Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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: Can't Get 1 Year Predictions Right (Score 4, Informative) 393

by thebes (#49070557) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

You have a computer prediction (and a software one at that) that is attempting to look 5 years into the future. Yeah, good luck with that. Any article talking about the future in such a way is simply a marketing ploy. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A reasonable road map demonstrating how this could possibly be achieved on the other hand would have some credibility.

Compared to this article, the Mars folks look a little less crazy.

Comment: Punishment for leaking NSL? (Score 1) 159

by thebes (#48975419) Attached to: Site Launches To Track Warrant Canaries

So, if they are told they can't indicate they received an NSL, and there is otherwise no proof the NSL was delivered due to lack of evidence aside from whatever the FBI has, then if someone were to leak that they received an NSL (or any other form of acknowledgement to this effect) then this by itself would require some further action by the FBI to arrest, rub out, or otherwise eliminate the person under some other reason to avoid revealing the contents or existence of the NSL?

It seems like being sent to unspeakable places is really the only option (scary, I know) since FPMITA (federal pound me...) would require a reasonably clear case against the person, and therefore require the FBI to cough up whatever reason they can? I know I know, they will just make shit up...but still.

Comment: Re:"repeatable independently verifiable reproducti (Score 1) 350

by thebes (#48173559) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

A patent only matters if those who you are trying to protect against are under (or cave or submit) to the jurisdiction of the region in which the patent is held. Unless you file a patent in every single industrialized nation for something as significant as this, and the idea is to make money, the better option is to keep it a trade secret so you don't need to disclose any details that those outside of the jurisdiction of the patent don't have the details handed to them.

Comment: Re:Gee, didn't they tell us ... (Score 1) 137

by thebes (#46378923) Attached to: Using Google Maps To Intercept FBI and Secret Service Calls

It's more likely that google is just more open and honest about how they use the information they have about you. They admit openly that the main reason for their success is their "marketing" ability. Customer/client information is a valuable commodity, and the marketers at any corporation you deal with would be fools to not monetize the information they manage to collect.

This is the same reason facebook pisses me off with their recent changes, but google+ doesn't really bother me.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics