it easier for the users?".

they usually see as *an obstacle* to fun

That exactly is the point. If people see our work as an obstacle - maybe every once in a while we should climb down from our high horse and admit that they could be right?

Threema is only $1 more than WhatsApp. Pop quiz: how many people buy these over the insecure alternatives? Now you know how much the users care. ;)

Messaging apps are driven purely by networks. If all your friends switched to Threema, you'd do it too. If nobody does it, you're unlikely to be the first. Security doesn't matter enough to lose contact with all your friends.

Comment: Re:who cares ? (Score 2) 184

by Tom (#49157551) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

If I am looking for Foobar Inc's website, and I see www.foobar.com, I can be pretty sure that is legitimate.

That's not been true for a decade. Due to overloading (i.e. multiple organisations, same name), the Foobar Inc you are looking for could be at foobar.com - but it could also be at foobar-inc.com or foobarinc.com or foobar-newyork.com or foooobar.com or whatever domain name was still available when they finally went on the Internet.

Comment: Re:Greedy bastards. (Score 1) 184

by Tom (#49157549) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

It highlights a problem with the DNS system since ICANN took over.

We used to have a logical, hierarchical system. Any company would be under .com and any university under .edu -- then it broke apart and you would find anything under .com and anyone who couldn't get the .com name under .org, .net or whatever.

Then ICANN came along and greed won. Now you'll find anyone under anything, provided they paid for it. The TLD part has become entirely meaningless as it does not convey meaning anymore. ".dev" does not actually mean anything. You might think it means something if you associate those three letters with a meaning, but actually it only means "owned by Google".

We should just ditch the .tld entirely and that's it.

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 1) 184

by Tom (#49157541) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Sarcasm aside, professionals use the right tool for a job. Not necessarily the most complex or expensive or technical. A professional knows when to use the combo-hyper-pro-magic-machine as well as when to take a hammer or a screwdriver.

URLs have a reason to exist, and they will. The same way that IPs have a reason to exist and will, even though we rarely use them today. But 10 years ago, I knew the IPs of all my servers by heart. Today I need them rarely, but sometimes I do and I know where to find them. Today I know all my domains by heart. Maybe in 10 years I will use them rarely, but when I do, I know how to do it.

Comment: Re:this is one more reason (Score 1) 135

by Tom (#49157531) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

guilty until proven innocent.

If you have the long laundry list of crimes that Kimble has, and everyone with any interest in the subject is wondering how you're still not in jail, then yes, that is the proper approach.

Don't get me wrong, in a court of law, I'm all for the innocence assumption. But outside, in the real world, when you're dealing with a career criminal then for your own safety you should assume that he's not suddenly turned into a little angel just because you are such a sweety to him.

Comment: Re:Monopolistic: Do no evil? (Score 3, Insightful) 184

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#49154799) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Now will ICANN put its foot down

It had better hope so, because giving entire TLDs to specific big companies could easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of the rest of the world accepting US-led administration of the general Internet. There's plenty of scepticism already, but organisations like ICANN are tolerated because frankly no-one has much of a better idea or wants to take on the responsibility. However, it is not difficult to think of a better idea than letting big businesses rewrite the established rules in arguably the most important address space in the world today for their own benefit.

Comment: Re:git blame (Score 1) 307

by Tom (#49152659) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

Three years ago, I tried to start something called the Human Security Initiative. Not by accident acrynomically close to Human Computer Interfaces.

This is desperately needed. We need to sit our asses and oh-so-smart brains down, get some designers and psychologist into the room, and talk about how to properly design security, not just engineer it.

Comment: Re:git blame (Score 1) 307

by Tom (#49152651) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

Top labs are *still* researching how to replace passwords while maintaining security.

I know. I've tried my own hand on this topic, to no avail. It's really hard.

And yes, entering your password once is a very big progress.

That's true except all kinds of people have learned to use GPG.

If you have to, or really, really want to, you will learn to use the worst tool in the history of mankind. But we should think about people who have no such drive.

The real reason people rarely use it is pure laziness

That's a cop-out. Another cheap excuse. You're blaming the user and stopping there. Let me help you with some cognitive dissonance: The same users that you call "lazy" spend an hour a day clicking on a screen to plant FarmVille crops. The most useless and boring activity ever invented. If Zynga can get them to click on some pixels repeatedly, twenty times a day, why can't we get them to click on a button once?

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...