Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:IT causes the helpdesk requests for Windows PCs (Score 1) 481

Amen. My department is a software development group (we write C++ for external customers). Back in the day when our computers were locally administrated, we were doing just fine, with a minimum of helpdesk support needed. Then they decided this was unacceptable, and we needed to work with the same systems that the guys in the factory use. Those people work in manufacturing - they build stuff with their hands, and only occasionally read an email on their PCs.

Since that time productivity has dropped sharply in development. We cannot install new tools, nor get them from IT services. We cannot install updates to existing tools either. We cannot even build and test installers, even though that is very much part of our job. We cannot remove icons from the desktop, that requires administrative rights. We cannot use HTTPS. Some internet services work fine when connected to the wired network, others only when connected through the wireless, so all day long I'm switching between the two. Other internet services either don't work at all, or only very slowly, so any interaction with something that is not on a local disk is an exercise in frustration: does it work at all? Is the problem that it's blocked on our end, or is the remote site out? Am I connected to the right network? Do I just need to wait longer?

Opening tickets with the IT services guys is pointless - they are in another country, and consider us to be unimportant. I'm sure it is all incredibly secure. In fact, it's so secure that I'm beginning to re-evaluate whether I want to work there or not...

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

"Because the little baby tyrants" *snip*

Brave words in defense of a social media platform that sees fit to disappear ideas and expression that it arbitrarily doesn't like.

You might give a little thought to the way Valley media platforms now shape public discourse along narrow lines and for what reasons; that is, if the Kool Aid is not too strong in you, young Jedi.

Comment Take me to your lederhosen (Score 1) 203

Only known moral uses of advanced AI (aka the GeorgeCarlin9000):

--deactivating the evil cyborgs on the "Presidential Debate Commission"
--time-traveling to 1972 to make the paddles shorter on Pong (Butterfly Effect: population-wide striving uptick!)
--reverse-engineering the Kardashian derriere for mass roll out

Otherwise, beware!

Comment Re:How can that possibly be legal? (Score 1) 301

If that doesn't disable the car, everything is fine. If it does disable the car, it's excellent ground for a court case. What's your point?

Are we really going to accept a society where manufacturers have ultimate power over every item you own? "You may own a house, but you will accept having cameras controlled by us in every room". "You may own a swimming pool, but we will verify that only you and your family swim in it. An extra visitor license is $2000/year". "You may own a barbeque, but only for personal food preparation."

Madness, that's what it is.

Comment How can that possibly be legal? (Score 1) 301

Once you buy it, it is YOUR CAR, and you can do with it whatever you please. Tesla has no right whatsoever to constrict what you can do with your car. That's what "selling" means: giving up ownership rights. And before you ask: no, you are not "merely licensing" the car.

Next up: supermarket tells you buying potatoes is fine, but not if you plan to serve them in a restaurant...

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 244

I'm not sure why I would have to explain that, since I didn't claim any of that. The OP claimed that a human could not possibly land a moon lander. That's BS - humans _did_ in fact land a moon lander, on the first attempt, succesfully, while the computer was busy crashing. That same human decided he didn't want to land in a field of boulders and veered of course to another landing spot. So far that hasn't been achieved by computers either.

Comment Proprietary control is the trouble with Windows (Score 1) 284

The problem isn't the trouble of having to read and modify so much, it's that even if you do all that you can't trust what you have; you can't be sure those "41 pages of switches, GPOs, and reg hacks" will grant you the privacy you seek even on the Enterprise variant of Windows. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speculating from ignorance. You can't stop any variant of Windows from tricking users into "upgrading" to some more recently-released variant (like the trouble Windows users had with Windows 10 "upgrades" recently). That's the thing about proprietary software; you're never in charge of what it does. Even if you think you've set the switches the right way, programmers can make a UI that looks like it is doing what the user wants but actually does something the user does not want and does this without the user's permission or control. No configuration of switches can fix this. Users need software freedom to fix this.

Satya Nadella and Bill Gates before him focused on what's important for modern proprietors—spying on the user because that's profitable and secures powerful friends. Consider that Microsoft tells the NSA about bugs before fixing them. This doesn't help most Windows users, but it helps the NSA know to devalue those bugs. And it tells you to devalue proprietary software. With proprietors, you're the product: all the data you generate including what you run, when you're using the computer, and where you take the computer (for computers with cell phone capability or GPS units) can and is spied upon. You don't get out of that trap without software freedom either.

Comment Re:At what cost? (Score 1) 886

The proponents of UBI, I'm not one, seem to believe that the money can be found by:
- Eliminating all existing forms of social security. In fact this is a major reason often stated for UBI: it "simplifies" the rules to the point that you don't even need people overseeing it. Which leads us to:
- Reduced overhead. Apparently they believe that several trillions are currently being spent on "overhead".
- And finally, of course you'd be able to tax all those people since they now have income.

So in the end, you take away money from the people who actually need it, spread it over a far larger group including a great many people who do NOT need it, thus leaving everyone in the first group with far too little to live on. And what little you get, you need to return in the form of taxes in order to pay for the whole scheme.

Then they point at "succesful" trials, without mentioning that no single trial was so succesful that it was continued to this day, and without mentioning that all of those trials relied on money being poured in from outside.

We haven't even begun to discuss what such a scheme would do to society as a whole - if you pay people to do nothing, is there going to be any kind of progress? Will there be anyone left for the less pleasant, but nonetheless necessary jobs? Or hell, for any kind of work? Will it be acceptable for foreigners to enter the country and receive UBI, or will a 'wall' be necessary?

Comment Re:Whatever it is, it's out and not "Linux" (Score 1) 163

Thanks for the clarification. Are people meant to run other OSes but GNU atop Windows Subsystem for Linux? I've not heard of anyone doing this nor have I seen any announcement this was intended.

So GNU doesn't come with this, but one runs ELF binaries (Ubuntu's 14.05 release, for instance) on Microsoft's Windows Subsystem for Linux to effectively get GNU. Since this ostensibly doesn't include the Linux kernel this wouldn't qualify as GNU/Linux either.

Functionally, however, I don't see a great deal of difference between this and Cygwin as in both cases one ends up with a lot of the same programs running atop Microsoft Windows.

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss