Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: The technology is not ready yet (Score 1) 134

On airplanes it works much better with autopilots than on the ground. The difference is: if the next thing you could crash into is minutes of even falling away, then you can actually let go off the controls and rely on the autopilot. Its much different for cars. Here the deadly stuff is much closer, and thus the time the driver has to react to an alert from the autopilot is smaller.

Comment Re:The technology is not ready yet (Score 1) 134

It's more "ready" than human beings are, in many different driving scenarios.

But not everywhere. "ready" for me means that I can lean back and not do anything other than type in the destination and get out of the car once I am there. As long as that isn't the case, and I have to "watch out" for events that maybe happen all 20 million kilometers, then its not ready in my eyes.

Maybe deploying the technology will help already, as it certainly is more safe than drunk drivers driving manually, but it needs to be more safe than people who drive responsibly and with attention until I would consider using it.

Comment Re:Lawyers and other political animals.. (Score 1) 236

Linux being under the GPL doesn't make all programs on the whole ubuntu or fedora ISO gpl licensed. It all depends on the situation. Yes, the GPL needs more care to work with, and there are certainly more risks than with BSD licenses, but you have risks with BSD licenses as well. E.g. imagine if someone took some non open source code and licensed it under BSD without any agreement by the copyright holder. Then if you use that code thinking all fine its bsd licensed get into trouble as well.

The GPL is very important to not have a strategic disadvantage to closed source competition. If you are BSD licensed, your closed source competitors can simply take the code parts that are better in your program than in theirs. Not so for the GPL.

Also, x264 is still protected by patents, so you'd have to pay someone in one case or another.

Comment Re:The problem with GPL (Score 1) 236

Even a MS EULA doesn't tell me what I can do with the software I use or create

The GPL doesn't restrict _usage_ of a program. If you just run GIMP to create an image, that image's copyright is yours, and yours only. If you use GCC to compile a program, that program is yours (its a bit more complicated here, as there is a tiny statically linked part but that has an extra exception from the GPL that turns off the copyleft part). The GPL only restricts redistributions of the program, or parts of it. I am pretty sure that the MS EULA completely forbids you to redistribute any parts of the OS to people without a valid license license AT ALL. The GPL gives you more options here than the MS EULA: instead of a strict ban of redistribution, it gives you certain rules you have to abide with. Maybe if you don't like to copyleft something, then you won't want to redistribute, but you do have more options than the MS EULA gives you.

Comment Re:The problem with GPL (Score 5, Insightful) 236

The only restriction the GPL imposes is to prevent you to take away freedom. Thus, the GPL is only "non-free" to those who want to restrict or remove freedom.

Well there is one exception of course, its compatibility with other copyleft licenses. See the whole ZFS license debacle. But that's a negative side effect, and not what the GPL was designed for (however precisely what the CDDL was designed for, but thats a different story).

Comment Re:I like GPLv2 too, but there's just one thing (Score 1) 236

Most js libraries were made to help people develop proprietary JS solutions. The GPL is simply nothing their creators would want for them. Similar to game engines, here people want to use them to develop proprietary games with. Non copyleft licenses are good for these use cases. But in other domains, like the kernel or for compilers, copyleft makes just far more sense, otherwise you'll start accumulating proprietary tiny bits and pieces.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 562

The "justice system" is a third party.

No. Members of a government need to be auditable. Thats why there are so strict laws and regulations about government communication preservation. Both for historians, and more importantly, the press. Just look at brazil how well it works there (compared to the US), only possible because the press has hard proof about the corruption.

This auditability is ensured on infrastructure that is given to government officials. Although it can be manipulated inside the government, that's much harder as if it were on a private server.

It's just as likely that the NSA or some other US government entity hacked her server.

I doubt that the NSA or other agency wants to do actions against one of the higher ups. They are designed to follow their commands, not to spy on them. If they hack the politicians, their practices will just be questioned far more likely. Of course, if there is a judicial order, they will act against them, as they should, but not without one.

Or is the claim that she wiped the server in such a way that it is no longer readable by the US government or even "God", but somehow can still be read by foreign governments?

No. But even the most secure form of wiping doesn't help you if someone hacked and downloaded all data before you wiped. It does help you however if the public demands access and you fear whether the FBI might turn up and seize your computers in the future.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 5, Insightful) 562

The wiping just means that she is very secure from her own state interfering with her. But it doesn't say anything about how easy it was for third party states to gain information from her email server before it was wiped. So her servers might be secure from the justice system, but not secure from third parties. Both these aspects are how it shouldn't be.

Slashdot Top Deals

Sometimes, too long is too long. - Joe Crowe