Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I hope this guy's good... (Score 1) 230

You really deserve a shiv in the liver, mother fucker.


Bush Jr did more damage to our freedoms than any other president in the history of our country. Given enough time he would have managed to revert us to a feudal system of government. He set the stage in which our current president is continuing to encroach on our rights unchecked. Bush Jr behaved more like a despot than an elected official, and played the nation for the fools that we are. I don't know who I hold more contempt for, Bush or the people who still can't see him for what he is.

So yes, I am happy that he got some limited kind of justice because he sure as hell will never see any real justice for his crimes.


Comment Re:I hope this guy's good... (Score 1) 230

You're part of the problem.

I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I didn't vote for any of these asshats, and I find it appropriate when their sociopathic tendencies come back to bite them in the ass. Vigilante justice may not be the best form of justice, but it is the only form these people will ever face.


Comment Re:I hope this guy's good... (Score 1) 230

I'm trying to sort out your twisted logic, but all I keep getting is a strange comparison between Obama and Bush, as if those were the only two presidents we have ever had. Both of them suck. At times I have a hard time telling where a Bush policy starts and an Obama policy ends. They are both ineffective partisan asshats who should never have been allowed to run anything. It should be noted that neither one of them has a scrap of integrity. The same can be said of pretty much every president in the last three decades with the possible exception of Reagan, but he was just acting.

The problem here isn't the individual in the white house, its the system that puts them there. That system virtually guarantees that someone who is able to make tough decisions based solely on the merits and not on the special interests, is doomed to fail. Once you have chosen a political ideology to stand behind (and the associated candidates), you have become part of the problem.


Comment Re:I hope this guy's good... (Score 1) 230

If evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, this might be justified.

By that logic... the hack is justified from the beginning because without opening up these emails... we would have no way to know if there is any wrongdoing.

No... this is wrong. Period.

No, it really isn't wrong. The reason is simple. Bush Jr went to great pains to erode our constitutional protections, and successfully rendered our privacy moot. Thanks to Bush, the federal government can search my e-mail without a warrant . If the government has this right by Bush's admission, we the people should have that right. To my mind that makes Bush's e-mail fair game for public consumption. Any way you slice it, GW had this coming, and I can only hope that there is something in there that in some way diminishes Bush and his ilk in the years to come.

Comment Re:battery life vs flexibility (Score 1) 404

I can get two solid days of heavy use on my iPhone 4. If I'm not using apps, I can get 3 days out of it.

So how come no one else I know can get more than a day?

Let me guess, they're using their iPhones wrong?

The most likely culprit is that they have not turned off the "automatically join networks" option. Leaving this on, leaves the wifi in high power mode all of the time. Turning that off doubled my battery life. I have to manually join the wifi network, but this is less of a pain than having no phone because i forgot to charge it last night. Also, note I have a 4, not a 4S. I thought I remember something about the 4S and the 5's using significantly more juice, but I could be wrong about that part.

Comment Re:battery life vs flexibility (Score 1) 404

The early blackberrys were highly optimized text messaging machines...everything was aimed at maximizing battery life.

Once you start bringing in big bright high def screens, arbitrary apps, fluid video, fancy gui elements, etc. you pretty much by definition are going to use more battery keeping the whole thing running.

You could have 3 days of battery life now if you were willing to go back to the feature set of the 8830.

In that time, batteries have improved dramatically as well. I can get two solid days of heavy use on my iPhone 4. If I'm not using apps, I can get 3 days out of it. Poor battery life is the result of engineers who either didn't care or didn't understand the importance of power consumption optimization. In short, its an engineering failure.


Comment Re:I'd expect that... (Score 2, Insightful) 404

REALLY GOOD TOOLS TO INTEGRATE WITH BUSINESS Everything you mention except remote wipe are for the end user. When people talk about tools to integrate with business they are usually referring to enterprise infrastructure integration tools. The problem is...The end user usually outnumbers the enterprise admin 200 to 1 so you have 200 people all going "It does what I need it to do" and 1 guy desperately trying to get anybody to listen to him about the inadequacies of the overall system. For enterprise the phone is but one piece to a very large whole. BlackBerry designed an enterprise system whereas Apple and Google designed a consumer oriented ecosystem. The former allows for fine granular control from the infrastructure to be pushed outward. The latter allows the end user to get stuff from iTunes/GooglePlay. From the very first BB phone connected to a BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) the infrastructure group was able to mandate policies on the device. There are third party policy tools to manage iOS devices in the enterprise but they are not as mature or feature rich as BES. Of course the new BES 10 actually has built in support for iOS/Android devices now which could aid in enterprise adoption of these platforms but BlackBerry will be making money off of each device with a seat license. But BB 10 upgrades can use existing licenses. BlackBerry wins either way.

Your post inadvertently exposes the entire reason that RIM is loosing, and will continue to burn.

The whole point is that phones used to be a corporate provided necessity, that the end user had mostly no use for outside of work. That meant that the company could have sole control and there would be no issue. Today, that situation is reversed, The smartphone is mostly for the end users use, and the company gets to tag along (often at no cost to the company even). The entirety of the needed technology is to prevent sensitive materials from ending up on the phone in the first place, as it cannot be considered a secure device. This is best achieved as en e-mail server administration policy. Any other solution is far more money and trouble than it is worth. Simply prevent the e-mail system from pushing attachments to smartphones devices, and you're 99.9% of the way there.

The reason this is so important is a matter of control. End users do not want to give up *any* control over their devices. The devices belong to them, and they won't tolerate the company tinkering with it in any form. We are a typical operation that makes heavy use of smartphones to keep in constant contact. The company does not pay for private phones or plans, but will provide a company cell phone to anyone who needs a phone / refuses to use their personal phone. The company phones are obnoxious enough that most people just use their own. The company happily interfaces with the private phones for e-mail and corporate messaging as easily as for the corporate phones, but the no attachments policy is enforced on the email servers. Even if someone looses a personal smartphone, there is nothing of any real value that is exposed to theft, so there is very little risk.

To implement all of that support requires only that the IT department implement attachment control policies on the email servers, and otherwise its a non-issue. Our wireless networks are already isolated from the corporate networks and considered completely untrusted, so there was never any exposure from wifi access in the first place. Even after all of that, we have not had anyone come to us and complain that something they were trying to do with their private or corporate phone wouldn't work.

At the end of the day there isn't anything that a fancy BES system and draconian lock down provides that we don't already have, and we save a huge amount of money by not having to provide phones and plans to everyone, not to mention the cost of supporting BES and / or whatever other systems your way calls for. BES and its brethren is a solution to a problem that no longer really exists. RIM is doomed because they came late to the smartphone party with features that no one really needs anymore, and as MS is discovering, the market moves too fast to be playing catchup.


Comment Re:If it hurts when you do that... (Score 1) 913

No, Microsoft needed to split with the past APIs (.NET, win32, COM, etc) and build a single one to replace them all. They needed to get a tablet interface. They needed to get a 30%-cut app store. They needed to get us all to upgrade (again).

So yes, Microsoft sees the desktop as the problem.

So basically, MS missed the boat. Now they want us to collectively pay for a new boat so they can play catch up? Truthfully, I'm ok with leaving them to sit in the lifeboat, they're in now, until it sinks. The Microsoft that climbs back out of the water will be a lot smaller, and a lot better for the experience.


Comment Re:It's a shame because (Score 1) 913

Windows 8 is one of the best consumer products Microsoft has ever made. I've introduced 4 low level users to it, and after a couple months, without fail, they all love it.

Win8 is one of those things people will look back at after the fact and recognize that it was much better than everyone thought.

Its no accident that nearly every post I have seen in favor of Win 8 has been anonymous. I have met one real life person who "likes" the new interface, and I just found out he works part time as a MS sales rep, and in spite of that, he qualifies all of his remarks about win 8.

Short answer is, MS built the damn thing to try and get users familiar with an OS that would give their mobile platforms a competitive edge, in the same way that having a uniform UI between business and consumer offerings helped MS gain and maintain dominance in the business software markets. MS knows no other way to operate, and likely they never will.


Comment Re:It's the stigma (Score 1) 366

People that started in the mail-room and made it to CEO were almost always the former CEO's/Chairman's son.

They didn't stay in the mail-room long.

I'm afraid that statement is just a little too far fetched. Please provide some kind of evidence to support that claim, otherwise we'll have to dismiss it as the tinfoil hat produced rambling that it likely is.

Comment Re:it's not 0-day (Score 1) 265

Right, because keeping an aerodynamically unstable shape pointed forward is butt simple controls. Just monitor and report, correct deflections from set values? Maybe monitor a velocity so you don't overshoot? Even an elevator is more complicated then that. What were you designing controls for?

I don't doubt you understand cell phones. You don't understand aero. The shuttle is hardly a good example. It's pretty stable and as you say, old tech.

We're talking about controls, not autopilot. The pilots keep the plane pointed correctly. Yes, the autopilot is fairly sophisticated, but minus the autopilot, there is not much that is all that different between a fly by wire control system and a hydraulic one that any 1950s era airplane mechanic would recognize. A plane can easily be flown without the autopilot. Even the autopilot is fairly simple compared, say, mpeg compression for video files, or voice recognition software. You're the one without a proper frame of reference. Just because you think of it as a difficult task doesn't mean it is.
For the record, the Shuttle was/is hideously unstable. Think flying brick. The autopilot on that thing really was a sophisticated piece of equipment, more so because of the woeful lack of processing power available in the early 80's

Comment Re:it's not 0-day (Score 1) 265

You might have stopped to take a control systems class before running your mouth.

As someone who has spent more than a decade designing embedded control systems, and more recently, designing cell phone communication subsystems, I can assure you that the situation is exactly as I described it. There is a reason why the space shuttles main control systems still used an archaic microprocessor even 30 years on, Anything more sophisticated is not only overkill, but actually dangerous, as simplicity lends itself to robustness. Complexity kills as it were.

Cell phones on the other hand require ever greater amounts of compute power, not just to run apps, but to provide the massive bandwidth that modern users demand. The two are simply not in the same ballpark as far as complexity goes. Cell phone communication is so specialized that a whole breed of processor has grown up tailored just to handling the complexity. Its akin to the difference between the software for a 2D sidescroller game, and a 3D game. If software and hardware at the complexity level of a cell phone had to be as reliable as the avionics package on a modern aircraft, Motorola would be the only manufacturer to have successfully brought one to market, and you could kiss smartphones goodbye. The only reason that people can even design and build avionics packages as robust as they are is because of how simple the actual problem is to solve. The only remotely complex parts of position controllers is the use of PID controllers, and that problem was solved decades ago in both software and hardware. Compare that with trying to patch a software system that occupies over 100MBs of code space, while its running, and you can begin to understand the difference in complexity. Hell, concurrency alone adds a level of complexity that any half-way intelligent embedded system designer avoids like the plague.

Slashdot Top Deals

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"