Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Gosh!!! (Score 1) 318

You get code without symbol names and types, and that's assuming the authors hadn't outright obfuscated the code, otherwise you also get an entangled code flow.

For comparison we can paste the minified jQuery code into the excellent deminifier that was suggested in your link and compare the outcome with jQuery's open code; I can't directly paste snippets here because slashdot's lameness filter doesn't want me to.

Comment Re:Loons running the asylum (Score 1) 318

They aren't focusing on "the script that makes text blink on some random website". They're worrying about the rising importance of Javascript in everyday computing, which should matter a lot for the FSF given that free software enthusiasts generally start coding on the software / hardware platforms that they use at home or at the school.

We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.

The FSF had long seen this happening and they've been advocating for freedom in Javascript for years; while a lot of people laughed at them with straw men such as "meh, Stallman wants free blinking text", once again their position - which once appeared to many as a paranoid's stance - is reavealing itself to be quite insightful.

Comment Re:YHWH: the name above all [other] names (Score 1) 127

In contrast, Islam uses the word "Allah", which comes from "il illah", "The (One) God", which is a title and not a personal name. Also note that despite the claims of the Muslims that Allah is the God of Abraham, this claim must be false when scriptures are compared.

Christian Arabs used the name Allah to designate the christian God long before Islam even existed.

Comment Re:Turn the question around (Score 1) 201

I'm not talking about glasses uploading automatically. I'm talking about them using remote storage on Google servers for anything that they shoot, which is already an option on Android, and will surely be even more important on Glass, even more so if we suppose that the glasses won't have the computing power and storage capacity required for realtime image processing which is going to be an important application for that kind of device.

Comment Re:Turn the question around (Score 2) 201

A dorky headpiece that could soon be worn by millions of people, continuously taking billions of high resolution photos and video clips with precise date/time/gps locations, and sending all of that data to a single commercial entity whose business is to harvest and process personal data, with a track record of privacy stumbles, an extremely high computational capacity and already knowing lots of details about millions of persons including faces, names, email and street address, whole phone books, geographic locations.

Comment Re:Hate labor laws? (Score 1) 293

My company has an entire office full of people in Italy that do nothing because we have no more use for the facility but the local laws do not allow us to fire them. Instead we make them show up every day, for their 7-8 hours and sit in chairs and do nothing.

Fire your lawyers then. In Italy you can fire people you no longer need, it's called "justified objective reason", and it applies in cases of crisis, downsizing, restructuring, or ceased utility of the job position in general.

Comment Re:Greed (Score 1) 292

So, because one particular design has a problem, you would condemn all nuclear technologies?

Where the hell did I say that? I didn't even qualify the fact as a “problem”, that's just how those things are designed to work. And why should BWR designs be “bad”? They’ve been used successfully for decades.

However, finding faults with a well designed molten salt reactor will be very difficult for an honest person.

We’ll be able to discuss that when molten salt reactors exist on the market.

Comment Re:now we wait (Score 1) 586

I'm not against GMOs per se: the hand of man has been improving the unkind nature since the dawn of the times. I know that much of the fruit we have been eating for centuries is "genetically engineered" somehow, that lemons don't grow from lemon seeds.
However, saying that Europe needs genetically engineered crops is hyperbolic at best.

I frequently hear tales of GMOs saving the world and whatnot. But when I ask for a scientific measurement of their effect, all I get is studies - often sponsored by GMO proposers themselves - showing that, in developed countries (as Europe is), they can lead to modest increments in yeld (in the order of magnitude of 10% over ten years), and sometimes they don't (e.g. in Australia).

I can't talk about what happens in the vasty plains of Germany, but here on the terraced slopes of southern Europe tons of fruits are left to rot on the branches because picking them up would cost more than you'd earn by selling them (also because of the european subsidies which transfer money to latifondists no matter what they do with their land), and still no hungry mobs are plundering those fields. We can't compete with China on growing cheaper rice, no matter what seeds we use. What we can do is to promote our centuries-old cultivars, and the traditional foods based on them, and sell them for a premium because they don't taste like shit.

You'll forgive my diffidence, but in the latest years, every single time we've been told to drop a time-honoured habit of us in order to copy some other country's recipe for success, it ended up in grief and hunger (this one scientifically measured) for us. Timeo multinationals et dona ferentes.

Comment Re:I tend to agree (Score 1) 318

First of all, we can make a distinction between security fixes and software upgrades in general. The former don't usually require new drivers.

Then, as I said, none of the reasons you exposed are technical. You've just described the state of the things as it is now, because of disinterest, laziness or intention to control: for example, Google forking stuff instead of working with upstream, manufacturers likewise maintaining their own buggy kernels with secret sauce and leaving them to bitrot as soon as their new SOCs are out, carriers ignoring patches already provided by Google and the manufactureres because they couldn't care less, or delaying them for years just to apply their customizations to the new firmware.

Carriers are public concessionaries. Ask them to provide the customers with secure phones or, if they're not able to, to leave the public spectrum to someone else who claims to be, and see how the supposedly technical reasons vanish quickly all over the chain from carriers up to Google.

By the way, Linux on ARM has flattened device tree support. Discovering devices is the last of the problems now.

Comment I tend to agree (Score 1) 318

Current smartphones are computers and Google / manufacturers / carriers should enable them to be patched or upgraded as one would expect of a computer. There is no strictly technical reason if things don't work this way already - only disinterest, laziness or desire to control. If regulation can push the three to behave, to me it'd be welcome.

However, I wouldn't know exactly what the practical terms of such regulation could be. They certainly can't force manufacturers to support obsolete hardware forever. Perhaps they could prescribe a minimum timespan of guaranteed security fixes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...