Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:If this was Apple... (Score 0) 258

Apple became a little less offensive in their saturation advertising, filling every space, every blog and every forum with their marketing bull shit, mind you only a 'little' less offensive and, that's only because they were losing. People got pretty sick of it and paid out the Apple trolls by attacking Apple at every oppurtunity.

The current Apple iPhone is still last years Android phone. Apple's biggest blunder this season was not to produce a phablet as well, huge mistake, this makes the Apple iPhone look even more primitive as for the bling gold colour, dumb.

The Phablets are currently getting the lions share of media space (apart from the short lame paid for spurt by Apple, with the idiocy of higher graphics performance against phones with 2.5 times the pixels to shift). A high resolution large screens are driven by performance, hence it has a high impact on perceptions of value and the 'price' that can be charged. Clearly Samsung is committing fraud to inflate the prices and profit margins of it's products (what does this have to do with Apple, nothing, so piss off Apple trolls).

Comment Re: Fucking idiots (Score 1) 1532

An almost endless series of scientific studies have thoroughly refuted the null hypothesis. The proportion of homophobes who are homosexual is strongly different from the proportion of homosexuality the general population. Homophobes are several times more likely than the general public to have an erectile response to gay porn, to spend more time looking at gay porn images when given a variety of images, and to have a faster reaction time for homosexual terms when when the test primed them for self-identification.

For example in this study two thirds of non-homophobic men showed no erectile response to a gay porn video, while 80% of homophobic men did have an erectile response.

Homophobes being active or repressed gay is a cliche because it's typically true, especially among the loudest most driven anti-gay crusaders. There is a reason they're driven.

Other research has found that such individuals are also highly likely to have been raised in very authoritarian and repressive homes. In such a home it would be emotionally dangerous or even physically dangerous for a child to express any homosexual inclination. In such a situation it becomes a survival mechanism for a child to develop an intense hostile internal repression of homosexual inclinations. This internal hostile repression is then directed outward at anyone and anything that threatens to evoke their internal repression.


Comment Re:Microsoft's approach (Score 1) 90

The problem is that security is ALWAYS your problem. Always. Because if you hand it over to someone else, that implies that you completely trust the entity you entrust your data to. You just shift the problem, from having to secure something to having to trust someone.

Now, essentially you're doing that all the time. Even if you have someone in house instead of "outsourcing" it to a third party. But unlike with the third party, you can take a closer look at the person or the people you entrust it to. You can check and double check their background, screen them thoroughly, depending on your country even go as far as snooping in their private life and finding out whether or not they are trustworthy on a very personal level. You can NOT do that when you hand security over to a third party since you will not have any chance to find out what person or what group of people will be responsible to handle your data. Worse, the personal responsibility is way lower. If your security officer fucks up, you can fire him and it's pretty certain that his career takes a nose dive. Imagine his motivation to do whatever is necessary to keep your security at level. Now compare that to a company like MS, IBM or the like. Do you think anyone there needs to worry about his job over a data breech? Or even his career?

Who do you think is a lot more motivated to keep it from happening, if necessary at his own expense? Who will go to whatever lengths it takes to ensure your data is protected, integer and available no matter the cost? Who will most definitely spend every penny of a budget you hand him on security rather than some job perks?

In a nutshell, security is something I would not hand over to a third party unless you're SO small as a company that it simply isn't feasible to have a dedicated security officer on your staff. And then I'd rather hire one person at a hourly base rather than handing it to some corporation who doesn't care about your security beyond the monthly bill they send you.

Comment Re:I'm sorry, no. (Score 2) 1191

It looks nice, I'll give you that.

No, no it does not look nice. It looks like complete and utter shit. Seriously, how can anyone look at this and not see garbage?

And no, I'm not sorry at all. Everyone involved in this design getting past the drawing board should be fired, from a cannon, into a giant vat of hot grits.

Comment There's three nominees (Score 0) 273

Edward Snowden, the fugitive American former intelligence worker, has made the shortlist of three for the Sakharov prize, Europe's top human rights award. Mr Snowden was nominated by Green politicians in the European Parliament for leaking details of U.S. surveillance. Nominees also include Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager shot in the head for demanding education for girls.

I will tell you, it is three nominees. Snowden, Malala, and the - what's the third one there? Let's see. OK. Snowden, Malala , and...
The third nominee, Snowden, Malala, and, let's see. I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry.

But whoever it is ain't winning, because whatever they did was like totally lame compared to Snowden exposing U.S. government spying and Malala getting shot in the head for wanting girls for go to school.


Slashdot Top Deals

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin