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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:When lawyers speak, they are advocates (Score 1) 260

Tim Porter may be a nice guy and all, but if it was Google with all those so-called bogus/lax patents he'd be up there talking about how the patent system is fine and the problem really is more that the enforcement process depends on endless litigation and how the determination of infringement needs to be more streamlined.

He's a lawyer, his job is to be an advocate/mouthpiece for his employer's interests.

They (and most companies) play both sides of the fence. At the same time as saying how bad patents are for impinging on their products, they are buying as many companies with far-reaching patents as they can get their hands on -- "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio", Larry Page.

You omitted the last half of that quote: "which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies." What he was saying was that Google's new patents will increase competition by helping to prevent MS and Apple from shutting Android down, and I think his point is indisputable: Allowing MS and Apple to kill Android would reduce competition, so preserving android increases competition.

I truly don't think Google plays both sides of this fence; everything I've ever seen from Google's leadership decries the patent mess as a problem, and explains Google's own focus on acquiring and growing patents as a necessary evil. AFAIK (and I have paid attention), Google has never asserted any patents against anyone, except defensively.

I think Google really would prefer to change patent law and get rid of all these crap software patents -- or even all software patents, period. I think this is as much reflection of Google's arrogance as Google's altruism -- Google believes that given a level field they can beat the competition in any area they focus on. But I think there is actually a large dose of "good for society" thinking as well. You have to remember that fully half of Google's employees and nearly all of Google's management are software engineers, and the vast majority of software engineers think that software patents are bad for innovation, and software engineers love cool new technology. Google's engineers are no different all the way up to and including Sergey and Larry.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but all of the above is based on public information plus my perception of general attitudes within the company.)

Um, no duh! Of course Google would prefer to get rid of all patents. If you look at their business model it's all about 'ad revenue'. What do they care what software or hardware you run their ads on? The more software and hardware that hits their ads instead of other people's ads, the better.

So if they abolished all apple's patents (and everyone else for that matter) and people could make the best mobile device for free and not pay homage to any license (ie. java, or other), then there would exist more, cheaper mobile devices running android, and thus, hitting their ads.

So Google has nothing to loose and everything to gain if the patent system were dissolved over night.

Comment Good vs Evil (Score 3, Insightful) 431

I don't think it's fair that it is just assumed that people will choose to do bad behind closed doors. I think the problem is the reward system is off balance. If a game truly implemented a true eco system of consequences and rewards for doing good vs evil you would see a different picture.

I, for example, played the game "Black & White" and your kingdom would morph to how you portrayed yourself. I actually was good "all the time" while I played that game. I slowly learned that the rewards for being good the whole time was limiting vs what could happen when you were evil. I only tried being evil once the reward for being good seemed to stop the gameplay.

If a game fully implemented repercussions for hitting civilians or doing evil, people would choose to do good. But when there are either no repercussions or just pure "cool eye candy" for killing people without consequence, people are really just looking to explore the dynamics of the game, they're not trying to do evil. So ultimately it comes down to the game designers making evil actions more appealing than doing good. That's the paradigm that would need to shift ...

Just think, if you killed a civilian in a mission you had to sit out a round or two in multi-player ... or if you had to go through an extra training course... This could also playout to be repercussions for 'friendly fire', instead of just disabling friendly fire all together. People would pay more attention to the goals of the game and stay more true to the role they're playing.

With "counter-strike", people choose (or get selected) to be on either the terrorists or counter-terrorist groups... same thing with most all multi-player games. In a way the "counter terrorists" are the good guys, and the terrorists are the bad guys... The bad guys kill the good guys here. Why not put civilians in the terrain and in the city? If a terrorist killed a civilian they would leave a blood trail behind or have to hide the body, or someone would scream and they would be easier to find, etc... There would be real repercussions for doing this. And if a 'counter-terrorist' killed a civilian by mistake or because it was a hostage or something, he would need to sit out for like 2 minutes or something before being allowed back in....

So the long and the short of it is, it's impossible to base people's decisions to do good vs evil with the games designed today. There is ONLY reward for doing anything the game lets you do. And people like to push limits to things to see what the developers created. Once they get their hands slapped for doing it, they probably won't do it again -- and if they do, they will have to work extra hard to undo the damage they had done.

Comment FPS vs refresh rate (Score 1) 125

Why would anyone need a framerate faster then the refresh rate of the display refresh rate you're using?

I've never understood why anyone would push a graphics card faster then the refresh rate of the display you're using. Why not just cap it off at the max refresh rate, and let the card take more time in rendering each frame.....

It seems as though there should be some sort of "dynamic rendering" option. You want the framerate to match the refresh rate of the monitor, so why can't the rendering engine decide what to spend more or less time on?

For instance, there are the core objects and lights and maps that make up the main scene, then from there there's particle engines, reflections, additional shading, etc. If the card has the capability to do 500 fps, I'd rather it focus on making a REALLY AMAZING 90Hz or 120Hz (or whatever my refresh rate is)....

And the flip side is true as well. If I'm playing a game, I'd rather it keep up with the monitor refresh rate rather then paint a pretty picture. It doesn't make sense for it to a beautiful scene while I'm getting whomped on.

The rendering engine for video games should dynamically choose what to render based on what your computer is capable of. All special effects and anti-aliasing and everythiing should be turned on when it starts up ... and it should scale back the unnecessary items as it can't keep up... and throughout the game one room might have different settings on than another depending on everything going on.

Comment Re:Doing Harm Should Exclude you from the internet (Score 1) 160

My thoughts exactly. Apparently with how we got modded I'm guessing slashdotters don't share the same opinion.

I really do think this is the right move. Being on the Internet is a privilege not a right. It's like driving on the autoban. If your machine is crippled, get over in the slow lane and stay there or you will get hurt; if your machine is healthy and strong open up the pipes and let 'er rip. Most people with a droned computer won't know any difference if their being filtered and throttled. Who cares??? It fixes the rest of the world and they dont even know the difference. And if they do figure it out, even better cause they can fix their problem and have their service fully restored.

Comment Doing Harm Should Exclude you from the internet (Score 0) 160

If your computer or your network is doing harm or attempt to harm a 3rd party it's just as though you punched them in the face.

I would be all for it if we could have these drones identified and kicked off the internet until they are proven decontaminated. This could be all handled at the ISP level. Maybe even just an "outbound filter" being put on these connections restricting their access down to HTTP port 80 and 443 traffic. With online web account the typical person uses gmail, yahoo mail, hotmail, facebook or some other form of email that doesn't require an email client configured. And if their email client doesn't work... who cares. They should be shut off the internet until they get their machine fixed.

Being on the internet isn't a right, it's a privilege being governed by the free market and 3rd party private companies.

A typical ISP reserves the right to drop you from service for any reason. They aren't required to keep you as a customer. I believe that greed within these entities keep this from happening. They don't want to risk reducing their customer base even 1%.

So getting back to the typic of this post, if a prescience could be set of what is considered intrusive from one machine to the next, the government could mandate ISPs to shut down these systems at the request of a 3rd party which could provide evidence that this machine is attempting to do something malicious.

If this happens then basically any machine trying to hit ports 139 or spraying ssh connections all over the internet, or smtp email all over the place, all these things could be shown as intent to harm a 3rd party and be shut down... And once it's down, they can resolve the issue and bring it back online.

Comment Resolve Problem ... (Score 1) 186

I think I have an easy solution to this. I'm not an analog expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I did use modems (300 baud modem all the way up to a 56k).

If you could make a cradle where you slide the phone into it, the purchaser's phone would send it's public_key to the purchasing system, which would then send it's public_key back to the purchaser's phone -- encrypted with the purchaser's public_key. Then the purchaser's phone would send the payment information encrypted with the public_key of the purchasing system -- and the acknowledgement of successful transaction would be sent back encrypted with the purchaser's public_key, then one more final "ack" from the purchaser's device to the system saying that it received the transaction confirmation. DONE.

I don't know how much bandwidth is there between the microphone and the speakers, but instead of just relying on the 'inaudible space', why not use the whole bandwidth? They're close enough, it won't be that much of a bother if it's in the cradle. I can't imagine this to be nearly as fast as swiping a credit card. But if you consider, swiping the credit card, waiting for the authentication, then waiting for the signature, then waiting for the printing out of the receipt, etc. That whole thing can take a minute or so depending. So if this system basically made it so that your receipts are all electronic (no paper print out required when using this system), no requiring another signature to use the device, and all you have to do is slide your phone in a slot for 30 seconds to a minute to complete the transaction, it nulls out the time and makes for effective use of technology.

It might FEEL like you're waiting forever for the handshake.. but people would just need to realize what busy work they're saving themselves, and plus the store is saving a ton of headaches as well not having to keep track of the physical paper receipt signatures. The credit card processors would appreciate that as well.

To really make this "safe" as well, you could have the software on the phone require a password to be entered on the device to "unlock" the encrypted "credit card information" within the phone for 2 minutes or whatever. After that 2 minutes of you entering the password, it auto locks and requires the password to be entered again. So if you loose your phone or someone steels it, they don't knwo your password to unlock your credit card information in the phone....

Anyway, there's my free $0.02 on how to make this work. :)

Comment Seriously? (Score 0, Troll) 549

Um dude, seriously?

Apple is moving to "iCloud" and had invested billions into a new data center promoting this initiative. This wasn't a "new idea because somebody posted an app they thought was cool so they stole it" type thing.

They had been moving this direction for a long long time. Syncing via wifi was next.

As far as the logo, they came up with the logo the same way you did. Take "iSync" + wifi + icloud brushed metallic look and bam, you have their logo. No brainer.

Syncing via wifi had been a much requested and anticipated feature. Not a fly by night ripoff idea from a Joe blow submission.

Comment Fairly simple solution (Score 1) 487

I don't think that "forking the internet" is all that bad of an idea if we want to keep it "open".

The way to fork the internet, while maintaining accessibility is through tunnels.

Basically a specific open-source secure tunnel bridge application should be created which can connect to various different portals into the "new internet", and the list of "tunnel portals" should be maintained via some peer-to-peer/signed method much like BGP but with an authoritative signature.

This way servers and websites can join the "new network" exclusively, and have a web plugin which would be able to know how to use this "new internet" and connect to sites through these portals until they're able to join this network by choice through their provider.

I would think it would help create something from the ground up on IPV6, and at the same time I would implement a new form of "sendmail protocol" which leverages encryption and a public / private key system to not allow people to send you spam unless you've added their public key to your email program. People can put their public keys on websites so if you want to send them an email you can grab their key, but unless they've added your public key to their local settings they can't get email to you.

Sure, lots of people want to be able to receive email from ANY source, to attract new business or whatever, but that's where form mail on websites is handy and also having a phone handy. You can call someone and say, "i met you at CES and want to send you an email, can you add my key?" And if they want to talk to you, they can enter your email address and grab your public key from your website. If you dont want to ever talk to anyone or have them talk to you to get emails, use a form email system on your website.

Comment FAT32 limitations (Score 3, Informative) 98

When are they going to switch to a different filesystem? The fat32 4GB file size limitations makes HD video a pain to deal with as well. Currently canon cameras stop recording when the file size reaches the maximum and the user has to see the recording light stop, and hit record again. A better interum solution would be to fill the 4GB file size, increment the filename by one, and keep going. I don't understand why they don't do that... it would be a simple firmware fix.

Comment Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really? (Score 1) 425

Something that everyone isn't realizing is why they are doing this. There is a positive reason behind all this.

People are more and more increasingly double or tripple or more selling a single ticket online, in person, etc. What happens when "grandma" paid top dollar to take her grandkids to a Miley cirus concert just to find out that those grandkids who have been so excited for weeks can't get in because the concert is sold out and someone already entered the building with the same "eticket"?

Ticket fraud is on the up swing. It is much more detramental to have someone physically at a venue who is not being allowed in to a concert because they find out their ticket is invalid while their kids are crying and screaming. Parents will do most anything for their kids.

I support this movement to a more secure eticket.

Something they should consider is a "re-register" process to verify a ticket is valid and switch out ownership of the ticket. I wouldn't expect anything like this in the near future as it would require a fairly extensive uplift to ticket purchasing systems.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.