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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not Unexpected (Score 1) 56

Really, they are only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written - legislating from the bench is against the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. What needs to happen now is an updated law to clarify this to the original intent (and hopefully grant amnesty to anyone wrongly covered). Doubtful that will ever happen, but that's what should happen.

I'm not sure what needs to be clarified, a repeat offender seems like a common and trivial concept that the District Court completely messed up by tying it to a particular action. The entire point of using the word repeated is to punish a consistent pattern of behavior, it applies to everything from shoplifters to serial killers. Why should downloaders be an exception? For that matter, why should uploaders be singled out in particular? If I screw up and put something in my shared folder that I shouldn't have it's still one bad act from me. That does not make me a repeat infringer even if I shared a hundred songs and a thousand people took the opportunity to download from me. It just means I screwed up big, once. Same way getting into one fight and hurting four people is not the same as getting into four separate fights and hurting someone each time. The former is still an isolated incident, the latter a repeating pattern.

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 139

Hangouts does everything you describe. It's what I use all the time. It is seamless across my phone and table and my PC. And it is seamless across windows, linux and apple.

It is seamless between SMS and the internal delivery system, and the conversations are synced to my gmail account allowing me to search them.

I like Hangouts and use it constantly, both personally and for work (I work for Google, where it is arguably the primary means of communication), but it isn't quite as seamless as iMessage in one respect: SMS integration. In iMessage there is no distinction between SMS and iMessage messages; they're all just messages. If they can be delivered via Apple's infrastructure, they are, if not they're routed via SMS. With Hangouts, SMS and Hangouts chat messages are distinct. They look similar, but they're different in subtle ways.

Of course, Hangouts clearly is superior to iMessage if you or your friends use non-Apple devices, because Hangouts works on a much wider variety of platforms, and for those who understand the distinction it's *good* to know what is SMS and what is not, because SMS is inherently unreliable -- and in some parts of the world SMS is also ridiculously expensive while data is cheap.

So, although depending on your context Hangouts may be better than iMessage, it's definitely not as seamless in a pure-Apple world as iMessage is.

Comment Re:What kind of inhuman piece of shit (Score 1) 782

One that doesn't want to see his own country nuked. That's the thing about an arms race you see. It's compulsory. The peace loving hippy gets his stuff taken away by the guys with the guns. Every time.

An arms balance is necessary, an arms race implies an out of control positive feedback loop. It might be because one side genuinely wants to be the agressor or both sides are confusing shows of strength and willingness to defend themselves with escalating aggression, but mostly it's because we don't want to be vulnerable. But the less you can be harmed, the more everyone else is at your mercy. And they don't want to be vulnerable either, so they want better weapons so they can hurt you too. Disarmament is taking down this stress level, we won't point big guns at you if you don't point big guns at us. But with nukes and MAD both sides want to hold that "FUCK YOU TOO" card, just in case it's a deception.

Comment Re:To be fair, a pretty easy run (Score 1) 239

Not to mention there was no traffic on the road that late at night, and more importantly, you don't learn anything scientific from doing this (and afaict, they don't even claim to have learned anything), it's just a publicity stunt. And Uber has been doing a lot of these kinds of publicity stunts lately. My theory is that they are trying to pump up their valuation for an IPO (or another round of funding or whatever).

Well, it's obvious that post-SDC somebody will be operating this huge fleet of self-driving taxi/transport vehicles. At some point it's just about being the most hyped company to get the funding to ride the bubble like say Amazon did. Sure, they lost 96% of their share value in two years when it popped but those who never got on the hype bandwagon mostly lost everything and are nowhere to be found. To be honest I don't really mind a SDC bubble where everyone goes crazy because it will also accelerate change, the dotcom boom/bust might not have been good for investors but the transition from offline to online went pretty snappy.

Comment Re:like in the movie? (Score 1) 239

And there is a large feedlot right next to it, where they collect the piss.

The GTA V beer is spoofing Budweiser's anthem, I wonder why... of course they also say it's German but I think they got it confused with Bismarck, North Dakota or something. They might be responsible for World War I, World War II, blood, sweat, tears and gas chambers but bad beer is simply inhumane.

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 234

The point that MS was *trying* to make was that they could give a phone that when docked becomes a viable PC (shame they made it based on ARM, which nullifies that promise of value, even in theory).

MS has a challenge that on the one hand they need to move beyond leveraging their near monopoly on desktop to get success. The problem is they haven't produced something that is new and compelling on its own merits in over a decade. They keep breaking and fixing Windows, keep milking the cash cow that is Office. Continue selling SQL server to shops that say 'hey, ' SQL server from our OS vendor, good enough'. They continue to enjoy their position with Exchange of having unbelievably terrible competition in the space. On the flip side they struggle to get people to enthusiastically adopt their messaging platform (repeatedly rebranding it and redressing and still having fundamental problems) or sharepoint (which makes users and admins alike cringe in much the same way people cringe at the phrase 'Lotus Notes').

I suppose Azure is a sign of their success, buried in the bowels far away from consumer end users at least..

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 234

Well, in principle it's not so far fetched. In terms of compute power, most people have needs that can be met. The PC difference is human factors around input/output. So their 'continuum' concept is not too terrible in *theory*.

In practice, 'modern' applications are nearly non-existant, making the phone-friendly applications exteremely limited. Where they do exist, they tend to have a worse interface than their Android/iOS equivalents (e.g. netflix's modern app is terrible). 99% of my Windows 10 PC usage is 'traditional' win32 applications (occasionally I open up calculator). With the windows 10 improvements, at *least* it's possible to create a viable UI for desktop and full screen usage, though still being responsive UI to span anywhere from a window on a desktop to a tablet to a phone is an art that escapes most UI designers.

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 2) 234

No. You don't. Because that isn't possible to do. The fact that this guy even said that means he is clueless about mobile. He needs to be replaced.

Ah our resident doofus. If he said he had a PC to replace your phone, obviously he'd be clueless. A phone to replace your PC? Why not, for most people their phone now has way more power than the PC had ten years ago, it just has bigger input/output devices. Microsoft could make a x86 phone with a HDMI/DisplayPort/USB dock (or just an USB-C cable hookup) and it'd make a perfectly satisfactory PC for most people. His problem will be that nobody wants the phone side of it, they want their iApps or Google Play-apps.

Comment Re:Who needs them anyway (Score 1) 325

I stopped wearing a wristwatch 10+ years ago. It was annoying to wear while using a laptop. There's clock on my phone, computer, car, radio, egg timer.. I don't see the point in carrying extra one on my wrist.

To me it's exactly the opposite, sure there are all these different context-dependent places I could see the time but my watch is always there and I can just glance down 0.2 seconds to see how long do I have to get somewhere or be somewhere or have spent on something or have left of something. I feel it gives me more control over the day than if I don't wear one because the overhead is so small, if I have to pull my phone out of my pocket I don't really do it unless I need to know the time. I put it on in the morning, take it off when I go to bed and it runs years on a battery so that very little "nice-to-have" is balanced by a no-fuzz experience. Don't know how your watch is or how you type but I don't have a problem using a keyboard all day with mine.

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 79

I think the point is despite *trying* to design it 'secure it in the first place', there were failures. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, and claim that if they had just secured it *right* in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem, but it is disingenuous to say they didn't even try.

This is the crux of the problem for security. Even if you *try* to do it right, there is every likelihood that you will mess up. Even if you pull in a 'trusted security company' to audit your design, they'll frequently do an inadequate job because they lack expertise in what you are doing to credibly know if it is secure. They'll look for things that vaguely resemble other generic things and sometimes yell loudly about some non-issue that makes no sense in context, and at the same time completely miss glaring security issues.

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 79

You cannot *prove* security. Security is not a set of absolute laws, it is a subjective call. There are of course some *limited* facets that are more concrete (buffer overruns are never good, for example), but security is a big thing that encompasses a lot and in fact two different approaches can both rationally call each other insecure and themselves secure, depending on perspective.

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin