Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Store-and-forward spyware (Score 1) 35

Hold on a second, to perform a search you have to send the query off to the search engine (probably Google). So, by intent, the engine has to get your query in order to provide the correct results.

Your claim is that it's helping them spy by giving them access to something that you already had the intent of giving them.

Comment Re: Except it doesn't work properly (Score 4, Insightful) 129

it has garbage collection, it doesn't carry the baggage of a runtime around with it

Sigh. Of course it has a runtime. Where else would the garbage collection that you just mentioned be implemented? Or GoRoutines. Or reflection.

I think you're confusing not having a runtime with having the Go compiler statically link the runtime into each executable. That has some benefits that you were alluding to (e.g. "no baggage") but it also has drawbacks such as increased executable size, increased memory usage (with a dynamic runtime, different instances all share the same library in memory), decreased cache usage (since if you have two Go executables, they are constantly evicting each others runtimes from cache, even though they are identical and could be shared) and the maintenance issues having to recompile to take advantage of security/bug/performance improvements in the runtime itself.

I have no issue if you claim that in some (your) use cases the advantages of a statically compiled runtime are worth the disadvantages. But that's not the same as claiming that either the runtime doesn't exist or that it's always advantageous.

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 75

Just maybe, we might just sorta think about how we could not even book flights until the intertoobz came along. All of those jets sitting on the runwaysnot in use because without the internet, there was absolutely no way to reserve a flight. Sarcasm much intended.

Look at the history of airfare (chart or articleand before the internet, flying also cost twice as much (even after adding in the dreaded "fees" for shit that most people don't need) and was far less accessible to people of modest means. When people talk about how dignified air service was in the 70s, what they usually meant is that poor people weren't flying.

Of course the internet isn't responsible for the entire drop in prices. But the direct-booking (vs paying travel agents for working the system) and fare comparison contributed something.

Comment Re:This could be fun (Score 2, Informative) 333

The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"

The actual actual story is that the Russians hacked some people at both parties, but selectively chose to release only a selection of the ones stolen from the Democratic party.

Comment Re:I'be been a Mac user for 13+ years (Score 1) 254

Heck, how did Samsung release an exploding phone, if all these companies' "advanced and extensive" internal testing is infallible?

Actually, given that many hundreds of consumer devices hit the market each year and there are a handful of really bad failures like antenna-gate and the exploding Note, I'd say they're running around 3-sigma. To me, that seems just about in-line with expectations that we'd see 99.7% or so reliability of the testing mechanisms.

Building a testing regimen that moves it to 99.99 or 99.999% of products released without a defect would likely double the testing costs and add weeks (or months) to the release schedule. At some point you have to stop and accept some risk that, out of a few hundred releases, some will have an undiscovered flaw. Better to correct the flaw and institute testing around that area than to be paralyzed by fear of failure.

Comment Re:Still profit-neutral (Score 1) 70

No, that is not a requirement at all. Just look at Apple. They could have built their new headquarters out of literal stacks of cash they were sitting on before they finally started to pay a dividend. Ditto with Microsoft. These are not non-profits, they are allowed to accumulate cash if they wish.

Both stock paid dividends this year buddy.

Comment Re:No show? (Score 1) 313

Who the fuck buys a plane ticket and doesn't show up?

It makes a lot of sense if there are a few plausible options but you can't commit to one but want to be sure to have a seat. For instance, you're flying to Chicago on Wednesday to meet with a customer, the meeting may be done that day or it may drag on. You can buy a single changeable/refundable ticket for MDW-SJC on Southwest for $500, say for Friday. But if the meeting finishes early, there may not be any seats on the earlier flights and you're stuck even though you paid for a super-expensive ticket.

Conversely, you can buy 3 non-refundable tickets, one for Wed, one for Thursday and one for the last one out Friday for $164 each, or $492. And then you have a confirmed seat for whichever day you want to go, for $8 less than the refundable ticket.

I'm sure there's some way in which this price structure is what Southwest wants, or else they wouldn't intentionally price their refundable tickets so high :-/

Comment Re:Still profit-neutral (Score 1) 70

Sooner or later Amazon has to start paying dividends...

No, they don't. They just need to keep their share price afloat. Dividends are not a requirement of any company, and there are plenty out there that don't pay them.

Well, sure, in one scenario a company never turns a profit. In fact, many sole proprietorships and other small companies do just this, they just "zero out" by paying the principals the remaining profit as a bonus each year.

If, on the other hand, a company makes a profit, that profit must either be reinvested in the company or returned to shareholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. That extra money has to go somewhere, if only into the company's bank account (or embezzled by the CFO to pay for blow, but I digress). In Amazon's case, it's being spent expanding the company into new market areas. That process of reinvesting profits, however, is necessarily bounded -- they cannot become infinitely rich* or control infinitely many market sectors. So one of two things need to happen eventually: either they stop making a profit or else they start returning the profit to the shareholders. Any other state is transient -- although if they go through a number of profit/loss/profit/loss cycles, I suppose it could just wash out for a very long time.

So yeah, dividends are not a requirement. But they are a logical outcome of long term profitability because the opportunities for expansion are finite.

Comment Re:You don't want to hear my call (Score 1) 164

OK, but the airlines can also allow brief calls (e.g. to discuss flight details, make arrangements for pickup or in case of delay) while still prohibiting 4 hour conversations.

I mean, this is the informal rule on most other shared transport -- talking briefly with the wife to coordinate is fine, but long drawn out conversations are discouraged.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 406

Good thing the Pentagon has an unblemished record of never claiming anything to not have military purpose that wasn't a lie. That record of honesty will give their word a lot of weight when they are in the right like this.

And here I was thinking that the Pentagon (and everyone else) was within their right to conduct military training or other intelligence operations in internal waters. So the purpose hardly seems to matter.

Actually, did you know that Navies even have the right to sail warships through territorial waters if they are not as part of a belligerent attack?

Comment Re:Translation (Score 2) 357

We want to make a PR stunt to show that regulation is killing innovation in the industry and that we're the hip and cool future while our legal team thinks we'll be able to backpedal in time to avoid major economic penalties.

Or, our legal team actually thinks we don't need such a permit and the CA DMV is incorrect in their conclusion.

Believe it or not, sometime entities disagree about the interpretation of the law. And, even more shocking, the disagreement often breaks along the lines of government agencies believing that the regulation is expansive and the regulated entity believes that the regulation is permissive[1].

I mean, I'm curious to learn really which party has the better of the law as it currently exists. And if that's not right from a policy perspective, I'm keen to see how the rule can be changed in the future.

[1] This is Miles' law and happens without any conscious effort.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.