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 I doubt Hollywood has an age discrimination issue (Score 4, Insightful) 298

It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue. It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy, and merely hiding the numeric age of an actor or actress isn't going to resolve this.

If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role. Trying to hide their "real" age won't help with that. Nothing short of completely changing Hollywood culture - and, really, American culture - to not be so youth-focused will change that. And that's not an easy task, and certainly not something this law will help with.

This is clearly a "this is something, so we're doing something about the problem!" law. It won't help in any way, but at least it's a bullet point on some lawmaker's resume!

Comment What do gamers want? (Score 1) 147

Are gamers asking for 4K? If not, what are they asking for?

Personally, I want:
* 60fps and up
* Better motion control

The motion control era died when Nintendo made the Wii U and Microsoft released the Kinect. Both were essentially inferior, more costly versions of what came before them. That's too bad, because I was excitedly waiting for the next generation and it never came. But I think I'm in the minority on this.

Comment Re:Bold experiment (Score 1) 29

Twitter was a bold as an experiment for democratic debate

I disagree. Twitter was originally intended as a "micro-blogging" platform that ran over SMS with a web interface. The 140 character limit is from that, and it's the reason Twitter usernames are limited to 15 characters. (The remaining five characters in a 160-character tweet are for "command" codes. The SMS interface still exists.)

It rapidly grew to something that no longer fits that, but it was never an "experiment for democratic debate," it was if anything an experiment in running a social network over SMS. Public forums and public blogging platforms existed well before Twitter did.

But for posting selfies, spamming, professional self-promotion and reinforcing your own world view, yeah, it's great, and it's true of Facebook, Instagram, everything else.

While true, it's also useful for one other thing: posting notifications. Most of what I use Twitter for are getting notifications about various things. Twitter has essentially become a "push RSS" service where instead of polling an RSS feed, you get push notifications as updates as posted. It's useful in a very specific set of circumstances.

It's that last thing that would make me miss Twitter were it to go away. 99.9% of Twitter? Burn it with fire. But using it as a free notification platform with an SMS-fallback? That's incredibly useful.

Comment Re:Summary Incomplete (Score 1) 248

The summary totally ignores Powell's extremely critical remarks about Hillary, her lies, manipulation, and the public exploitation of his name against his wishes.

The summary does not mention this, because the article is about Colin Powell's emails, and no such email exists. If such an email does exist, please link to it. Otherwise, it is the AC who is lying. That post should not have been modded up without a citation to an email from Powell regarding Clinton. It was just troll/flamebait.

Comment Re: They're boring in a good way (Score 4, Informative) 248

You asked "why?"

why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?

1. Because warhawks are warhawks, and allies are allies, regardless of party affiliation. After 9/11, Europe sympathized with the US.

everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons

2. Actually, the intelligence agencies didn't suggest this. The politicians claimed that the intelligence agencies said this, but they really didn't. The agencies don't really speak publicly, they speak through the elected officials that they report to. We now know that what they told the president and prime minister isn't the same as what the president and prime minister said publicly.

For example: We now know that for example, at the time that George W. Bush gave a speech about the supposed "yellow cake uranium," that he knew it was falsified evidence but proceeded with the speech anyway. The UK did the same thing, leading up to the invasion, asking BBC reporters to basically make-up phony facts.

If you look back at the evidence, it was clear that the evidence was being used to justify an already decided-upon conclusion. For example: The UK and US cited a shipment of aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It turns out that the tubes were used for the much more mundane purpose of rockets. If you saw an aluminum tube that could be used for rockets or nuclear weapons, and you knew the country was developing rockets, why would you assert that these tubes are evidence of nuclear weapons? Certainly, it is possible. But they didn't present it as "well, it was probably used for rockets, but maybe it is for nukes (shrug)." It was presented as "OMG This is proof that they are developing nukes!" A lie of omission is still a lie.

You asked "Why?" It is important to understand why. It is because well-intentioned people can sometimes lie to support what they believe is right. The populus and the media in particular, must be vigilant against such things. The New York times, has since, apologized for being the white house's mouthpiece.

Comment This paper is meaningless nonsense. (Score 1) 199

The paper presents a technical solution to a problem, but doesn't state what the problem is. It pays lip service to network neutrality, but demonstrates no understanding of the actual problem. If you allow users to choose what sites to prioritize, a logical user will choose "whatever site I am visiting now." If you ask them which sites should not count toward their data caps, they will answer "whatever site I am visiting now."

This is like having a special ticket that you hand to a cashier that tells them which items in this shopping trip you want to be free. They will obviously pick the most expensive item. They can also choose which lane they want to run the fastest. They will obviously pick whichever lane they are on. The solution is entirely unworkable.

Giving users the ability to choose this doesn't do anything for the ISPs. It also doesn't do anything for the users because it just means they picked which sites to slow down. Nobody wins here. The only incentive to do this would be to confuser users into thinking they have some kind of choice for marketing purposes. There is no material benefit.

Comment Re:WebExtensions API (Score 2) 208

I see no real down side.


"Hey, you know that one differentiating feature we had between ourselves and Chrome, the extensions that are available for Firefox that just aren't really possible in the Chrome extension model? Let's get rid of those."
"So we'll just basically be a crappy version of Chrome that uses more memory, is less stable, and is slower?"
"Sounds like a great idea! Let's do that!"

The only reason anyone is still using Firefox instead of Chrome is to get access to Firefox extensions. Once Firefox makes their extensions be Chrome extensions, there will no longer be any compelling reason to keep using Firefox.

The only one I can think of is "at least Google won't be spying on you" but with Firefox you're still being spied on because they still want to do ads when you open new tabs and as you enter URLs in the "Awesome Bar." (No, really, that's what Mozilla calls what you'd think is the URL field. It's the "Awesome Bar.")

Comment Re:iPhone 7 = the new pet rock (Score 1) 324

Apple doesn't have to do any of that because it ships you the binaries specific for your phone only.

Actually they do have to do it. Starting in iOS 9 I think, developers compile to bytecode and then Apple compiles to the native code on their own cloud servers.

So the difference between Android and iOS is that Android compiles the code on your device (because of the wide variety of devices) while Apple compiles it in the cloud because of the very small number of devices they support.

Of course this means that when you update iOS, you have to re-get all your apps from the cloud. Hope you don't have a metered data plan!

Comment Re:iPhone 7 = the new pet rock (Score 1) 324

PS: because of the way Android runs, apps written back for Android 2.0 still work. Do apps written for the 3GS still run without issue? Or does the author have to recompile first?

Depends. Sometimes they do. Generally they do not. Apple tends to not really care about backwards compatibility, so it's a complete crapshoot. I remember that a 2-factor authentication app had to warn people about upgrading to iOS 9.3 because it would break the authenticator requiring a complete reinstall of the app.

Anyway, it doesn't matter: Apple is going to remove access to apps that old entirely.

Comment Re:As the saying goes... (Score 2) 308

Yes, but this only requires physical access to another person who has physical access.

As a kid, I always joked about making a "deaths head disk" which would be a floppy disk that would go up in smoke. You would put 1/2 of a flammable chemical combination on the inner rings of the spinning disk, and the other 1/2 on the outside rings. When the drive spins the disk, the chemicals mix, producing *boom*.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds