As bad, if the NSA can do it, so can others. Either they will hijack the NSA's 'wares, or they will use the same vulnerabilities and methods pioneered by these government agencies. Rather than working to protect the nation's citizenry, businesses and infrastructure, the NSA and others are actively undermining our security. Their mandate is not only to intercept enemy signals but to ensure that those of the country's are not similarly compromised. So not only have they overreached too far in one direction, they have ignored the equally important other part of the job.
Sadly, even if the NSA did start offering secure solutions for people, would anybody trust them enough to take them up on it?
Tracfone is great for people with light usage; those who just want a phone in their pocket to make that emergency (or semi-emergency, like "I'm in the store now; what was that thing you wanted me to buy again?") call. It is far less valuable for people who regularly use their phone for long conversations. And its data and messaging rates (and service) are terrible.
Mind you, I fall into the former camp and am happy with my cheap TracFone. In those instances where I actually need to discuss things with people, I just wait until I get to a landline (either at work or at home), and there are enough free wi-fi hotspots around here that I rarely need worry about not having access to the Internet (anyway, I suffer from fat-finger syndrome, and would rather use a laptop than try to punch out a message on the tiny keyboard of a phone any day). And I pay less than $100 a year, which is less than some people pay per month.
A company (Microsoft) with a dominant position in a market (desktop operating systems) is using that position to gain traction in another market (Internet Search)?
Oh Microsoft, didn't you learn your lesson in 1998?
Of course, now it has to be argued that advancing Bing is the real reason Microsoft is pushing Windows 8.1 (as opposed to an attempt to bolster the ailing sales of its reviled operating system) but you would think a convicted monopolist would have have learned to be more circumspect.
Does Microsoft have to go through this with/every/ new CEO?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
Because then there would be no need for all those expensive and ineffective machines, and how would the politicians get their kickbacks?
Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.
And because then people might get the idea that they have the right not to be run roughshod by government goons just for the privilege of traveling to another state or country.
I mean, how can the advantages of cost-effectiveness, convenience and liberty compete with all that?
There is a lot of duplication. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Android or Windows Phone but on IOS, for instance, there are dozens of PDF readers as an example. And you can take any specific type of app and you will probably find a half dozen different apps that all perform the same thing.
Except... they don't, not exactly. There is just enough minor variation to attract different customers, and each will protest that their choice is the best because it suits their needs better than the rest. Myself, I like a PDF reader where all it does is read PDF files well, but others want a reader that handles EPUBs, TXT, AZW, as well as a dozen other formats. Or one that allows wireless transfer from the PC, or allows the user to edit PDFs, or sync them with DropBox. Or any combination of the above functions with innumerable other features.
When you have a smaller number of apps, you lose this variety. Arguably the customer is no worse off - he can still read PDFs, for example - but he loses a bunch of extraneous features that make the apps more useful to him. So duplication of apps is valuable in and of itself, and its lack reduces the utility of the platform.
Its easy to disparage the excessive focus on number of program in a platform's app-store as pointless duplication, but that variety exists for a reason; everybody's needs are different, and all those different apps are serving those different needs. Less apps means a platform is flat-out less useful to the user. Windows Phone does not offer this range of functionality and thus cannot attract the same number of customers.
Because the days of a phone as a single-purpose device are long over. Modern phones are miniature computers and - like all computers - it is the software they run which is the most important part. No matter how good the hardware or underlying operating system may be, if it doesn't have applications to run on it, that computer is not going to end up being used. And Android phones have the apps, while Windows phones do not.
Sure, there are a small selection of apps for Windows phones, but it is nothing in comparison to what you can get on an Android (or an Apple IOS device). Apps come out first on Android and IOS, with ports to Windows Phone a secondary consideration (if they are ported at all). And there are no must-have applications only available on Windows Phone. Without the apps, they can't attract users, and without the users they cannot attract developers.
Forking Android is one potential method of getting those users. Once they have gained (embraced) a significant market-share, then Microsoft could follow up with their usual "extend, extinguish" methodology to control that market (love it or hate it, that policy works for them).
Of course, forking Android is unlikely to be a successful strategy. Increasing amounts of the Android API are being moved into Google's proprietary services and many applications are becoming more dependent on the functionality of those APIs. Forking Android would require Microsoft to create an incompatible replacement for those APIs or try to create a clean-room version of the GMS that maintains full compatibility. With the former, they have just traded a Windows kernel for a Linux kernel without gaining users because they still won't have compatibility with most apps. With the latter, Microsoft cedes control of the the platform to Google and will constantly be playing catch up to any changes the search-giant makes.
Their best bet - but the one they have been unable to achieve despite over a decade of trying - is to create a must-have feature that can only be had on Windows Phones (for instance, imagine a successor to Facebook and the only phone that you can access it from is a WinPhone). Microsoft was hoping that Exchange/ActiveDirectory integration might be this feature, but - because that was largely only of interests to large businesses - it failed to capture the market. But if they can find something that excites the market and only they offer - then they can succeed.
So even were Windows Phone OS the best and most advanced phone OS around, it doesn't matter a jot. It's always been the applications that have driven users to a platform, and right now Microsoft doesn't have those. And that is why people are throwing around ideas like forking Android.
"But common carrier regulation discourages infrastructure investment and network enhancement"
Because the telecoms have been doing so much of that otherwise. That's why I'm still stuck with the option of either using a 5Mbs cable line or a 2Mbs DSL line. It's all that infrastructure they've been investing so much in.
Or:
“It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”
Actually, it is true in 1996 - when the above was written - there was a vibrant and competitive free market; there were dozens of ISPs to chose from. Oddly enough, after the 1996 Telecom Act was passed, consumer options started dwindling away.
Or:
"Nothing in the court’s decision will change the basic incentives of service providers to offer consumers capabilities that meet all of their ever-increasing needs.”
Except running their own servers, or slowing down downloads that compete with ISPs own content delivery, or double-dip charges to keep competitors' prices unfairly high. A competitive free market might have allowed that sort of thing, but when there are only a handful of companies working in collusion with one another, none of them have any incentive to keep prices down and offer different services.
"When a company’s return on investment is dictated by the government, there’s little incentive to re-invent or improve the system, which is why copper phone lines are still prevalent, water main breaks are an all-too-common occurrence, and the electric grid is in need of serious repair."
Odd, my Internet goes down more often than all of those COMBINED. Probably caused by all those backhoes repairing waterlines and downed power-cables...
Because it doesn't give any specifics in TFA, or int the article linked in TFA. Are they soy-based? Yeast? Cloned-meat that exists in a semi-alive state? Some sort of toxic mix of petrochemicals? I have no idea.
The fact that the articles seem to go out of their way not to bring this sort of thing to our attention seems a bit telling. Just telling me that "they're eggs, but better!" does not encourage me to eat them. If anything, given how frequently corporations use deceit and distraction, this absence of fact just makes me want to avoid them all the more.
On the plus side, once the standard is set it will be considered obsolete, ignored and added to the pile of already existing standards. And then we can start all over again! Thus ensuring that UI designers (and lawyers) never want for business!
I mean, seriously; can you imagine the damage it would do to our civilization of the people behind some of the worst UI catastrophes (car UIs, Windows 8, Slashdot beta) had to go out and get real jobs?
Honestly, my three-year old GTX 580 makes games look amazing, and it is still surprisingly capable with modern games (really, only Crysis 3 on Ultra made it wheeze). This is thanks to how anemic were the GPUs in the last-gen game-consoles, but I'd wager it still holds up well with the launch titles released for the XBOne or PS4. I suppose I'll get a new GPU in a year or two, but after that I think I'll be find until the PS5/XBox-NextWhatever is released.
My days of upgrading video-cards on a yearly basis seem long gone; so much of the power we have available at our fingertips goes unused these days that it seems an unnecessary expenditure. I'd feel sorry for AMD and nvidia but, well, they did sort of bring it on themselves.;-)
Not that I necessarily agree with the argument that the two Iraq wars were fought over oil, but...
America is not interested in the countries; they are interested in the oil. Imperialism is expensive; running a country is costly in men and money. The locals dislike being under a foreign regime, and your own people stand out as targets.
Better to allow the locals to rule themselves, but set up the situation so their only real option is to sell you the local resources. That way you get the benefit of harvesting the valuables without the vast expenditures necessary to hold a hostile people. Better still, your own people are less exposed, as they are not the only target of local aggression (that's why let the locals rule themselves; nobody likes a politician, even if he is a neighbor).
Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were/not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.
- Carriers (be they wired or wireless) - Customers
Carriers carry data. If its digital, the byte-stream needs to move up and down the tubes regardless if it decodes into a voice-call, a website, or a blockbuster movie.
Customers are everyone else. They either transmit data, or request it. It doesn't matter if this is an 4KB HTTP GET going up, or 3GB.AVI file going down. They pay the carriers for the privilege of accessing the network. It doesn't matter what sort of data they access or where they are requesting it from or sending it to. The volume of the data might affect the cost to access the network, but not the type or destination of the data.
And the two categories should never, ever be merged into one.
Say something so outrageous - and repeat it so often - people have no recourse but to believe you. After all, nobody would say something that ridiculous - and do it so stridently - if it weren't true.
You have to wonder what the overuse of this technique is doing to our culture and psychology, however. We are all learning to immediately distrust anything anyone says - even if it sounds plausible - because too often the messages we receive are blatant lies. How can a society continue to exist if nobody has any trust in anyone else?
And we've seen where this sort of consolidation means for the average person; they have less and less of a voice in how their country is run. One of the great things about the Internet is how easy it let people voice their opinions. Although prior to the arrival of the net, it was already cheap and easy enough that anybody could print their own newsletter or pamphlet, gaining an audience for said publication was a costly endeavour and usually required you to deal with the devil to get widespread exposure. With the Internet, your views were open to the entire world and - if enough people agreed with those view (or at least thought them worthy of attention), you could quickly gain a significant market. In other words, it was the message that was important, not how rich or connected you were.
Intentionally or not, without net neutrality, the carriers are pushing the genie back into the bottle so that only a favored few will have a voice again. This is contrary to the spirit of the nation, and it is sad to see that so many people are willing to allow such a powerful tool for democratization be tossed to the wayside.
Mind you, it's less checking if you visited a site and more if your computer accessed a proscribed host.
Many of the cheats VAC is checking for are not only sold, but protected by a form of DRM that checks an authorization server before they let you use the cheat. VAC is more often looking to see if your computer is connecting to the authorization server; e.g., they are more interested in seeing if you visit authorization.cheaters.com than forums.cheaters.com
Not that I think that is much better, and I imagine that - especially now that the method has become common knowledge - it will become far less effective. The hacks will probably start using some sort of commonly used proxy to redirect and obfuscate the authentication request; perhaps the next version of WallHack.exe will come bundled with a TOR client.
Of course, the best option would be to give customers a choice: play on sponsored, VAC protected servers - albeit at a cost to your privacy - or allow VAC to be turned off and play the game on player-hosted servers, where you may (or may not) encounter people using cheat tools.
Which works until you use this method to "advise" the wrong person, who contacts the cops and you end up arrested for computer trespassing. Too often we hear stories about people intending to do good are blamed for the message they bring.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any "right" way to bring these problems to the attention of the user or the developer since the laws all seem to be unfairly balanced against the whistleblower. There is an automatic assumption that anyone providing the information could only have come upon the data because they were intending to do something malicious.
Having said that, there are many the times I've been tempted to rename the SSIDs of wireless networks that still use WEP in some vain attempt to knock some sense into the user's head. Never gave into that impulse, but boy, sometimes it was quite a struggle.
I see the new Beta is managing to attract new readers! Welcome!
A VM or "virtual machine" is a type of computer program that creates an emulated software environment. Not that any real person actually knows what that means. Think of it as a sort of a computer that runs on another computer. You can run multiple "virtual machines" on a single computer; then you give access to individual "VM" to all your clients or employees. Busy executives like yourself love VMs because it saves them so much money on hardware; why waste money on 100 servers when you can just buy one and make it look like you have 100 computers! All your peons down in IT would probably recommend against running it on Windows8, but that's just because they like running complicated things like Linux. Windows 8 can handle VMs just fine, and - thanks to its colorful and touch-friendly interface - it's so easy to use that you can fire all those overpaid geeks and have your secretary handle everything for you. Think of the cost savings!
I hope that helps; this is just one of those useful tips you'll find on the new Slashdot, now featuring shorter articles and nice big pictures. Not only has Slashdot has been redesigned to make all this computer gibberish more palatable and understandable for management and accounting types, but we've hidden all the comments from all those grumpy greybeards and nerds to make for a better C-level executive experience! Thanks for coming, and enjoy your stay!
You know, whether you agree or disagree with what Snowden did, that in no way justifies killing him without a... oh, what was that quaint thing we used to require? That's right, a trial. Rule of law, and all that. I think that's what the country was based on originally.
Of course, it's embarrassing for the NSA that Snowden waltzed out with so much confidential information, and arguably he should have been ARRESTED within 24 hours of "that flight to Hong Kong", but killed? To even think that sort of thing is disturbing.
Having said that, I am glad he managed to get away, since his revelations are shining an absolutely necessary light on the murky behavior of our government and its actions. An educated populace is necessary to ensuring our freedoms and for too long the government has been hiding its wrong-doings from the ones it purports to serve. Whether Snowden acted as a foreign agent, or for his own advantage, or out of idealism, his actions were necessary and should not be so readily scorned.
(oh right, and fuckbeta and all that jazz. It's gonna be hard doing that boycott tomorrow)
Don't forget nntp://comp.misc on Usenet (although I doubt there are any modern browsers that support the nntp:// protocol* anymore so you will have to join mainly by downloading a free usenet client, sign up to eternal-september.org and adding comp.misc to your subscribed newsgroup list)
Still, if people are willing to use old school IRC then Usenet isn't much worse;-)
First, thank you for to Timothy and the rest of Slashdot's management for taking the time to reply. Maintaining communications between the site owner and the community it serves is important to creating trust between the two groups.
Nonetheless, a large part of me is screaming "about damn time", because this uproar could have been headed off twenty four hours ago if you had said exactly what you did with the above statement. That's not to say people would have believed you any more than do do now, but by remaining silent for a whole day you gave the impression that not only do you not care about what we think, but that it was corporate needs (legal, marketing, whatever) that kept you from issuing a statement. Smaller, individually owned websites tend to be quicker and more forthcoming with their responses because they don't have to go through various levels of approval first, and the Slashdot community - many of whom work in companies and are saddled with layers of middle-management pointlessly micromanaging their workflow - have little trust or love for corporate shenanigans. We tend to respect people more who speak bluntly and from their gut.
Still, at long last we did get a response, so I am grateful for that. Even better, you claim to be taking our feedback into consideration. I'm wary as to the truthfulness of this statement, but - for the time being - I'm willing to offer an olive branch.
Nonetheless, I think there is an onus upon Dice to be more forthright with their intentions with the redesign if they hope to regain some of the community's trust. Simple platitudes that you are "listening" are not sufficient. The biggest question we all have is to the overall goal of the redesign, especially since so many of the community feel it sacrifices what they consider the strength and draw of Slashdot: the community and the comments. We all understand that Dice is a business and needs to make money. We comprehend that increasing the audience is one method of achieving this goal. None of us, I think, are opposed to helping Slashdot become a more popular website. A redesign could draw in a new and larger readership. We get that. We just feel that your redesign is aimed solely at attracting new eyeballs while sacrificing your current user base.
Community websites like Slashdot are not like CNet or NYTimes or Apple. Those websites are unidirectional; the information is pumped down to the readership by the owners and the community involvement is minimal. But Slashdot - and other similar sites - are bi-directional; as much (if not more) of the website's value comes from the readership; is it any wonder the readers feel a sense of ownership and pride of "their" website? Is it no wonder that they feel betrayed when one side unilaterally forces their vision onto the community?
So I recommend that one of the web-designers at Slashdot take the time to walk us through the changes, both those we have already seen in beta and those you intend to work on moving forward. Let us know your reasoning for the different bits, how you came to these decisions, what your goals are. Have the designers write it up and - as much as possible - keep legal's and marketing's hands out of it. Be explicit, be detailed, be technical; we are, after all, the sort of audience who appreciates that sort of thing. Talk about your inspirations, and some of the feedback you have gotten. LET US KNOW WHY YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
You also need to take the community's feedback into real consideration. Offer them different examples that they can vote on. Fark.com showed off preliminary Photoshop mock-ups of its redesigns long before the first line of HTML was written to its paying customers; you could try the same thing here. Let the audience pick which one they think is the best and then work from that one. Engage your audience and make them feel they have a voice.
Follow-up with slow changes. One of the biggest problems with beta.slashdot is it is a complete redesign, and un-necessarily so. Don't change everythin
The community has universally spoken against the new look. I have not seen one post that has been in favor of it. In over twenty years of being on the Internet, that is a first for me.
The only people who seem interested in the beta seem to be the people at Dice pushing it down at us. There are numerous speculations as to why this is (an earnest belief it improves the site, somebody's reputation on the line, or an attempt to orient the brand at a new demographic). Dice's continued silence on the matter is quite telling, however; it is obvious they are not concerned with what the community thinks about the matter.
At the moment, I am still coming back to Slashdot because the circus and uproar about the beta is just too much fun to miss out on, but like many here I expect that - barring a reversal of intent on Dice's behalf - I eventually will migrate to some other website.
Classic Slashdot is mundane, functional, utilitarian. It does the job without much chrome or flash. Geeks love it because it is the epitome of function over form, although to takes some time to read all the comments to get the most out of it. It's a website for hobbyists and the grunts in the field.
Beta Slashdot is the opposite. It attracts the eye, and is more about the summaries than the comments. It is quick tidbits of tech info that can briefly be skimmed by busy professionals. The comments are less visible because they intended to be a less important part of the place. It changes Slashdot from a community where the bulk of its value comes from the users - which Dice does not own, has no control over and cannot ensure the quality or quantity thereof - and more one where the editors are the ultimate source of the information and content. In other words, it is the sort of site at C-level execs whose message will ultimately be controlled by Dice.
From where I sit, it looks as if Dice's ultimate goal - and the reason behind its redesign of Slashdot - is not because they want to make it more useful to its current users but because they are trying to orient it more towards CIO and "business intelligence" types. Of course, what makes Slashdot worth visiting is the comments and people interested in the articles have far better choices available to them than Slashdot BI. Dice is sacrificing its current user base in hopes of attracting a more lucrative set of customers. I don't think it will work. Their current base will migrate away to more geek-friendly websites and the hoped for C-levels have little reason to visit this corner of the Internet in the first place.
Can I add:
Overly structured days allowing kids no free time to play
What with recess and gym time being cut back or removed entirely, and children being given practically no independent time from when they are first dropped off at school (often as much as an hour before class starts) to when they are picked up from "after school activities" when Mom or Dad comes home at 5, they are being given no time to be kids. They have no time to experiement, to play, to be free and let their minds grow at their own pace. It's industrial schooling, ten hours a day and even when they ARE offered something that might stimulate them, the kids can't engage because it is so mentally exhausting.
For a variety of reasons, gone are the days when kids would be let out in the neighborhood to run and do their own thing under limited supervision. We are seeing some of the effects of that in our education.
On the other hand, I would feel extremely uncomfortable if they/did/ moderate the comments. Because that sort of activity can quickly snowball from their just deleting spammer accounts/comments to zapping comments that they disagree with or feel is not in the company's interests. Especially since the users do such a good job of cleaning up the trash themselves (honestly, except on the occassions when I read at comment level 0, I never even SEE these MyCleanPC or other spam/troll comments anymore).
I wish Dice did better editing the SUBMISSIONS (even if all they did was correct any typos or prevent obvious dupes) but I am far happier if they keep their hands off the comments themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
As bad, if the NSA can do it, so can others. Either they will hijack the NSA's 'wares, or they will use the same vulnerabilities and methods pioneered by these government agencies. Rather than working to protect the nation's citizenry, businesses and infrastructure, the NSA and others are actively undermining our security. Their mandate is not only to intercept enemy signals but to ensure that those of the country's are not similarly compromised. So not only have they overreached too far in one direction, they have ignored the equally important other part of the job.
Sadly, even if the NSA did start offering secure solutions for people, would anybody trust them enough to take them up on it?
Tracfone is great for people with light usage; those who just want a phone in their pocket to make that emergency (or semi-emergency, like "I'm in the store now; what was that thing you wanted me to buy again?") call. It is far less valuable for people who regularly use their phone for long conversations. And its data and messaging rates (and service) are terrible.
Mind you, I fall into the former camp and am happy with my cheap TracFone. In those instances where I actually need to discuss things with people, I just wait until I get to a landline (either at work or at home), and there are enough free wi-fi hotspots around here that I rarely need worry about not having access to the Internet (anyway, I suffer from fat-finger syndrome, and would rather use a laptop than try to punch out a message on the tiny keyboard of a phone any day). And I pay less than $100 a year, which is less than some people pay per month.
But it is definitely not a service for everyone.
Wait, wait, wait...
A company (Microsoft) with a dominant position in a market (desktop operating systems) is using that position to gain traction in another market (Internet Search)?
Oh Microsoft, didn't you learn your lesson in 1998?
Of course, now it has to be argued that advancing Bing is the real reason Microsoft is pushing Windows 8.1 (as opposed to an attempt to bolster the ailing sales of its reviled operating system) but you would think a convicted monopolist would have have learned to be more circumspect.
Does Microsoft have to go through this with /every/ new CEO?
Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
Because then there would be no need for all those expensive and ineffective machines, and how would the politicians get their kickbacks?
Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.
And because then people might get the idea that they have the right not to be run roughshod by government goons just for the privilege of traveling to another state or country.
I mean, how can the advantages of cost-effectiveness, convenience and liberty compete with all that?
There is a lot of duplication. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Android or Windows Phone but on IOS, for instance, there are dozens of PDF readers as an example. And you can take any specific type of app and you will probably find a half dozen different apps that all perform the same thing.
Except... they don't, not exactly. There is just enough minor variation to attract different customers, and each will protest that their choice is the best because it suits their needs better than the rest. Myself, I like a PDF reader where all it does is read PDF files well, but others want a reader that handles EPUBs, TXT, AZW, as well as a dozen other formats. Or one that allows wireless transfer from the PC, or allows the user to edit PDFs, or sync them with DropBox. Or any combination of the above functions with innumerable other features.
When you have a smaller number of apps, you lose this variety. Arguably the customer is no worse off - he can still read PDFs, for example - but he loses a bunch of extraneous features that make the apps more useful to him. So duplication of apps is valuable in and of itself, and its lack reduces the utility of the platform.
Its easy to disparage the excessive focus on number of program in a platform's app-store as pointless duplication, but that variety exists for a reason; everybody's needs are different, and all those different apps are serving those different needs. Less apps means a platform is flat-out less useful to the user. Windows Phone does not offer this range of functionality and thus cannot attract the same number of customers.
Because the days of a phone as a single-purpose device are long over. Modern phones are miniature computers and - like all computers - it is the software they run which is the most important part. No matter how good the hardware or underlying operating system may be, if it doesn't have applications to run on it, that computer is not going to end up being used. And Android phones have the apps, while Windows phones do not.
Sure, there are a small selection of apps for Windows phones, but it is nothing in comparison to what you can get on an Android (or an Apple IOS device). Apps come out first on Android and IOS, with ports to Windows Phone a secondary consideration (if they are ported at all). And there are no must-have applications only available on Windows Phone. Without the apps, they can't attract users, and without the users they cannot attract developers.
Forking Android is one potential method of getting those users. Once they have gained (embraced) a significant market-share, then Microsoft could follow up with their usual "extend, extinguish" methodology to control that market (love it or hate it, that policy works for them).
Of course, forking Android is unlikely to be a successful strategy. Increasing amounts of the Android API are being moved into Google's proprietary services and many applications are becoming more dependent on the functionality of those APIs. Forking Android would require Microsoft to create an incompatible replacement for those APIs or try to create a clean-room version of the GMS that maintains full compatibility. With the former, they have just traded a Windows kernel for a Linux kernel without gaining users because they still won't have compatibility with most apps. With the latter, Microsoft cedes control of the the platform to Google and will constantly be playing catch up to any changes the search-giant makes.
Their best bet - but the one they have been unable to achieve despite over a decade of trying - is to create a must-have feature that can only be had on Windows Phones (for instance, imagine a successor to Facebook and the only phone that you can access it from is a WinPhone). Microsoft was hoping that Exchange/ActiveDirectory integration might be this feature, but - because that was largely only of interests to large businesses - it failed to capture the market. But if they can find something that excites the market and only they offer - then they can succeed.
So even were Windows Phone OS the best and most advanced phone OS around, it doesn't matter a jot. It's always been the applications that have driven users to a platform, and right now Microsoft doesn't have those. And that is why people are throwing around ideas like forking Android.
Thank you for that link; it was quite amusing.
I like this one:
"But common carrier regulation discourages infrastructure investment and network enhancement"
Because the telecoms have been doing so much of that otherwise. That's why I'm still stuck with the option of either using a 5Mbs cable line or a 2Mbs DSL line. It's all that infrastructure they've been investing so much in.
Or:
“It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”
Actually, it is true in 1996 - when the above was written - there was a vibrant and competitive free market; there were dozens of ISPs to chose from. Oddly enough, after the 1996 Telecom Act was passed, consumer options started dwindling away.
Or:
"Nothing in the court’s decision will change the basic incentives of service providers to offer consumers capabilities that meet all of their ever-increasing needs.”
Except running their own servers, or slowing down downloads that compete with ISPs own content delivery, or double-dip charges to keep competitors' prices unfairly high. A competitive free market might have allowed that sort of thing, but when there are only a handful of companies working in collusion with one another, none of them have any incentive to keep prices down and offer different services.
"When a company’s return on investment is dictated by the government, there’s little incentive to re-invent or improve the system, which is why copper phone lines are still prevalent, water main breaks are an all-too-common occurrence, and the electric grid is in need of serious repair."
Odd, my Internet goes down more often than all of those COMBINED. Probably caused by all those backhoes repairing waterlines and downed power-cables...
Because it doesn't give any specifics in TFA, or int the article linked in TFA. Are they soy-based? Yeast? Cloned-meat that exists in a semi-alive state? Some sort of toxic mix of petrochemicals? I have no idea.
The fact that the articles seem to go out of their way not to bring this sort of thing to our attention seems a bit telling. Just telling me that "they're eggs, but better!" does not encourage me to eat them. If anything, given how frequently corporations use deceit and distraction, this absence of fact just makes me want to avoid them all the more.
On the plus side, once the standard is set it will be considered obsolete, ignored and added to the pile of already existing standards. And then we can start all over again! Thus ensuring that UI designers (and lawyers) never want for business!
I mean, seriously; can you imagine the damage it would do to our civilization of the people behind some of the worst UI catastrophes (car UIs, Windows 8, Slashdot beta) had to go out and get real jobs?
Honestly, my three-year old GTX 580 makes games look amazing, and it is still surprisingly capable with modern games (really, only Crysis 3 on Ultra made it wheeze). This is thanks to how anemic were the GPUs in the last-gen game-consoles, but I'd wager it still holds up well with the launch titles released for the XBOne or PS4. I suppose I'll get a new GPU in a year or two, but after that I think I'll be find until the PS5/XBox-NextWhatever is released.
My days of upgrading video-cards on a yearly basis seem long gone; so much of the power we have available at our fingertips goes unused these days that it seems an unnecessary expenditure. I'd feel sorry for AMD and nvidia but, well, they did sort of bring it on themselves. ;-)
Officially -as far as the governments on the peninsula are concerned - there is only one Korea, and a bunch of rebels.
Both sides have differing opinions as to who is the "real" Korean government and who are the rebels, of course.
Not that I necessarily agree with the argument that the two Iraq wars were fought over oil, but...
America is not interested in the countries; they are interested in the oil. Imperialism is expensive; running a country is costly in men and money. The locals dislike being under a foreign regime, and your own people stand out as targets.
Better to allow the locals to rule themselves, but set up the situation so their only real option is to sell you the local resources. That way you get the benefit of harvesting the valuables without the vast expenditures necessary to hold a hostile people. Better still, your own people are less exposed, as they are not the only target of local aggression (that's why let the locals rule themselves; nobody likes a politician, even if he is a neighbor).
Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were /not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.
You can narrow this down to two categories:
- Carriers (be they wired or wireless)
- Customers
Carriers carry data. If its digital, the byte-stream needs to move up and down the tubes regardless if it decodes into a voice-call, a website, or a blockbuster movie.
Customers are everyone else. They either transmit data, or request it. It doesn't matter if this is an 4KB HTTP GET going up, or 3GB .AVI file going down. They pay the carriers for the privilege of accessing the network. It doesn't matter what sort of data they access or where they are requesting it from or sending it to. The volume of the data might affect the cost to access the network, but not the type or destination of the data.
And the two categories should never, ever be merged into one.
It's called the Big Lie.
Say something so outrageous - and repeat it so often - people have no recourse but to believe you. After all, nobody would say something that ridiculous - and do it so stridently - if it weren't true.
You have to wonder what the overuse of this technique is doing to our culture and psychology, however. We are all learning to immediately distrust anything anyone says - even if it sounds plausible - because too often the messages we receive are blatant lies. How can a society continue to exist if nobody has any trust in anyone else?
And we've seen where this sort of consolidation means for the average person; they have less and less of a voice in how their country is run.
One of the great things about the Internet is how easy it let people voice their opinions. Although prior to the arrival of the net, it was already cheap and easy enough that anybody could print their own newsletter or pamphlet, gaining an audience for said publication was a costly endeavour and usually required you to deal with the devil to get widespread exposure. With the Internet, your views were open to the entire world and - if enough people agreed with those view (or at least thought them worthy of attention), you could quickly gain a significant market. In other words, it was the message that was important, not how rich or connected you were.
Intentionally or not, without net neutrality, the carriers are pushing the genie back into the bottle so that only a favored few will have a voice again. This is contrary to the spirit of the nation, and it is sad to see that so many people are willing to allow such a powerful tool for democratization be tossed to the wayside.
Mind you, it's less checking if you visited a site and more if your computer accessed a proscribed host.
Many of the cheats VAC is checking for are not only sold, but protected by a form of DRM that checks an authorization server before they let you use the cheat. VAC is more often looking to see if your computer is connecting to the authorization server; e.g., they are more interested in seeing if you visit authorization.cheaters.com than forums.cheaters.com
Not that I think that is much better, and I imagine that - especially now that the method has become common knowledge - it will become far less effective. The hacks will probably start using some sort of commonly used proxy to redirect and obfuscate the authentication request; perhaps the next version of WallHack.exe will come bundled with a TOR client.
Of course, the best option would be to give customers a choice: play on sponsored, VAC protected servers - albeit at a cost to your privacy - or allow VAC to be turned off and play the game on player-hosted servers, where you may (or may not) encounter people using cheat tools.
Which works until you use this method to "advise" the wrong person, who contacts the cops and you end up arrested for computer trespassing. Too often we hear stories about people intending to do good are blamed for the message they bring.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any "right" way to bring these problems to the attention of the user or the developer since the laws all seem to be unfairly balanced against the whistleblower. There is an automatic assumption that anyone providing the information could only have come upon the data because they were intending to do something malicious.
Having said that, there are many the times I've been tempted to rename the SSIDs of wireless networks that still use WEP in some vain attempt to knock some sense into the user's head. Never gave into that impulse, but boy, sometimes it was quite a struggle.
I see the new Beta is managing to attract new readers! Welcome!
A VM or "virtual machine" is a type of computer program that creates an emulated software environment. Not that any real person actually knows what that means. Think of it as a sort of a computer that runs on another computer. You can run multiple "virtual machines" on a single computer; then you give access to individual "VM" to all your clients or employees. Busy executives like yourself love VMs because it saves them so much money on hardware; why waste money on 100 servers when you can just buy one and make it look like you have 100 computers! All your peons down in IT would probably recommend against running it on Windows8, but that's just because they like running complicated things like Linux. Windows 8 can handle VMs just fine, and - thanks to its colorful and touch-friendly interface - it's so easy to use that you can fire all those overpaid geeks and have your secretary handle everything for you. Think of the cost savings!
I hope that helps; this is just one of those useful tips you'll find on the new Slashdot, now featuring shorter articles and nice big pictures. Not only has Slashdot has been redesigned to make all this computer gibberish more palatable and understandable for management and accounting types, but we've hidden all the comments from all those grumpy greybeards and nerds to make for a better C-level executive experience! Thanks for coming, and enjoy your stay!
You know, whether you agree or disagree with what Snowden did, that in no way justifies killing him without a... oh, what was that quaint thing we used to require? That's right, a trial. Rule of law, and all that. I think that's what the country was based on originally.
Of course, it's embarrassing for the NSA that Snowden waltzed out with so much confidential information, and arguably he should have been ARRESTED within 24 hours of "that flight to Hong Kong", but killed? To even think that sort of thing is disturbing.
Having said that, I am glad he managed to get away, since his revelations are shining an absolutely necessary light on the murky behavior of our government and its actions. An educated populace is necessary to ensuring our freedoms and for too long the government has been hiding its wrong-doings from the ones it purports to serve. Whether Snowden acted as a foreign agent, or for his own advantage, or out of idealism, his actions were necessary and should not be so readily scorned.
(oh right, and fuckbeta and all that jazz. It's gonna be hard doing that boycott tomorrow)
Don't forget nntp://comp.misc on Usenet
(although I doubt there are any modern browsers that support the nntp:// protocol* anymore so you will have to join mainly by downloading a free usenet client, sign up to eternal-september.org and adding comp.misc to your subscribed newsgroup list)
Still, if people are willing to use old school IRC then Usenet isn't much worse ;-)
* similar to PIN number
First, thank you for to Timothy and the rest of Slashdot's management for taking the time to reply. Maintaining communications between the site owner and the community it serves is important to creating trust between the two groups.
Nonetheless, a large part of me is screaming "about damn time", because this uproar could have been headed off twenty four hours ago if you had said exactly what you did with the above statement. That's not to say people would have believed you any more than do do now, but by remaining silent for a whole day you gave the impression that not only do you not care about what we think, but that it was corporate needs (legal, marketing, whatever) that kept you from issuing a statement. Smaller, individually owned websites tend to be quicker and more forthcoming with their responses because they don't have to go through various levels of approval first, and the Slashdot community - many of whom work in companies and are saddled with layers of middle-management pointlessly micromanaging their workflow - have little trust or love for corporate shenanigans. We tend to respect people more who speak bluntly and from their gut.
Still, at long last we did get a response, so I am grateful for that. Even better, you claim to be taking our feedback into consideration. I'm wary as to the truthfulness of this statement, but - for the time being - I'm willing to offer an olive branch.
Nonetheless, I think there is an onus upon Dice to be more forthright with their intentions with the redesign if they hope to regain some of the community's trust. Simple platitudes that you are "listening" are not sufficient. The biggest question we all have is to the overall goal of the redesign, especially since so many of the community feel it sacrifices what they consider the strength and draw of Slashdot: the community and the comments. We all understand that Dice is a business and needs to make money. We comprehend that increasing the audience is one method of achieving this goal. None of us, I think, are opposed to helping Slashdot become a more popular website. A redesign could draw in a new and larger readership. We get that. We just feel that your redesign is aimed solely at attracting new eyeballs while sacrificing your current user base.
Community websites like Slashdot are not like CNet or NYTimes or Apple. Those websites are unidirectional; the information is pumped down to the readership by the owners and the community involvement is minimal. But Slashdot - and other similar sites - are bi-directional; as much (if not more) of the website's value comes from the readership; is it any wonder the readers feel a sense of ownership and pride of "their" website? Is it no wonder that they feel betrayed when one side unilaterally forces their vision onto the community?
So I recommend that one of the web-designers at Slashdot take the time to walk us through the changes, both those we have already seen in beta and those you intend to work on moving forward. Let us know your reasoning for the different bits, how you came to these decisions, what your goals are. Have the designers write it up and - as much as possible - keep legal's and marketing's hands out of it. Be explicit, be detailed, be technical; we are, after all, the sort of audience who appreciates that sort of thing. Talk about your inspirations, and some of the feedback you have gotten. LET US KNOW WHY YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
You also need to take the community's feedback into real consideration. Offer them different examples that they can vote on. Fark.com showed off preliminary Photoshop mock-ups of its redesigns long before the first line of HTML was written to its paying customers; you could try the same thing here. Let the audience pick which one they think is the best and then work from that one. Engage your audience and make them feel they have a voice.
Follow-up with slow changes. One of the biggest problems with beta.slashdot is it is a complete redesign, and un-necessarily so. Don't change everythin
There are NO "beta addicts"
The community has universally spoken against the new look. I have not seen one post that has been in favor of it. In over twenty years of being on the Internet, that is a first for me.
The only people who seem interested in the beta seem to be the people at Dice pushing it down at us. There are numerous speculations as to why this is (an earnest belief it improves the site, somebody's reputation on the line, or an attempt to orient the brand at a new demographic). Dice's continued silence on the matter is quite telling, however; it is obvious they are not concerned with what the community thinks about the matter.
At the moment, I am still coming back to Slashdot because the circus and uproar about the beta is just too much fun to miss out on, but like many here I expect that - barring a reversal of intent on Dice's behalf - I eventually will migrate to some other website.
Already some suggestions have been made:
Ars Technica /r/Slashdot
Alt Slashdot (currently in development)
Subreddit
kuro5hin
I am on the lookout for more.
Classic Slashdot is mundane, functional, utilitarian. It does the job without much chrome or flash. Geeks love it because it is the epitome of function over form, although to takes some time to read all the comments to get the most out of it. It's a website for hobbyists and the grunts in the field.
Beta Slashdot is the opposite. It attracts the eye, and is more about the summaries than the comments. It is quick tidbits of tech info that can briefly be skimmed by busy professionals. The comments are less visible because they intended to be a less important part of the place. It changes Slashdot from a community where the bulk of its value comes from the users - which Dice does not own, has no control over and cannot ensure the quality or quantity thereof - and more one where the editors are the ultimate source of the information and content. In other words, it is the sort of site at C-level execs whose message will ultimately be controlled by Dice.
From where I sit, it looks as if Dice's ultimate goal - and the reason behind its redesign of Slashdot - is not because they want to make it more useful to its current users but because they are trying to orient it more towards CIO and "business intelligence" types. Of course, what makes Slashdot worth visiting is the comments and people interested in the articles have far better choices available to them than Slashdot BI. Dice is sacrificing its current user base in hopes of attracting a more lucrative set of customers. I don't think it will work. Their current base will migrate away to more geek-friendly websites and the hoped for C-levels have little reason to visit this corner of the Internet in the first place.
All in my opinion, of course.
Can I add:
Overly structured days allowing kids no free time to play
What with recess and gym time being cut back or removed entirely, and children being given practically no independent time from when they are first dropped off at school (often as much as an hour before class starts) to when they are picked up from "after school activities" when Mom or Dad comes home at 5, they are being given no time to be kids. They have no time to experiement, to play, to be free and let their minds grow at their own pace. It's industrial schooling, ten hours a day and even when they ARE offered something that might stimulate them, the kids can't engage because it is so mentally exhausting.
For a variety of reasons, gone are the days when kids would be let out in the neighborhood to run and do their own thing under limited supervision. We are seeing some of the effects of that in our education.
On the other hand, I would feel extremely uncomfortable if they /did/ moderate the comments. Because that sort of activity can quickly snowball from their just deleting spammer accounts/comments to zapping comments that they disagree with or feel is not in the company's interests. Especially since the users do such a good job of cleaning up the trash themselves (honestly, except on the occassions when I read at comment level 0, I never even SEE these MyCleanPC or other spam/troll comments anymore).
I wish Dice did better editing the SUBMISSIONS (even if all they did was correct any typos or prevent obvious dupes) but I am far happier if they keep their hands off the comments themselves.