Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

DirecTV CEO Scoffs At Competition From Apple TV

zzatz Re:Kind of reminds me of (264 comments)

PC has two meanings. It originally stood for "Personal Computer", back in the days when it referred to an Apple II or TRS-80. Then IBM entered the home market and named their first model the "IBM PC". That created confusion, with people using "PC" as shorthand for "IBM PC compatible". IBM gave later models other names, but the damage was done. Now IBM no longer sells personal computers for you desktop or laptop, but the ambiguous name lingers.

The quote clearly refers to the original meaning, personal computer. He's comparing to classes of devices, phones and personal computers, not specific brands or types of each.

In today's market, the distinguishing feature is not compatibility with an ancient IBM model, but that a particular computer runs Microsoft Windows. That's a better label than PC. Mac vs. Windows (implied 'computer') makes sense. Mac vs. PC doesn't, not if you unpack it to Personal Computer.

more than 2 years ago
top

SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects

zzatz Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 (104 comments)

I agree that the correct answer is "Fuck Hollywood". I don't have a Tivo, I built a MythTV box that records free over-the-air broadcasts. I haven't been to a movie or had cable for years. Hollywood doesn't get my money.

So my question for you is, why do you shoot the messenger? You asked a question, I answered it, and you call me an apologist. Fuck you. I told you that I think DRM is a mistake. Don't you understand the difference between an explanation and a justification? I find that I can make better arguments against positions that I disagree with if I make the effort to understand those positions. For example, if you want to end the War on Drugs, you need to understand why others support it. It's not going to end because you oppose it, it will end when you remove the reasons others support it.

Understanding why people do bad things is important. It is not an endorsement of bad things.

more than 2 years ago
top

SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects

zzatz Re:GPL2 vs GPL3 (104 comments)

Why? No one has ever explained to me just why a company wants to Tivoize Linux?
How does keeping me from changing the code on a device I've purchased help the manufacturer's bottom line?

You need to look at entire ecosystem, not just the box maker. People don't buy hardware because they admire the hardware, they buy hardware to accomplish a task. For Tivo and others, that task is delivering content. The content providers require control over delivery; they want you to be able to watch a recording but not transfer the recording. That requires locked-down systems. Which sells more? Open systems that cannot record HBO, or locked systems that can?

I think DRM is a mistake, but I don't rule Hollywood. As long as Hollywood wants DRM, the ability to play Hollywood content is more important than GPLv3 licensing.

more than 2 years ago
top

Resumegate Continues At Yahoo: Thompson Out As CEO, Levinsohn In

zzatz Re:Who's Running Corporations? (107 comments)

Not only did he lie about something easy to check, he lied about something he didn't need to. No one hires a CEO based on academic credentials. Executives are hired for their business experience.

I'm still trying to sort out whether Yahoo is dropping him because he lied, or because he's bad at lying.

more than 2 years ago
top

IBM Creates 'Breathing' High-Density Lithium-Air Battery

zzatz Re:Not "linearly" (582 comments)

Direct current flows through the entire cross section, so area counts. Alternating current induces forces which push the current towards the outside. The dimensions where this skin effect is strong enough to consider depend on frequency. For 60Hz, you can ignore skin effect for currents less than about 100A.

more than 2 years ago
top

Paramount Claims Louis CK "Didn't Monetize"

zzatz "Did not monetize" means "No money for parasites" (288 comments)

It's simple. How much the artist made doesn't count. How much did the bankers and lawyers make?

There are three groups involved in the entertainment business: people who do the entertaining, people who are entertained, and the gatekeepers who prevent us from finding each other unless they get most of the money. Louis CK didn't pay the gatekeepers, so he failed to monetize.

more than 2 years ago
top

FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

zzatz Re:not sure why the negative comments (252 comments)

Interrogation does not include coercion. I keep trying to explain that to you. All interrogation includes is asking questions. That's what the word means.

Should I worry about coercion? Of course. Should I worry about interrogation? No, ask away, I don't have to answer. Interrogation is not another word for coercion, interrogation does not include coercion. We have separate words for separate concepts.

The combination of interrogation with coercion is bad. Two separate words for two separate concepts. It's not the interrogation that makes the combination bad, it's the coercion. We don't have a name for that combination. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be precise, we need to use both words when describing that combination.

People are sloppy. Sometimes they misuse a word as shorthand for a longer description. Using "interrogation" as shorthand for "coerced interrogation" is a misuse. You can tell from context when people are misusing words like this, and if it isn't clear, you should assume the proper definition. When the FBI says "advance the science of interrogation", they mean that they want to know how to ask better questions. Asking questions is an art. Some people are better at it than others. The FBI would like to add a little science to that art, so they can train their people to ask questions that get them better answers. There's nothing wrong with that, there's no threat in that. I used to provide technical support to sales, so I went to many sales training classes. Some of those classes taught me how to ask better questions. What's wrong with getting a better understanding of what the customer needs?

Your concerns are legitimate. But you're using the wrong words for them. You shouldn't fear interrogation. You should fear beatings, coercion, and torture. It hurts when you are beaten during interrogation. But the interrogation doesn't hurt, it's the beating that hurts. You can be beaten without any questions being asked. That's not interrogation, that's just a beating. Please use the proper words. Don't say interrogation when you mean coercion. Don't say interrogation when you mean torture. Interrogation is not painful, interrogation is not harmful, interrogation is not evil, interrogation is not immoral. We have words for inflicting pain, words for causing harm, words for evil and words for immoral. Use those words when that's what you are talking about. When you use the wrong words, you enable those who commit evil to hide behind safe words. Don't call torture interrogation, call it torture. Don't call waterboarding interrogation, call it torture. Don't help evil bastards hide behind euphemisms, use the proper words. Interrogation is a word for a respectable activity. Don't use it for despicable actions, use the proper words that make it clear that the actions deserve contempt.

There are other ways people misuse language to enable evil. A reporter should not say that the suspect resisted arrest. That's an opinion, not a fact. The reporter should say that the suspect was injured while he was being arrested. That's a fact, not an opinion. The reporter should say that the suspect was charged with resisting arrest. That he was charged is a fact, and it doesn't assume that he is guilty of the charge. Maybe he did resist, maybe the injuries couldn't be avoided, or maybe a dirty cop took out his frustrations on the suspect. Sloppy language hides the injury, sloppy language assumes guilt, sloppy language enables dirty cops. Accurate, precise language makes facts available. That's what I'm asking for. Don't say interrogation when you mean something else.

more than 2 years ago
top

FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

zzatz Re:not sure why the negative comments (252 comments)

"Tell us what you know" IS interrogation.

I don't think you know what the word means. It means asking questions, making inquiries.

Interrogation does not mean coercion. It does not means making threats. It does not mean beating people up. It does not mean torture. It means asking questions.

Let me give you a few examples. Your neighbors get into a fight one night. It's 2AM and they're standing in the middle of the road screaming at each other. Someone calls the police. The police show up, separate the husband and wife, and take the man down to the station for questioning. The police use rather precise jargon for each step in the process. First, the police detain the husband. Detain, not arrest, because arrest means charging with a crime. They don't yet know if he should be charged, or she should be charged, but they will detain one or both. Detain means to hold. Detain does not mean arrest. Detain does not mean question. Detain does not mean handcuff, which brings up another term: restraints.

Next, the police transport him. In other words, they put him in the back of a police car and take him to the station. Then they interrogate him. They ask him questions. He doesn't need to answer, other than to identify himself.

At any point, they could have beat him. They could have beat him while they were detaining him. They could have beat him while they were putting him in the car. They could have beat him while they were asking questions. But none of the words mean beat; detain does not mean beat, transport does not mean beat, interrogate does not mean beat. The fact that two actions can happen at the same time does not make the words we use for those actions interchangeable. You can be tortured at the same time as you are being interrogated, and you can be eating a meal at the same time as you are being interrogated. Interrogation refers to the questioning, not the eating or torture.

Interrogation is the act of asking questions or inquiring.

more than 2 years ago
top

FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

zzatz Re:My rant (252 comments)

You left out an important word in Purpose 1: to obtain *false* information. Torture is used to get the 'right' answer, where 'right' means the answer that serves the torturer's agenda. Torture actively interferes with getting accurate information and encourages false information. Victims will say anything to make the torture stop. The torture doesn't stop with the first thing the victim says, it continues until the torturer hears what he wants to hear.

Otherwise, I agree with your three purposes. States often indulge in the first (coercing false testimony) and second (fear as an instrument of control). Like you, I'll ignore sadism; it's usually personal rather than institutional.

more than 2 years ago
top

FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

zzatz Re:Already exists... (252 comments)

The FBI has learned this lesson. They want to get better at it. The US military has learned this lesson. They want to get better at it. I've talked with a US Army trained interrogator, and he was trained to make the subject comfortable and become his friend.

But in any organization, there are those with their own agendas. Some cops know that Joe Blow is a thief, has gotten away with stealing many times, and they don't really care if he's guilty of this specific robbery. Those kind of cops will coerce a confession. Those kind of cops don't want the truth, they want a confession even if it's not true.

When powerful people want lies, they can find people willing to beat lies out of people. FBI agents want facts, not lies, and are trained to do proper interrogations. The same is true for the US military and the CIA. But corruption happens in every country, sometimes more than others, sometimes less, but it always happens. Most of the people who work for the FBI, the CIA, or the US military want the truth. But most is not all, not in the US, not in the NL, not in any country.

more than 2 years ago
top

FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

zzatz Re:not sure why the negative comments (252 comments)

Because technical measures don't provide everything you might want to know. Because the government can't see everything. Because it is often easier, cheaper, and more effective to simply ask questions.

The bartender might remember what my favorite beer is. I suppose the bar could invest in computers and data mining software to analyze my past purchases. Or the bartender might take a few seconds to ask me what I'd like. Sometimes human intelligence works better than technical means.

Keep in mind that most interrogation isn't about you. They want to know what you know about someone else. The police might want to know if you saw or heard anything before your neighbor's wife disappeared. How they ask, what they ask, makes a difference in the quality of the data you provide. For example, witnesses should be separated before they can talk to each other, and they should be questioned separately. That's not just to prevent conspiracy, it's mostly because they want to know what *you* saw or heard, not what you remember from talking with the other witnesses. Memory is funny. Our memories of actual events are much dimmer than our memories of discussing those events. If you thought you saw a white Camaro, and Fred thought he saw a silver Mustang, the cops want to know that. They don't want to know that you and Fred talked about it and agreed that it must have been a white Mustang.

You want to know how drug dealers get caught? Usually, it's because somebody talked. Small dealer got a lighter sentence, or got off completely, in return for fingering his supplier. Yeah, sometimes a dog might sniff out drugs. Yeah, sometimes a wiretap might reveal something. But most police work amounts to talking to people, and knowing how to talk to people more effectively is a worthy goal.

more than 2 years ago
top

Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies

zzatz Re:And you don't understand risk (292 comments)

We do know the problem. Personal electronics devices can radiate unintended signals that interfere with navigation and communications system signals.

Here's the part you keep ignoring: they interfere with the SIGNALS. It's not a lack of shielding in the aircraft gear. You can't run a shielded cable from the airport to the approaching plane. The fundamental issue is personal devices which emit at frequencies used by aircraft.

We could tighten the limits on allowed emissions by devices. The current regulations balance the amount and type of interference with the cost of reducing emissions. All of the cheap and easy ways to reduce emissions are already used. Tighter limits means higher prices for consumer electronics.

We could replace our ILS systems with new technology that's harder to jam. That would cost a bundle, and your tax dollars would pay for it.

Or we could turn off personal devices during takeoff and landing. That's by far the cheapest solution.

more than 2 years ago
top

Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies

zzatz Re:About time common sense prevailed! (292 comments)

Yes, they do emit signals. Not on purpose, but it's a side effect of how most receivers work.

more than 2 years ago
top

Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies

zzatz Re:About time common sense prevailed! (292 comments)

Superheterodyne receivers have a local oscillator which is mixed with signal from the antenna to shift the signal down to the intermediate frequency. Nearly all receivers work this way.

There might be leakage from the local oscillator. The the stage that mixes the LO with the incoming signal doesn't just mix with the desired signal, it mixes with every signal that reaches it, shifting them all to new frequencies. So a circuit designed to receive one frequency may be transmitting, weakly, on other frequencies.

In addition, personal electronics rarely consist of only a receiver. Digital circuits generate a lot of radio noise. Yes, they are supposed to be shielded to keep that noise inside the device, but some gets out.

We could solve this by replacing the instrument landing systems with newer technology that's more resistant to interference. That would cost a lot, and your taxes would pay for it. We could tighten the standards for emissions from personal electronics, if you don't mind doubling or tripling the price. Or we could turn off devices during takeoff and landing, which is both cheap and effective.

more than 2 years ago
top

How Steve Jobs Patent-Trolled Bill Gates

zzatz Re:Enough Already (307 comments)

Yeah, all trolls are non-practicing entities. That's makes them trolls rather than some other form of patent abuser.

Unisys isn't a troll. They published a paper about LZW without noting that they had applied for a patent. You might consider that abuse of the patent system; I certainly do. But it's a different type of abuse than the type called trolling.

Calling all abusers of patents trolls is the same as calling everyone who has sex outside of marriage a prostitute. Yes, prostitutes have sex outside of marriage. So do people who aren't prostitutes. A prostitute is someone who has sex with nearly anyone in exchange for money. It isn't the sex that defines a prostitute, it is that the key factor in choosing an acceptable partner is money. That's what distinguishes a prostitute from a groupie; the key factor in choosing a partner for a groupie is fame. Two different words for two different groups, groups with some similarities, but the differences are important enough to use different words.

Yes, some Bible-thumping preacher may call any woman who has sex outside of marriage a whore, but that's a rhetorical tactic to shut down rational discussion. Is that what you want? To shut down rational discussion about patents? You can make a good case that Unisys abused its patent on LZW. You can make a good case that Microsoft abuses its patents. You can make a good case that Apple abuses it patents. But when you label them trolls, you devalue your own argument, for they they don't meet the definition of patent trolls. Sure, troll is a nicely emotional description, but isn't your argument stronger when it's accurate?

more than 2 years ago
top

How Steve Jobs Patent-Trolled Bill Gates

zzatz Re:That's like saying... (307 comments)

Apple may be abusing the patent system, but not all abuse is trolling. Patent troll has a specific meaning.

Companies who sell products which use patents have incentives to cross-license with other similar companies. If you need my patent and I need your patent, we can come to agreement about reasonable terms. If I don't need your patent because I found a way around it, then you have incentive to drop your demands down to the cost of my work-around. But if I don't need your patent because I don't sell any products at all, then I can demand unreasonable royalties. The royalties don't make me a troll, it's not selling products that makes me a troll. Patent trolling is all about asymmetrical relationships between patent holders; those who need patents because they make things, and those who don't need patents because they don't make things.

There are many ways to abuse patents. Trolling describes only one. Apple is a patent abuser, not a patent troll.

more than 2 years ago
top

How Steve Jobs Patent-Trolled Bill Gates

zzatz Re:Disagree (307 comments)

Apple does what it does very, very well, but innovation is not the correct word for it.

Innovation is doing something for the first time. Granted, Apple does have patents, as do most successful technology companies. But those patents, those actual innovations, are not what the public associates with Apple.

Apple is known for being the first to do something well. Not the first to do it, not to invent it, but the first to do it well. That's not innovation, that's called execution. Execution may well be more important than innovation. It's worth celebrating, it brings in lots of money, it's the key to success.

Xerox PARC innovated like crazy, but executed poorly. It took other companies, such as Apple, to take Xerox's innovations and turn them into successful products. Ethernet was an innovation that was limited to the niche of Xerox-only networks until Xerox teamed with Intel and DEC. Intel executed well, making chips that made Ethernet affordable. DEC executed well, incorporating Ethernet into nearly all of their products. 3Com and Novell then took it into the PC market. That's the difference between innovation and execution. Xerox innovated. Intel, DEC, 3Com, and Novell executed Xerox's innovation well.

Apple is very good at recognizing when the time is right to meld multiple innovations into a product. They don't need to be their own innovations. In other words, Apple excels at product development rather than research. The issue is muddled because most companies and the press usually lump the two together as R&D, but innovation comes out of research rather than development.

Apple does many things well, you've pointed out some of the things that Apple does well, but you've used the wrong word to describe it. You aren't the first and won't be the last to misuse the word; advertising agencies and marketing departments misuse the word daily.

more than 2 years ago
top

Ex-FCC Chair: Spectrum Plan "Single Worst Telecom Bill I've Seen"

zzatz Re:Shorter House Republicans: (63 comments)

It's more than that. This is the Republican version of Public Campaign Financing. Corporation bribes, that is, makes campaign contribution to politician. Politician arranges sale of public property to corporation at discount price, or finds other ways to ensure windfall profits in excess of contribution. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This happens over and over again. Politician steers public property or tax dollars to corporation, corporation contributes part of that money back to politician. Yes, Democrats do it too. The difference is that Democrats are willing to talk about real public campaign financing, while the Republicans rail against it. Rail against spending tax dollars on campaigns, while making sure that tax dollars go to their own campaigns, suitably laundered through corporations.

more than 2 years ago
top

How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?

zzatz Re:Source code unrelated to busybox? (432 comments)

You've misread that first part. It states that the SFC has asked for source code unrelated to Busybox, and makes no statements about the license of such non-Busybox code. Perhaps they asked for other GPL code, such the Linux kernel. Perhaps they asked for proprietary code that's covered by an NDA.

Lawyers like fishing expeditions against their adversaries, and oppose them against their clients. It's their job. But I'd be happier if they stuck with their own client's code, not looking through all code trawling for potential clients.

more than 2 years ago
top

How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?

zzatz Re:So basically... (432 comments)

Read again. Sony doesn't want to infringe the terms of the license. Other companies do not want to infringe copyright, either.

Pretend that you work for Sony. Your project uses the Linux kernel. You're sure that you comply with the GPL, so there's not much risk in using the Linux kernel. You want to comply, you're taking steps to comply, and someone on your project screws up, you know that the kernel developers just want the additions to the kernel source code released. That's what you want, too, so no big deal.

Then there's Busybox. The lawyers involved with Busybox might use your use of it to demand a look at all of the code for your project, not just Busybox. They might want to look at other projects, too. They might want an open-ended fishing expedition into all projects in all divisions of Sony. Even if everyone, including suppliers, is clean, that would cost too much time and manpower to be worth the risk. The amount of time it saves your project to use Busybox is not worth risking every project in the entire company to an audit.

The GPL has advantages for businesses. Companies can collaborate on software without violating antitrust law. But there are risks, too. No one likes audits. Not by the IRS, not by the BSA, not by SFLC. Audits cost you time and money even when you did nothing wrong. Some people think that the risks of using Busybox are higher than the rewards, even if you fully comply.

Some people are too annoying to buy from, to sell to, to work for, to deal with in any way. Yeah, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD each have a slightly different focus, but personalities also enter into why there's more than one BSD project. Yeah, XFree86 introduced an unnecessary, unacceptable change to their license, but when you get down to it, Xorg forked because of personalities; people in control were holding the project back.

I like the GPL as a license. I like most of the developers who choose the GPL. But in any group, there are bound to be some assholes. I don't know if that's the case with Busybox, but I'm open to the idea that assholes can choose the GPL.

more than 2 years ago

Submissions

zzatz hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

zzatz has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...