Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Oy (Score 2) 522

So he cites three scenarios: Nuclear war, global warming, and genetically-engineered viruses. Then says we should have more planets to ensure a single incident doesn't destroy us. Given how much he and others have been spewing "AI is our DOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!" I'm surprised that's not on his list too. That aside his entire talk comes down to saying "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Thanks man.

Comment Re:The Best Way. (Score 1) 203

Get the folks behind the Delta Works in the Netherlands. Have them build a version that works for New York City. That, or build a time machine, go back to when someone got the bright idea to build a big ass city that's surrounded by water on 3 sides at sea level and stab them repeatedly with a steak knife.

Comment Re:Some things don't change (Score 1) 183

Yes, because we all know that the only company that ever has bugs in their products is Microsoft. After all, Apple just released an amazingly functional maps replacement for Google maps, Apple has never had hardware bugs with their devices, Bethesda software never has bugs in any of their games released to market, all versions of Android based hardware ship bug free and never need updates. /sarcasm off

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 195

Google has around 80% market share for internet searches in the EU. They are in the neighborhood of 66% in the US based on ComScore's assessment earlier this month. The same assessment lists Bing at 15.9, Yahoo at just under 12.8, and two remaining at less than 3% each. Google is a clear leader, but their manipulation of search results allows them to maintain and extend their lead which is exactly where you start running into trouble with the FTC. Any time you have a clear lead, monopoly, borderline monopoly, whatever, and you leverage your service to misrepresent your competitors you are being anti-competitive. Dicking around with the page ranks of your competition is misrepresentation no matter how you slice it. Even Eric Schmidt alluded to Google being a monopoly a year ago:

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 195

That isn't the point. Nobody forces you to use Google, but Google has a majority of the market share and as a consequence, they will be held to a different standard. If Google is altering search results to the benefit of their products and the detriment of their competitors products then there isn't much to discuss. It will simply be a matter of determining how much financial damage that has caused their competitors and how much Google has profited from that behavior. It isn't a question of, "Are they going to be found guilty?" It's one of, "How much will they be fined?" If Google weren't the clear leader in the search market it may not be an issue, but they are, so it is. Face it. Google is the same as every major corporation.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 82

And I'm sure you're just as forgiving whenever Microsoft has a security bug that gets exploited via 3rd party software (e.g. quicktime, flash, acrobat reader, etc.). or when there is no bug and it's purely a 3rd party vuln that allows access.

Comment Re:Hiding Something (Score 0) 207

An engineer buddy of mine was doing reverse-engineering work on the Skype protocol for a job he had a few years back, he would come to me with shock and tell me about how dumb and insecure the Skype clients are and how trivially easy it is to get any Skype client to work as an invisible proxy for you without that person's knowledge by just using the skype protocol. If they're making such a huge deal about it, you have to wonder why. They've got some problems and they'd rather have security through obscurity. *sigh*

Skype has always made a big deal about this. The difference is the Skype division now has a larger and more experienced pool of lawyers to call upon. Do you even know what security through obscurity means? This has nothing to do with security. This is about protecting the brand by not letting people use the product in unsupported ways. Any app using this open source API to access Skype in an unsupported way can/may/will break whenever an update is released for Skype. That will cause those apps to break and reduce the perceived value of Skype in the long run. If they use the supported API that problem goes away. This isn't a complicated issue and it isn't a gigantic Microsoft/Skype/Microsoft+Skype/Anti-OpenSource issue. It's about the integrity of the product.

Comment Re:It's about compatibility (Score 1) 392

I don't really see those as problems. What "older hardware" are you referring to? I have Vista running without problem on a machine that is about 5 years old. For desktops, that's well beyond end-of-life. UAC breaking badly written apps is a problem? Good. What app is it and why not go to one that isn't badly written? How is being 64-bit a downside? You can get a 32-bit version if you aren't on a 64-bit architecture and 64-bit Vista runs very nicely. No IE6... I can't say I go around trying to find legacy apps that need IE6, but you can still use ActiveX controls in IE7 and I haven't see a single page that doesn't work unless I'm using IE6. Are you referring to custom written software for a business/government customer?

Comment Re:In practice, it's not more open. (Score 2, Insightful) 315

I don't see Apple's inability to keep up with demand to be a problem. Few people even know that Google has a telephone. Google is one thing to 99% of the population. A search engine. Period.

With respect to telephones, Apple is Microsoft and Google is the sum total of all Linux distributions. Apple has a massive lead in cool factor, publicity, and market share. People will continue to develop for Apple simply because the odds of selling their apps are vastly superior considering the much larger iPhone market.

Comment Re:Oh Really? (Score 1) 336

It is an interesting exercise, but completely impractical. The only place this would really be useful is at an opera or some other venue where they can track who purchased a specific ticket, and then only if you purchased with a credit card. If you paid cash at a box office, it wouldn't work. For movie theaters, this is completely worthless except to possibly uncover a pattern of where movie pirates sit while using a hidden camera. And even then, most movies these days are pirated from the production facility or off copies released to people for review.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert