Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I'd guess it's the licensing fees (Score 2) 93

But that's just a guess. Of course that being said, Netflix is cutting back their shipping hubs. Those fuckers axed the one that was next day away from me and I have to use one a state over that takes 2 to 3 days each way.

It's worth noting that outside the US, Netflix doesn't run (and AFAIK has never run) any DVD shipping service. It's been streaming only. So in theory that shut weigh in Netflix US's favour somewhat.


Comment Re:Not happy at all for a "Pro" laptop from Apple. (Score 2) 307

Go shop for a new inkjet printer and tell me how many have USB-C connections on them vs. traditional USB right now.

I think you chose a poor example. Most printers that I'm aware of feature a USB Type-B connector on them, and don't come with any sort of cable.

USB Type-C is just a new USB connector. It's still signal compatible with existing USB devices. As virtually all inkjet printers don't come with a cable, you just ensure you buy a USB Type C to USB Type B cable to go with your printer, the same way you'd need to buy a USB Type C to USB Type A cable.


Comment Re:Hilarious (Score 1) 186

The problems that have been announced almost invariably revolve around the connectivity provided in the stadium, rather than the tablets themselves. This is an NFL problem.. iPad, Surface, Galaxy Tab, whatever.. not going to be different until the NFL forces teams and stadiums to provide adequate connectivity.

This is the NFL. They aren't exactly poor, so the simple solution would seem to be to use 4G enabled tablets. I can't imagine that cell service is so terrible from within stadiums (indeed, I'd expect cell companies to target stadiums for better reception. Nothing worse for your brand than having a venue that supports 40 000+ people who can't use their devices to tweet pics of themselves wearing a foam finger because your service sucks in a (typically) downtown stadium.


Comment Re:Anita Sarkeesian: Destroyer of Shareholder Valu (Score 1) 313

That's an interesting way of looking at it... But keep in mind that GP's argument about destroying shareholder value isn't just about a lower stock price due to a damaged brand, the actual value (assets) of the company may have decreased by a similar amount at the same time. Instead of paying $100 for an $80 item, you're now paying $50 for a $40 item. The price may be lower but it's still a crap buy.

But the numbers don't bear this out. These things are reported publicly, and can be easily looked up.

Like a lot of virtual services, Twitter doesn't have a ton of real value to start with. They don't have significant real estate holdings -- their latest earnings report lists $758 837 of "Property and Equipment, net", which is up from $699 502 YoY, and at an all-time high. So the hypothesis doesn't stand in light of the facts.

Twitter's whole value is in their Monthly Active Users (MAU), and that was up 1% during the last reported quarter. Twitters problem is that they don't have much of any real value (as mentioned above, they only have about 3/4 of a million in property and equipment), there isn't much growth potential, and advertising revenue is stagnant.

Making up stuff about SJWs being the reason why Twitter's valuation is down is just mental masturbation, and an attempt to paint "SJW's" as a societal ill. But Twitter's problems have nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian, or five Conservative (in)Justice Warriors who have had their accounts banned for being abusing dicks. Hell, advertisers generally don't want to be associated with such people anyway -- it devalues their brand. The numbers -- which are publicly available -- bear this out.

The GP was being disingenuous, plain and simple.


Comment Re:Anita Sarkeesian: Destroyer of Shareholder Valu (Score 4, Insightful) 313

And after having damaged their brand and destroyed billions worth of shareholder value, lo and behold, no one wants to buy them! Gee, turns out that alienating half your user base at the behest of a tiny cadre of radical feminists is a lousy business strategy...

Yeah, except that's not the reality of the situation.

As of Twitter's latest earnings report, its user base grew more than expected, up to 313 million active monthly users. Their problem has been a softening of advertiser demand, which has reduced revenues below expectations.

Indeed, all of the companies interested in buying Twitter have only been interested because of the reduced shareholder value. Twitter isn't a good buy-out candidate when its stock value is worth more than the real value of its assets; it's only when its market value is at or below the value of its assets and expected revenues that it suddenly becomes something everyone could be interested in buying out. As such, the "destroyed billions worth of shareholder value" is actually a good thing for a company looking to buy them out -- you buy low, not high.

So congrats -- you've invented an argument by working backward form a premise, while ignoring basic math and economics. Because if your argument had any real merit, any big company could buy Twitter, fire Ms. Sarkeesian, re-instate five accounts, and suddenly they'd be able to increase the value of the company by billions. But here's a hint -- the advertisers don't care who is visiting Twitter, or what their politics are. The fact that they gained over 3 million monthly visitors in the last reported quarter (to 313 million) is all they are going to care about -- and advertising is virtually all of Twitter's revenue. But advertisers are going elsewhere -- and its certainly not because there are some butt-hurt Conservative Justice Warriors who can't handle people calling them out for being complete douchbags. These companies have looked at Twitter's fundamentals, and it appears they come up wanting. Perhaps after they lose a few hundred million more in value someone will snap them up.


Comment Re:I want to buy Twitter. (Score 1) 313

That's cute and everything, but when you buy a company you take on its liabilities[1]. I suspect that's why so companies are looking under the veil and walking away from the altar.

That's what I suspect as well. Their liabilities are probably well beyond their real estate, securities, and physical holdings, such that they aren't even worth buying as a fire sale.

Still, if I were to incorporate and pay myself some crazy amount to dismantle the company, that $5 + bag of doughnuts investment could pay off nicely...


Comment Re:Any third party (Score 1) 117

The source code only has to be available to the people you ship binaries to.

Consider the following excerpts from the GNU General Public License, versions 2 and 3:

(From GPLv2) b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

This offer must be available to "any third party".

Good job at selectively quoting the GPL to fit your narrative, but you're still wrong.

The section of the GPL v2 you quoted above is section 3b. The main text for Section 3 just above it reads (with emphasis added):

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

...followed by three options, one of which is the one you quoted. There are two other options that be be selected instead, keeping you in compliance with the GPL, neither of which requires you give source to third parties.


Comment Re:False Analogy (Score 1) 531

That's certainly true. But the point was that you as a programmer are better equipped to find bugs in your own code than in its dependencies, and that the runtime is basically a giant black box to most programmers, whereas libraries are more likely to get compiled from source (though not necessarily, of course).

Unless you're writing embedded code directly against the hardware, however, you already rely on a pile of giant black boxes. The Operating System is a giant black box. Your compiler is probably a giant black box. The standard libraries for your language is probably a giant black box. Even if they're OSS, how many developers really take the time to audit their entire toolchain and OS? And even if you have and audit the source, how often do developers go as far as to audit the compiled code? They're still giant boxes that you build atop, with lots of opportunity for things to go wrong..


Comment Re:Don't discard the lower-level compiler though (Score 1) 531

But these methods to establish the lack of a Thompson trojan in a compiler will not work if the only publicly available implementation of a language is written in that same language.

Thanks for adding this -- it is certainly an interesting area of research.

However, I'm having a hard time finding much in the way of practical use of Wheeler Diverse Double Compiling technique. I found a single reference that GCC has a build switch that can do this, but that's about it. I haven't been able to find any details as to any other compilers that actually use DDC in practice. After all, the thrust of Thompson's talk was that at some point you have to have some level of trust in the software you run.

Besides which, I was responding to the claim that "most compilers are written in C". DDC doesn't specify any specific language for either of the compilers used in the initial pass; Wirth (for example) is quoted as saying the initial Pascal compiler was written in FORTRAN (Pascal is now self-hosting in most implementations, although Wikipedia notes that GCC Pascal is an exception, being written entirely in C and not self-hosting, which leads me to assume they don't use DDC at all, and the compiler can't compile itself). DDC is thus not an argument for "most compilers are written in C", as firstly it pre-supposes that the initial compiler was written in C (which is debatable with many counter-examples), and secondly that even when DDC is conceivably used, the end result is a self-hosted compiler, and that is what is shipped to users (i.e.: DDC is only used as a verification step, and doesn't determine or affect the shipping compilers compiler). I suppose the only logical caveat to that would be a self-hosting C compiler, which, by virtue of being self-hosting, would indeed be compiled in C.


Comment Re:False Analogy (Score 1) 531

On the other hand, a buffer overflow in your C code affects only your app, whereas a buffer overflow in Java's C code probably affects thousands of Java apps, and won't necessarily be triggered by any erroneous usage pattern in your Java code.

That in itself is a false analogy; you're comparing an app to an entire runtime environment.

What if your "app" is an Operating System? Or even just a library? In that case, a buffer overflow in your C code could affect anything (and in the case of an OS, potentially everything).


Comment Re:False Analogy (Score 1) 531

Secondly, almost all other languages are compiled using a 'C' compiler.

That's not necessarily true. It was at one time an important milestone in the development of a new language once the language became self-compiling (that is, when you could write the compiler in the language to be compiled; this is known as bootstrapping). This usually necessitated that the initial compiler be written in some lower-level language, but once constructed could be used to re-write the compiler in it's own language, to be compiled and shipped. Most C compilers, for example, are written in C, and not straight assembly. The Wikipedia link above provides a list of bootstrapped languages; the list is long enough that it pretty much disproves your assertion that "almost all other languages are compiled using a 'C' compiler".

If the 'C' language were a flawed language then producing code for all those other languages, using 'C' would make all of those languages inherently contain the same systemic flaws.

No. C is Turing Complete, and thus you can create a compiler for any other Turing-complete language within it. That doesn't imply that such languages will have the same set of flaws. For example, generally C compilers have no array bound checking, but it's certainly possible (indeed almost trivial) to write a compiler for another language with array bounds checking in C.


Comment Re:List of formats that the specifications allow (Score 1) 135

Yeah, so put it in the phone in hardware. Also, the user also has to pay for that external decoder. Also, in practice, one that does all those formats is likely to need a full-fledged processor onboard anyway. If it doesn't do all those formats it's likely to not have the one you want...

As you either have reading comprehension or memory problems, I'll just quote back from what I typed previously in this thread:

You could put decoding hardware in the phone for each of those audio formats, but it's going to be easier to offload that to the device instead. Phones are already pretty crammed for space on the logic board; adding more chips (or processor circuitry) to decode all of those formats in hardware would be sub-optimal. It's better to leave this to the audio device on the other end of the USB-C connection.


Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.