Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Fuchsia? (Score 1) 41

They don't really need to unify anything. What they need to do is add a few bits and bobs to Android to make it provide a Chrome OS-like experience, and just throw ChromeOS away. Maybe they will find some use in some of the resources used around booting, or some drivers, but the latter thing is mostly already in Android.

Literally the only reason ChromeOS exists at all is that Chrome for Android wasn't very good at the time, and they needed an OS which could run the desktop version of Chrome. ChromeOS and Android have different device management systems, and Google has been putting their effort into the Android management software lately. Now that Chrome on Android is about as good as it is on the desktop, they can retire their redundant Linux distribution and its management tools and save themselves a lot of duplicated effort.

Comment Re:Yes, mods here (Score 1) 73

100% agree.

I believe that in Slashdot's current moderation system (with scores capped to five, and the content of comments being outright unavailable on mobile if the scores fall too low) moderators' identities (that is, their made-up slashdot ones, not their actual identities) should be public. You should be able to see who is responsible for which mods.

This is not as good as a proper web-of-trust system where e.g. your chosen Slashdot poster relationships would affect how moderation was applied to comments, which IMO would also make it unnecessary to see who modded what and how. But at least it would let you make informed decisions. Sure you can adjust comment scores based on those relationships, but you cannot affect the effects of moderation that way, and that's what's really wanted to make moderation effective and useful — The only way in which I care what my foes or freaks think about a comment is that if they think it's bad, I want to read it — which is the opposite of what Slashdot moderation does.

Comment Re:This isn't really a surprise (Score 1) 73

I think its equally likely that its privately funded by wealthy elites that do it to keep the masses fighting with each other.

That's the same thing, though.

This seems to be an issue that transcends national interests and specific borders

Yes, absolutely, that's how Trump can be working with foreign dictators with whom he has nothing else in common but money* and power.

* Yeah, it looks a lot like Trump was worse than broke (in a shitload of debt, that is) before he became president again and leveraged that to collect bribes. But he still had enough money in his little hands, even if it wasn't actually his, for that to still make sense.

Comment No. (Score 2) 73

No, they aren't.

First, it's not ruined. There's lots of cesspools, but there's lots of good out there too. Also, while we all get a bunch of shit presented to us, you also attract what you put out, and what you go looking for. The algorithms make sure of that. You get more of what you interact with.

Second, it's not a few people. It's the majority of people ruining the internet. Eternal September proves this. The masses of dumbshits have a multiplying effect on scum content. They interact with it, making sure everyone sees more of it. They even repost it in the name of mocking it, likewise.

Comment Re: Lifetime has a special meaning (Score 1) 54

DVD ROM wasn't in use by the time the TLS (not deprecated SSL) and HSTS deployment of the Internet became fully comprehensive

Did you miss the point that we're talking about the FBI? Government still does a ton of shit by fax. (e.g. see the bottom header on this page.) You clearly just don't have any idea how poorly any of this shit is run at all, or how resistant to change government is.

Comment Re: Lifetime has a special meaning (Score 1) 54

Aside from the enormous expense of packet capture and storing (1tb a month on my connection, costing a couple hundred in storage for the provider) making your statement completely unrealistic, what use is encrypted traffic packet captures to law enforcement? In my experience I've never seen that done

Your experience is worthless, because it definitely happens. I have a friend who worked for an ISP in Santa Cruz who was required to not only capture traffic for several customers, but also provide it to the FBI on DVD-ROM. I would hope they use something else now. This was well after everything went SSL.

Comment Re: Seems strange to allow user input (Score -1) 41

Turning them off and landing in an empty field or on the Hudson, or rolling off the end of the runway may be preferable to the plane burning itself up in flight. It's extremely unlikely it was entirely unforced error and the pilot/copilot did something malicious.

Obviously it wouldn't be preferable ever at this airport, but there is an assumption that the pilots arent actively trying to down the aircraft.

There are thousands if not millions of ways a pilot can actively sabotage the aircraft. They are the one group on the plane that is trusted not to. It's nearly impossible to prevent it without removing them entirely from the plane. And all the passengers too ...

Sometimes, not very often ... the pilot is a problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...