Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:I hate Apple, but no (Score 1) 487

I wonder if this situation is what's motivating the TPP provision that allows companies to, in effect, veto changes to regulations that were in place when the companies set up shop in the country. Under such a treaty, would Apple be able to lock in their sweetheart deal forever?

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 487

Nobody's denying Apple's inventiveness (or at least that's a separate topic - but I'm not denying it). You seem to be implying that without the ability to pretend they're an Irish company to avoid paying taxes on their enormous profits that inventiveness would not exist. That's nonsense. Apple would be exactly the same company it is today - with perhaps less cash on hand, but still plenty successful.

And for what it's worth, the issue of their having their stuff manufactured in China is wholly separate from the fiction that all the 'intellectual property' they developed in California somehow belongs to a post office box in Dublin for tax purposes. Innovation actually does 'magically' grow in environments conducive to it - and Silicon Valley is one of those environments. Apple's not actually located in Ireland - and they're not located there for a reason...

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 75

It's my impression that Compaq reversed engineered the BIOS with some nod-and-wink help from Microsoft in order to wrest the PC business away from IBM.

This show simply implies they were building a better clone, and has nothing to do with reverse engineering the BIOS. In fact, there's a subplot about 'building a new OS that understands natural language commands'. ...and then the Mac happens. So, it's a bit of a mishmash of everything that was going on at the time. Now they're trying to compete with Compuserv. Go figure. Fun fact: a colleague of mine founded ECHO (a glorified BBS / 'online community') at about that time. She was non-technical, so I don't know how off the shelf the software for such things was at the time...

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 0) 563

That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme is such bullshit. She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared to see. The people who get prosecuted for mishandling classified stuff get prosecuted for either viewing it without security clearance - or giving it to someone else without clearance. Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified stuff to his journalist girlfriend. Hillary did nothing remotely like that.

You can take issue with the private server thing. You can (sort of) take issue with (sort of) classified stuff showing up on the private server, but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage of the traffic, and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS server had she been using that. To conflate the worst possible explanations for a bunch of separate incidents into a political scandal that put the country in danger is to lie about it.

What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light. Even if the Benghazi events were spun to deemphasize the terrorism aspect - and there's no proof they were - that's not illegal. Yes, Clinton is sometimes her own worst enemy, but she's not wrong about folks being out to get her. Your interpretation of the 'scandal' is typical of that. Guilty without being charged...

Comment Re: Julian's victim (Score 1) 304

Not to mention that the "lock her up" cries continue to fly even after an investigation found nothing to prosecute. I imagine there are some that are still trying to get her charged with some kind of perjury for stating that 'none of my emails were marked classified' when, in fact, one thread out of the 30000 emails analyzed had some kind of partial classification marking somewhere in the body. I.e., her statement was only 99.99% truthful. Lock her up!!!!

Comment Re:And that's the end of that.... (Score 1) 28

Hard to imagine Microsoft couldn't have developed this capability on their own. And if it's going to be MS products only, then they didn't need to worry about buying market share - since they already own the Exchange market. So, unless there's something truly innovative about this company's tech (doubtful), or they really want a cross-platform product (also doubtful), it looks like Microsoft might really have bought them to take a cross-platform product off the market - and if so, sucks.

Then again, they might want to suck gmail or yahoo mail users into exchange calendaring while keeping Google's calendar from implementing something similar before Microsoft could...

Comment Re:Solution: Buy legislators. All of them. (Score 3, Insightful) 190

True enough, but do you do your banking, internet searches and browsing, email, etc on your high-end preamp processor or printer? I didn't think so.

Smartphones are more and more becoming our primary computing devices and they're networked by definition. That makes them pretty dangerous devices to be casual about security updates on. The OEM's don't update them because nobody's pressuring them (enough) to do it. If Google simply advertised Nexus phones on the basis of their regular upgrade schedule, they might produce the kind of competition that would get the OEM's off their asses.

That said, the Android device market is a nasty space to operate in. Some OEM's have dozens of models. Whether they needed to produce them to compete in a highly competitive market - or whether they were just throwing stuff against the wall, the bottom line is that they can't practically keep them all up to date. Again, an informed public wouldn't buy them, but buy them they do. And the carriers are as much at fault for that as anyone...

Comment Re:White-washed submission (Score 1) 76

True enough when there are other choices available. If Windows were able to read ext2 as well as FAT without having to load special 3rd party drivers, then you might be able to determine what the 'value' of FAT on an SD card is. And, of course, there's the issue of how insane the FAT patent is, and that the code to implement FAT in Android is not Microsoft's at all...

But, no. I wouldn't pay $100 for the ability to read an SD card. I'd load a driver and use ext2. So the value of FAT to me is quite limited.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 2) 82

This would be a good thing - if Samsung were going to commit to security updates on their official refurbs for a reasonable lifetime based on the purchase of the refurb as a 'new' device for its purchaser. While a year old Samsung flagship might compare favorably with a new 'flagship killer' from OnePlus or ZTE or Asus, the new mid-ranger would at least offer a reasonable chance of keeping up with vital updates.

Comment Re:White-washed submission (Score 3, Insightful) 76

What's worse is that you've already payed a patent royalty when you bought the card. But then you have to pay again for the ability to read it. That, IMO, is the biggest problem with data format patents. It's one thing to charge the producer of a file format a royalty - if they want to use the format, pay up. But it's another thing entirely to charge the consumer of a file another royalty. They didn't choose the format of the file, they simply bought it and want to be able to use it. We're not talking about a license for the software to read the file - we're talking about legally reverse-engineered software being slapped with a patent royalty.

The same applies to media codecs. If Apple or Amazon (or Google for that matter) want to sell you media files compressed with Microsoft's (or anyone else's) wonderful algorithm, they should pay for the privilege (assuming there's a valid patent on the algorithm). But at that point, the royalty's been paid, and the consumer shouldn't have to be restricted to playback on devices based on whether another royalty was paid.

Maybe if royalties could only be collected at the production end, they'd be higher. But that would only make non-encumbered formats a bigger bargain...

Comment Re:White-washed submission (Score 1) 76

The problem is the $10 price tag. Even if this patent is valid, it's only value is compatibility with Windows desktops - i.e., the Windows desktop monopoly has made FAT-based filesystems a de-facto standard. Microsoft is charging an exhorbitant fee for the ability to use SD cards way out of proportion to the value of the software in question. Put another way, if any OEM's were still willing to make Windows phones, Microsoft would charge them $10 or less for a whole OS, including FAT filesystem compatibility. I doubt they charge makers of cameras or other devices with SD card support anywhere near that much. But for Android OEM's, it's 'pay us for Windows - or pay us even more not to use Windows'. Abusive at least, possibly illegal...?

Comment Re: Good grief (Score 1) 125

Of course, Wikileaks shouldn't be attacking anyone. Just providing a platform to let whistleblowers get the stuff out, and yes, applying some minimal amount of journalistic responsibility to the process - like not going on TV and pretty much admitting you're carrying out vendettas...

Comment Re: What does Netcraft say? (Score 1) 512

I assume you *are* interested in having drivers for the devices you use. Even the open source ones (i.e. Intel's graphics drivers) are dependent on the manufacturer's perception that desktop Linux is important enough for them to pay any attention to. Likewise, though Google produces Chrome and ChromeOS - both linux-friendly, and both hugely responsible for the rest of the stuff you use your linux desktop for working - i.e., all the web stuff, Netflix, etc. But Google tends to get distracted too. Luckily, they use Linux desktops internally...

So, you might not think the 'battle' is relevant to you, but if desktop linux becomes so much of an afterthoght that, oh..., OEM's start removing the option to turn off secure boot, or whatever, you just might have to have to live without the linux you use - or at least your linux is likely to become a lot less useful.

Comment Re:Trump's account is still active... (Score 1) 132

Donating to Johnson's campaign might make sense - assuming you want his message heard, and that your donation will help that. Actually voting for him is a vote for Trump if you would otherwise have voted for Clinton - and vice versa. There's no point claiming that your 'personal integrity' prevents voting for one of the two viable choices. Abstaining (which a Johnson vote essentially would be) isn't a particularly virtuous stance - no matter how much you flatter yourself that it is.

Slashdot Top Deals

This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion of the contents may have occurred during shipment.