Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: But Windows surveillance (Score 1) 78

Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?

Not really, no. Sorry.

Microsoft makes really complete profiles on individual persons.
Google makes really complete profiles in aggregate for demographic markets.

Microsoft makes business decisions based on profile data telling them how many people they can reach with a given product.
Google makes business decisions based on profile data telling them the size of each demographic their advertiser can reach with their product.

Microsoft makes a lot of products that fail, when they try to do something new.
Google makes a lot of software and services with the intent of delivering advertising that fail, when they try something new.

Microsoft makes a lot of money, when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of OS and office productivity products).
Google makes a lot of money when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of advertising services, search, and mail).

Microsoft loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
Google loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.

Kinda not seeing the difference, Bruno...

Comment Why pay the Microsoft tax? (Score 3, Informative) 116

SOON: The Windows OS will be rented, not sold, apparently. That would be one more abuse, of many.

This is being accepted: Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. Quote: "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."

So, I'm guessing Microsoft managers think, "That worked. We will try another abuse."

One thing I've learned over the years is that Slashdot commenters are generally not good at reacting to abuse. Slashdot commenters make excuses, or react to abuse weakly. Also, for many Slashdot commenters there is a conflict of interest: They make more money if Windows is more difficult to administer and use.

Slowly increasing the number and severity of abuses causes many people to make multiple excuses, effectively accepting Microsoft's abusiveness.

However, Microsoft managers seem to lack social ability. The abusiveness of many of the features of Windows 10 are like a multi-billion-dollar advertising campaign that very effectively says, "Dislike Microsoft products". One of the many examples: Trying to imitate Google and sell "Apps", but to business users that don't want employees distracted.

One possible solution: All countries could support ReactOS so that the Windows OS can be eliminated.

No company should be allowed to have a virtual monopoly! Companies that are routinely abusive should be re-organized or eliminated.

Quote from the parent comment: "I've been using a combination of Google Apps and LibreOffice for years, never looked back and don't miss MS at all. Several of the businesses I consult for have switched entirely to Google Apps..."

Several years ago, I spent several hours writing something in Microsoft Word. Later I discovered that Microsoft Word was not able to open its own file! Luckily, I could open the file in Libre Office.

The parent comment is correct. Let's find other methods of doing our work. Don't rely on a habitual abuser.

Let's have a multi-national effort to improve Libre Office, especially the somewhat sloppy and limited user interface.

Why should all the countries in the world pay the Microsoft tax? The United States was founded because of refusing to pay an abusive tax.

Comment Re:No it doesn't (Score 1) 26

There's a lot of finger pointing at the worst cases like those. Pretending it's only a few rotten apples allows investors and the industry to pretend it's not a vast sea of shit. Shkreli and Retrophin from the pharmaceutical industry for example, they were only the worst of the worst. Every damn pharma company out there is charging absurd amounts for old drugs and not spending any of it developing new ones. (The oft-cited 2.6 billion for each new drug is utter bullshit.)

Theranos was bad, but there are hundreds of "digital health" startups with way too much VC money for what amounts to either "lets put medical records on an ipad" or "it's like a fitbit but not called fitbit."

How the fuck is instagram or snapchat "innovative"?

"Innovation" means "creatively acting like the same old shit is new." So I guess yeah, money does follow innovation.

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 2) 153

The event was already being criticized for "politicizing" science. "You're risking turning it from a non-partisan thing into a liberal vs conservative thing!" they say. "Conservatives will decide science is evil!"

While I think that's naive and stupid, thinking about how the message will be heard IS worthwhile.

"Science says you're having too many babies and that's contributing to climate change so stop!" Yeah, good fucking luck with that one. While you're at it, maybe sell republicans on the fact that taxes are necessary and can't always just be cut. Or Americans at large that Islamic terrorism is coming from our pointless defense of Israel and fighting wars on terrorism?

On top of that, it's a stupid fucking argument to be making. Carbon emissions are not evenly distributed. A handful of the worlds rich assholes (read: us) are doing the vast majority of the climate change (See figure 1). The fundamental problem is that you can get rich shitting in the water everyone is drinking, and there are also some shared benefits. All the birth control isn't going to do anything if people like those who run our government can still make a ton of money digging up carbon and the rest of us enjoy relatively cheap energy that everyone for generations to come is going to mostly pay for.

AND we can actually do something about that without doing anything unethical like forced sterilization. Carbon taxes. Nuclear or other clean energy. Those things you mentioned. Or burning fossil fuel industry people at the stake until no one is willing to do it anymore. All of those things make more sense, are more directly effective, and are less evil than prattling on about overpopulation.

Comment Re:More "trust me" science (Score 1) 153

The problem is all the models have predicted more warming than has happened. The basic problem is that there's no evidence that the Earth being warmer by a few degrees (has been much warmer than that many times before) will be catastrophic.

That's largely because there are cooling factors such as sulfate aerosols that are still very difficult to model.
But we know, and are reminded with every large volcanic eruption just how strong - but temporary - that effect can be.
The problem is that our heavy of usage of coal in plants mostly without scrubbers & filters likely kept the warming from increasing as much as it could have.
But then the West started cleaning up or shutting down those plants. And perhaps only coincidentally, global warming started to accelerate.

But then China really picked up the slack, burning more & more coal each year beginning around 1980 and really picking up the pace around 2000.

But now China appears to have seen the light - to some degree. Not only is their coal consumption dropping, for the 3rd straight year but during that time they've also been cleaning up their coal plants and it seems that no plants will be grandfathered.
If it can't be cleaned up, it will be shut down. We'll see how this plays out.

But what does this mean for global warming? My guess is that as coal becomes less used but CO2 keeps rising, global warming will start speeding up again.
There's still a lot of uncertainty as to what & where will get hotter but overall, the total heat in the system, especially the oceans will ratchet up unabated

Comment Re:More "trust me" science (Score 0) 153

I will eat a leather shoe if you can convince me that climate models have even half the predictive power necessary to justify blowing several hundred billion dollars on this nonsense.

And cause you to have both indigestion & less money to spend on bombing 3rd world nations to make both America & Europe LESS safe?
Perish the thought

Comment Re: Serious stupidity (Score 1) 153

Nuclear isn't a viable alternative. It's incredibly expensive to build and operate. Yes, it is largely emission free, but the other costs surrounding it simply do not make it a large scale alternative, at least not fission. And who knows when we'll ever have fusion reactors that can actually produce economically viable levels of power.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.