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 Re:This sounds familiar... (Score 1) 89

Wrong reputation.

The C*O types would have lined up to throw money at BB had they made any serious software/hardware security collaborations. C*O types don't really care much about governmental meddling. Hell, as we can see from earlier stories, they don't really care about security in general; as long as lip service is paid to security, they're thrilled to write those checks.

Comment This sounds familiar... (Score 2) 89

...probably because it's precisely what I've been saying they should do since the first android hit the shelves. They were outclassed, but they had a great corporate security reputation. They should have ditched the hardware and partnered up with an android maker to provide a corporate secure device, complete with the software backend.

Instead, they sat around pretending their market position could never be threatened, and consequently got left in the dust.

Comment Re:This isn't really that hard to understand (Score 1) 661

No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
Yet, later....
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy.

The fact of the matter is that your examples aren't a direct cause/effect. If they were, we could see immediate results yet we don't. Plus the planet is large enough to have large "micro-climates", resulting in even more obfuscation of the data.

Of course, it doesn't help that climate change doomsayers have been at it for 40+ years now, the doomsaying itself a product of how difficult climate science is. Weren't we all supposed to be under 20 feet of water by now? The ice at the poles gone, the poles themselves being the only habitable parts of the world left? And so on, and so on...

Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong. Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.

No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.

Comment This isn't really that hard to understand (Score 5, Interesting) 661

The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult. The average person the street has little hope of understanding all the data and how it interacts. They can never, therefore, have confidence in the results being reported to them. I'm largely in the same boat, btw; despite on and off studying over the past several years, I still don't really have a grasp on how all the data ties together and consequently I don't have a high degree of confidence in the reported conclusions of others.

Given this, attacking on the basis of "CLIMATE CHANGE" is the absolutely worst approach. The ignorance of your target audience will prompt them to respond contrary to your goals. Instead focus should be placed on the specifics; clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water, and neither does anyone else. That should be how climate change is addressed; not on the large scale, but rather the personalized one.

Comment A solution in search of a problem (Score 1) 199

The whole net-neutrality issue is moot; near as I can tell, there is more than enough bandwidth bandwidth to go around, when normal packet prioritization is utilized.

The real issue is the con-artist ISPs trying to double-sell the same service, charging a premium to both sides.

Comment An interest dichotomy (Score 3, Insightful) 152

You can like it, or hate it, but you can simply not ignore Apple.

This highly depends on your perspective. For instance, I have no apple stuff, nor do any of their products excite me in a way that would suggest that'll change soon. So in that context, I can simply ignore apple.

However, from a business perspective, they're the 800 lb gorilla. What's interesting, however, is how easy it is for some of their target audience to ignore them.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 349

The problem is that spreadsheets and databases solve different problems, yet they are related enough that folks confuse the two. Not unlike what you did. Spreadsheets represent the full MVC concept, whereas databases are usually just the M(odel), with some (C)ontroller capabilities.

From there, the problem becomes somewhat more obvious; Because applications like Excel provide more complete functionality ( or try to at any rate ), that's naturally what anyone who needs to model data wants to use. Aside from programmers, who has time to construct a full data modeling environment using the right tools?

There's an opportunity here for MS to "fill the gap" here; provide the function-rich environment of Excel and tie it to a database backend simply. Or perhaps, considering the mess that is Access, that opportunity exists for someone other than MS.

Comment Because terrorists, right? (Score 2) 446

Bullshit. Terrorism is only peripherally related to government's interest in compromising encryption. Governments the world over are terrified of their citizens speaking freely, for whatever noise they make about "Freedom of Speech". It's about controlling the message, which they can't do if people are communicating outside of their control.

They're using terrorism to push this agenda.

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!