Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

your OP made it clear that you were intending your comment as disparagement towards Apple

If you view the accusation of Apple's advice being self-serving as "disparagement", then this was already clearly implied in the original comment, then clearly (and explicitly) spelled out for you in my previous comments!

And you ad hominem attack against me, based on my username, confirms exactly that

Your original comment already smacked of defensive fanboyism before I'd even noticed your username or taken a look at any of your other comments (#); that simply confirmed it for me.

If you'd come across as an otherwise neutral observer with an Apple-related username, you'd have had a point; but this wasn't the case.

You seem to think that "ad hominem" is a universal retort to anyone noting your username; it's not. If it was being used to shut down an unarguably true and factually correct point, you might have a case. However, if one is simply using it as evidence that you're an Apple fan and that this may be reflected in matters of judgement and viewpoint, it's quite legitimate.

Now you claim that makes Apple no better than other OEMs. Conversely, however, it makes them no worse.

Don't think I was suggesting otherwise. If Sony had done something similar and we'd been discussing that, I'd have been equally happy to accuse them of being self-serving in the same manner.

Your problem is (I'm guessing) that- like a lot of fans of anything- you view everything in terms of pro- or anti- your favourite whatever, and assume that everyone else is arguing in terms of that mentality. Hence, criticism of Apple is attack specifically on Apple.

Nope. As far as the point being discussed here is concerned, they're just another corporation- albeit one that is both financially successful and good at getting talked about- exhibiting typical corporate behaviour.

(#) And having done that, I suspected that you might accuse me too of an "ad hominem" attack. I was correct.

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

What would you expect them, or indeed any OEM, to say?

Er, I think you missed the point being made. That's precisely what I *would* have expected them to say, because it was in their own interest. Hence the quote.

Or perhaps your problem was with my implication that the motive was driven by their own self-interest, rather than pure, selfless concern for their users? Well, yeah.

Of course, by adding "or indeed any OEM", you're implying that this is an attack/persecution specifically towards Apple and that I'm biased. Nope; doubt I'm any more partisan than someone with the username "macs4all", and I'm sure that most similar corporations in Apple's position would have come up with a similarly self-serving answer. Doesn't make Apple any better than them, though.

Comment Re:Brian said "SPECTRE", not "specter" (Score 1) 181

"From a James Bond movie."

Kids these days.

Even if you're going to restrict yourself to movies, SPECTRE was the villain in most of the Sean Connery Bond flics. And that was in no small part because they took liberally from Ian Fleming's books.

At least you got the acronym right.

Now, for bonus points, what did THRUSH (the Man from UNCLE bad guys) stand for? (And, trivia note, Ian Fleming contributed concepts for that TV series, including the name of the main character, Napoleon Solo.)

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet? ;)

Comment Re:Internet of Things? (Score 4, Informative) 181

It's not just refrigerators and light switches.

It's also light bulbs (Philips stupid mood thingie), thermostats (Nest, etc), nannycams (every manufacturer and his brother), (in)security systems, even fricking doorbells, et bloody cetera.

And I'm sure I've left out some major categories.

Comment Re: Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 2) 103

PS: currently a whiteboard in the lab.

Heh. Back in my college (mainframe!) days, one of the systems guys had a blackboard in his office, and up in one corner were a few innocuous characters (something like "&:*").

Now, I was just a student, but spent enough time hanging around the computer center to know most of these guys. I noticed this one day and said "Jay, is it really a good idea to have the system privcode [essentially, the root password on that OS] in plain sight like that?", and grinned as his face turned white, then red. At least it wasn't "1234".

I'd learned it from a 2-inch thick stack of printout of the OS source code I'd found in the dumpster, it had been hardcoded into a function call. (I couldn't believe it was that simple when I first found it, but checking the Espol manual -- which I'd been given by a guy in a Burroughs sales office; when I went in and just asked what manuals they had on the B6700 system, he was happy to help out a student with some old stuff from a back room -- and sure enough, that's what it was.)

(I'm not even sure the terms "social engineering" and "dumpster diving" had even been coined back then, it was in the mid-1970s. And I never did anything malicious with the knowledge.)

Comment Okay, I'm lost now... (Score 2) 57

Am I the only person who's starting to lose track of who owns the rights to what after Nokia sold off its phone business to Microsoft?

I was under the impression that the right to use the "Nokia" name (which MS got the right to after buying the phone division) was due to expire after some time (#) and that was why MS were phasing it out.

The previous story linked in the summary seems to imply that MS sold off the ex-Nokia feature phone business to FIH, but they're still apparently making feature phones as "new Nokia phones" [my emphasis]

Yet Nokia itself announced it was licensing its name to a (different) manufactuer- HMD Global for similar purposes.

So what's going on? Does MS still own the name- or have a license to it- for smartphone and tablet use. Or has Nokia got it back? I can't see either party signing an agreement that would let them both use it for competing products in the same field (i.e. phones and tablets) at the same time; that sounds unworkable.

(#) This seems to be fairly typical when another company Y buys out X's widget division; they get the right to use X's name for a while (and presumably a non-compete from X, not that X is usually concerned with re-entering the field they've just left). I assume (for example) this is why the "Samsung" M3 external USB hard drives have been rebranded as "Maxtor" but remained otherwise identical- Seagate (who have long owned the Maxtor brand) bought out Samsung's HDD business a while back.

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 1) 153

It's one of dozens of cheap Coronation Street crossover shows and they've all done that. The Doctor Who one from way back was unwatchable despite the cast.

Are you thinking of the Doctor Who / EastEnders crossover they did to "celebrate" the 30th anniversary in 1993? That was eye-gougingly bad.

Comment Building Scientific Apparatus (Score 1) 270

This may well be overkill for your needs, and it's a bit pricey, but the book Building Scientific Apparatus has been on my wish list for a while. It has chapters on working with glass, vacuum technoloy, charged-particle optics, and electronics, among others.

Sigh, too many projects (including a pair of novels to finish) and not enough time.

Comment Re:yawn (Score 4, Insightful) 428

If the market was truly free, I could buy that drug for $5 (I don't have cancer), and turn around and sell it somebody with cancer for $50 and a tidy markup for my trouble. And so could anyone else, or they could undercut me and sell it for $25; the company trying to sell it for $100,000 wouldn't get any takers.

I can't, because the government won't let me. That particular market is not free.

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_