Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest

Free Desktop Software Development Dead In Windows 8

Posted by timothy in Developers • View
benfrog writes "Microsoft has decided to restrict Visual Studio 11 Express, the free-to-use version of its integrated development environment, to producing only Metro-style applications. Those who would like to produce conventional desktop applications or command line -based applications are stuck with Visual Studio 2010 or buying the full version. Microsoft announced the Visual Studio 11 lineup last week."

Wait, what now?

By CAKAS • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Visual Studio is hardly the only development IDE on Windows. Yes, it is good, but you cannot really say that "free desktop software development dead in Windows 8" just because gasp, MS wants you to buy the new version. Hell, they even still offer Visual Studio 2010 for free!

So if you are crying about this, what about coming up with those open source IDE's?? I understand that they have never matched Visual Studio, but seriously. I even buy good web development IDE's to my OS X, like Coda 2. Stop being a cheap-ass winer and pay for quality tools.

You know what this story actually tells? That even FOSS users don't like their IDE's. They want to use Visual Studio from Microsoft because frankly, it is much better than the open source alternatives.

Visual Studio 11 is an improvement in many ways over Visual Studio 2010. Its C++ compiler, for example, is a great deal more standards-compliant, especially with the new C++ 11 specification. It has powerful new optimization features, such as the ability to automatically use CPU features like SSE2 to accelerate mathematically intensive programs, and new language features to allow programs to be executed on the GPU. The new version of the C# language makes it easier to write programs that do their work on background threads and avoid making user interfaces unresponsive. The .NET Framework, updated to version 4.5, includes new capabilities for desktop applications, such as a ribbon control for Microsoft's WPF GUI framework.

Taken together, there are many new features in Visual Studio 11 that are relevant, interesting, and useful for desktop developers. Indeed, things like the new WPF capabilities are only useful for desktop developers.

If Microsoft is so bad then why the hell there isn't better open source versions of these things??

Why Forbes name Ballmer one of the worst CEO?

By Taco Cowboy • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

When I read Forbes naming Ballmer one of the 5 worst CEO, I had some doubt

After reading TFA, the doubt is gone

Indeed, Ballmer is utterly clueless on how to run Microsoft !

Pfeh...

By Svartalf • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

It's worth noting that there's enough toolchains that are perfectly capable of producing desktop applications in that are Free (in both senses) that're capable of producing quality results.

Quite simply, if they're willing to cut their own throats in this space this way...let 'em.

Worry not: QT Creator IDE

By cachimaster • Score: 3 • Thread

Free, multi-plataform IDE for C/C++ projects: http://qt.nokia.com/products/developer-tools

You are forced to release your software as GPL if you use the QT sdk tough. But I think that's a limitation of QT, not qtcreator itself. It uses gcc/gdb as a backend.

Ask Slashdot: Why Not Linux For Security?

Posted by timothy in Linux • View
An anonymous reader writes "In Friday's story about IBM's ban on Cloud storage there was much agreement, such as: 'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services? I don't know any lawyers, financial advisers, banks, etc., that don't use Windows. I switched to Linux in 2005 — I'm well aware that it's not perfect. But the compromises have been so trivial compared to the complete relief from dealing with Windows security failings. Even if we set aside responsibility and liability, business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it. Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight. And let's at least try to make the flames +5 funny."

Re:Wonderful Support...

By jellomizer • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

It is about getting staff to support your business, and the software you need.
If you have a Linux shop, you need to find people with Linux experience to keep your company going. These people with Linux experience also know Windows. However you need to find people who know Linux well enough as there is a gap in skills between very basic user, and administrator. For windows you can hire most any tech at any price range you need. You need a $10.00 per hour kid to make sure the disk doesn't get too full and install software, you can find some one. You need a $50.00 per hour skilled admin who will operates complex networks and mass storage you can find them too.

Next is software. You don't work in a vacuume your software will need to work with vendors and customers. That software you need for your business might have a Linux port, but there is always a windows version. You call for support you say Linux they say sorry you are on your one.

The issue of hardware. Your Linux experience is based on the hardware you get. Get the wrong hardware it runs like crap, get the right hardware, Linux runs like a champ. Companies like Dell that sells systems preloaded with Linux are risky because the don't really give you a good compatible system. You need to spec out each component. Windows has the drivers and they work. Thus getting a Windows system much more reliable.

Often the cost of a system with or without a windows license is verry small, get the license you can always go to Linux in the future. When you are in the future, you have a windows infrastructure that is too costly to change.

Re:Fine, I'll bite

By Yobgod Ababua • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

"A system error has occurred."
"The service terminated unexpectedly."
"Please contact your network administrator."

Linux failures leave me checking log and config files.
Windows failures leave me tearing my hair and screaming "I *am* the administrator! Tell me what the bloody problem is!!!!!" at the screen.

Why is everyone so arrogant about linux?

By phoenix_orb • Score: 3 • Thread

I can give you four good reasons.

1) Excel. Sorry Libreoffice can't compare to someone who has 15 years of experience ( and a masters in finance/ econ/ 10 years of experience at company) making pivot tables and doesn't wish to learn another way of doing things. It's nice when you have a 10 year old formula in excel and can boot up office 2k and it works. Keep in mind a fair share of companies are still on office 2k, for better or worse. You can sit there in your chair and say "well, upgrade", but for a 40 seat license, it can cost 3500 usd, and many companies refuse to pay for it, especially when Office 2k is "good enough".

2) Active directory. Yes, you can control file access via samba. Yes, you can have user control via (one of many) means, but active directory is not (too) difficult, and any 1st year admin should be able to set up simple file access.

3) Standard installs. If I go to CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target, I can buy a computer or laptop with Windows. Windows is the de facto standard because (for better or worse) that is what is able to be bought at the retail level. I would wager 95% of all computer available through retail channels has windows preinstalled.

4) Support. Microsoft is a Global 100 company. As they used to say 20 years ago... Nobody gets fired for buying IBM. If everyone else is purchasing office, and by default windows, then any issues that you encounter are the same issues that your competitors have. That (in it's own way) levels the playing field. We can all sit here and talk about how great Ernie Ball is for standardizing on Linux, but that is less than 1% of the marketplace. If I have an issue, I have a number to call, and the support I get is from a company that I can pay to get support from that everyone has heard of. Everyone hasn't heard of canonical. Hell, a lot of people have never heard of SAP or Oracle.

Re:Wonderful Support...

By Nonesuch • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

I've worked for several Fortune 500 companies. Support has nothing to do with the decision: Exclusionary contracts do. Microsoft offers huge discounts to businesses that agree not to use a competitor's product. They also regularily check for compliance and there are large fines for any company caught using open source software.

I have been an employee/contractor at many Fortune 500 companies, and have never seen anything even hinting at a contract with Microsoft involving "large fines for any company caught using open source software". Care to provide any proof of Microsoft contract with any F500 consumer of software that prohibits said F500 from running open source software?

Re:Fine, I'll bite

By ozmanjusri • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Do a lot of on-line banking on your Android phone, do you?

Yes, my bank provides an app to do that.

Or have a nice, high bandwidth connection you could saturate to support a DDoS attack on someone who didn't pay their protection money?

Yes, wifi, same as my laptop.

Or store any juicy company data that could be handy for not-quite-insider trading?

Yes, my company has a BYOD policy.

BitTorrent Traffic Falls In the U.S.

Posted by timothy in Technology • View
First time accepted submitter CAKAS writes "After legal actions taken by several industry outfits, BitTorrent traffic has fallen in the United States to the all time low of 12.7 percent of internet traffic. However, this trend seems to be unique to the U.S. — In other parts of the world, like Europe and Asia, BitTorrent traffic continues to rise. 'According to Sandvine, the absence of legal alternatives is one of the reasons for these high P2P traffic shares.' In the U.S. legal content delivery has flourished and provided customers easy access to content. This seems to suggest that due to these alternatives, people are less willing to pirate and pay the publishers for entertainment." (Calling it an "all-time low" seems a stretch, when talking about something released in 2001.)

seedbox.

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 3, Insightful • Thread

I and many people I know have been getting seed boxes. I think more torrent traffic is just becoming encrypted.

It's not piracy!

By Jane Q. Public • Score: 3 • Thread

"This seems to suggest that due to these alternatives, people are less willing to pirate and pay the publishers for entertainment."

Downloading is NOT piracy! They are two very different things. Stop doing the copyright trolls' jobs for them by calling it what it isn't.

Stupid 'just to be heard' editorializing

By SuiteSisterMary • Score: 3 • Thread

(Calling it an "all-time low" seems a stretch, when talking about something released in 2001.)

What, '10 year low' sounds like a stretch?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

By patchmaster • Score: 3 • Thread

The conclusion that BitTorrent traffic has "fallen" is not actually supported by the Sandvine report. They complicate things by reporting everything as percentages, but if you dig deep enough you find overall mean traffic is up 40% year-over-year. So, in reality, BitTorrent traffic has continued to GROW, it's just a smaller percentage of the overall traffic.

They actually make this point about Netflix in the report. Their share of peak traffic increased by only 0.2%, yet they point out that due to overall traffic increase this amounts to a 30% increase in absolute traffic associated with Netflix.

We've DOWNLOADED all the MOVIES

By billstewart • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

The reason BitTorrent traffic is falling is that everybody's downloaded all the old movies already. So now we're just getting the new ones, not catching up on backlog.

Dark Days Ahead For Facebook and Google?

Posted by timothy in Mobile • View
An anonymous reader writes "Dallas Mavericks owner and media entrepreneur Mark Cuban thinks he knows the reason for Facebook's disappointing IPO; smart money has realized that 'mobile is going to crush Facebook', as the world's population increasingly accesses the Internet mostly through smartphones and tablets. Cuban notes that the limited screen real estate hampers the branding and ad placement that Google and Facebook are accustomed to when serving to desktop browsers, while phone plans typically have strict data limits, so subscribers won't necessarily take kindly to YouTube or other video ads. Forbes' Eric Jackson likewise sees a generational shift to mobile that will produce a new set of winners at the expense of Facebook and Google."

Re:Mobile will destroy Google?

By geekoid • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

"Locking" is a pretty strong term considering you can extract your data, and move it to another ecosystem if you choose.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google?

By TheEyes • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

If "locking" means "providing me with so much good stuff--including the ability to easily leave the second I choose to--that I don't want to leave, even though I can," then hell, sign me up!

Re:But

By TheEyes • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I think that was their plan, but they can't now because they own Motorola. One of the US FCC's big firewalls (the only one, it seems, that they care to enforce anymore) is that a carrier cannot manufacture their own phones, essentially to prevent the kind of massive fail we saw in the 70s with AT&T.

As far as I can tell, Google's plan was to buy up massive amounts of darknet (already done), set themselves up as an ISP (pilot project in Topeka), and gobble up enough spectrum to make themselves a big player in mobile internet (T-mobile would make a good buy, and DT wants to sell). Unfortunately for us, the patent wars forced Google to look for a defensive portfolio, and Motorola leveraged their portfolio into forcing Google to buy them to get their patents (or else they'd all go to Microsoft/Apple; Motorola essentially held themselves hostage), so that dream is dead for now.

It may be possible for Google to spin the remains of Motorola back off as a separate manufacturer; they certainly don't seem very enamoured with the company, seeing as they're keeping the two businesses entirely separate in terms of management and workers, and aren't really even collaborating with them when making the new version of Android. Maybe they'll just shuck off the phone maker part of Motorola Mobility and continue on their grand plan; they've certainly got the free cash to pull something crazy like that.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google?

By PopeRatzo • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Slashdotters fetishize market share above all else as if it's the one sign of victory in business rather than profit and influence.

Right. Everybody knows the true sign of victory in business is share price and how many workers they can shed.

Unfortunate for Facebook, that they can't announce the layoff of 10,000 workers, because that would surely send the stock into the stratosphere.

OK, OK, I'm just joking. The real sign of victory in business is successfully suing your competitors for IP infringement.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation.

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

All I know is that I have an Android phone, and I feel taken advantage of.

Are you sore?

Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

Posted by Soulskill in Science • View
gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory. Regulators and many scientists say these pose no danger. But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating, popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated. The most closely watched labeling effort is a proposed ballot initiative in California that cleared a crucial hurdle this month, setting the stage for a probable November vote that could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture. Tens of millions of dollars are expected to be spent on the election showdown. It pits consumer groups and the organic food industry, both of which support mandatory labeling, against more conventional farmers, agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto and many of the nation's best-known food brands like Kellogg's and Kraft."

Re:Heath effects is a red herring

By ChromeAeonium • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

First, genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. A monoculture is growing all the same thing. these are entirely different concepts. Trying to link the two only makes it look like you don't know the definition of either.

Second, how are Monsanto's seeds wrong? sure, the make Monsanto a profit, but there's nothing wrong with that. The insect resistant ones have feared pretty well, reducing pesticides and even benefiting farms that don't grow them. The herbicide tolerant ones have, for all their ill will, been environmentally positive, having reduced the need for tillage to control weeds (tillage degrades the soil quality and promotes fertilizer runoff into water systems), reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and replaced harsher herbicides.

Monsanto? Is that why anti-GE groups are protesting the publicly funded Rothamsted GE wheat trial in the UK? Is that why they complain about the Rainbow papaya, Arctic apples, Golden Rice, and BioCassava, or why groups destroyed the GE grapes in French, GE wheat in Australia, GE potatoes in the Netherlands, and GE wheat in the UK? It might be true for you, but that is minority thought. You can not play that card while the vast majority of the protest against GE crops is also applied to those that have nothing to do with Monsanto.

Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids

By IonOtter • Score: 3 • Thread

I'm seeing people in here saying that tomatoes are GMO because they're in the same family as Nightshade.

Not correct. Here's how it works...

Hybrid: Pollen from plant A is daubed on the stamen of plant B, yielding a hybrid. Both the parents and the offspring are the same Genus and species, such as Snap peas, or Pisum sativum. You can hybridize them into many varieties, with different characteristics, such as time to maturity, mildew resistance or sugar content.

Genetically Modified Organism: Genetic material is extracted from organism A and artificially implanted/replaced into the genetic material of organism B. Neither organism are even close to each other, such as adding the genes for luciferase in jellyfish to tobacco plants to track calcium uptake.

The name for corn is Zea mays. The name for StarLink(TM) is StarLink(TM), because it is an entirely new species that has not been classified under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, by the International Botanical Congress.

So.

Daubing pollen on plants is good. Daubing jellyfish on plants doesn't work. Splicing jellyfish into plants is a Bad Thing.

Re:but all food is now GM

By jedidiah • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I don't want to encourage the kind of monopoly that Monsanto represents. Even if Monsanto has salted everyone else's fields, I would still respond to a label that made it clear that the farmer that grew my food retained the right to save his own seeds.

This isn't just about the direct impacts of Monsanto franken-foods on my body or the environment. That's certainly important but it is by no means the end of the issue.

Re:but all food is now GM

By Sebastopol • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Elbert Dallas Thomason

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Beats-LA-Farmer.htm

Why would a mysterious agriculture department sprout up months after Monsanto threatens a local farmer and illegally takes samples of his crops?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html

Or going after the infrastructure that non-Monsanto farmers require to make a living:

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videos/6-must-see-videos/12161-monsanto-vs-seed-cleaner-moe-parr

Are you defending Monsanto, or just pointing out that the 400+ patent violation cases instigated by Monsanto that are in the judicial system (as of 1999) and are NOT public record don't count as "monsanto up and suing people"? We can't tell if they are cross-pollenation cases becasue they aren't public record due to uncertain influence of Monsanto at the local level:

http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport1.13.05.pdf

I agree that contract violation is illegal (saving seed and all that). Have you stopped to consider why they sign these contracts that don't allow them to save seed, and force them to buy more each year at increasing prices? Jeez, I'd have to have a gun pointed to my head to sign something so ludicrous. /sarcasm

I also agree that it should be illegal to extort people into having no choice but to buy from Monsanto or go broke. Because I'm sure you can google, and I'm sure you can find limitless cases where Monsanto bullies and threatens farmers.

Re:Labelled = Banned

By TubeSteak • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

That's not entirely true. Look at High Fructose Corn Syrup. It has been labelled as such (vs. real sugar) for a while, and there are technically alternatives, but all of the big name sodas (and a whole slew of other products) still use it.

The USA structures its agricultural subsidies in favor of corn and its import tariffs against cane sugar.
That's why everything in the USA has HFCS and it's not pervasive anywhere else in the world (AFAIK).

If we 'normalized' our corn subsidies and removed our cane sugar tariffs, HFCS would dissappear from the American market.

Texter Not Responsible For Textee's Car Accident, Rules Judge

Posted by Soulskill in YRO • View
linuxwrangler writes "After mowing down a motorcycling couple while distracted by texting, Kyle Best received a slap on the wrist. The couple's attorney then sued Best's girlfriend, Shannon Colonna, for exchanging messages with him when he was driving. They argued that while she was not physically present, she was 'electronically present.' In good news for anyone who sends server-status, account-alerts or originates a call, text or email of any type that could be received by a mobile device, the judge dismissed the plantiff's claims against the woman."

There should be a price

By Karmashock • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

If you get found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit... you should be punched in the face.

I'm not going to bother levying a fine. These idiots are litigious jerks and probably are broke anyway. Why bother with that. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face.

Barbaric you say? Not at all. Barbaric would be one person randomly coming up to another person on the street and doing it. The difference between kidnapping someone for ten years and prison is the court system.

So if the court determines you filed a frivilious lawsuit... one solid pop to the face. Nothing more or less. You want to file another suit? Go for it.

I have no idea if this would cut down on bullshit lawsuits but I'd like to experiment with it.

What about corporations? That's a little more complicated. I don't want to just punch the lawyer in the face because for all we know he's just some young legal grad they hired to be a punching bag. I'd probably go with the head of their legal department or possibly their CEO. God knows Steve Jobs should have been punched in the face a few times went he decided to touch off this patent Armageddon.

Possibly a stupid idea... but it would make judge judy more interesting to watch. Can you just picture this in a tv court show? That would be delicious.

Re:At first...

By superdave80 • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

explain to me the harm they have caused to anyone aside from the inconvenience to walk to court?

Walking to court costs nothing.

Walking to court with a lawyer will cost you $600/hr, for who knows how many hours to prepare for the completely baseless case. Luckily she had a judge that was smart enough to throw the case out quickly. God help her if this was dragged to trial, as the 'inconvenience' could have run into the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.

Re:At first...

By PPH • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Actually, they were injured because some asshole was reading texts (OK, maybe he was replying as well). But he didn't have the good sense to leave his f*cking phone alone while driving.

The fact that the driver's sentence was just a slap on the wrist is what is disturbing. But just going after the next person with deep pockets or a paid up liability policy is ludicrous.

Re:Also good news for...

By SmlFreshwaterBuffalo • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

this had nothing to do trying to get money

Then why sue anybody at all?

Because that's the only system we have. IANAL, but I don't think they could sue anyone asking for a "permanent cell phone" ban (not that it would be enforceable anyway).

Personally I'd rather see them sue asking for the removal of the driver's thumbs. Because if there's any chance to make the driver believe even for a second that he could actually lose his thumbs, he might finally understand that he shouldn't be playing with his damn phone while driving.

P.S. I completely disagree with them suing the girlfriend, but I can't say that I wouldn't get equally suckered by a slick-talking lawyer in a similar situation. Walk a mile, and all that...

Re:Also good news for...

By JDG1980 • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

The lack of national health care and a decent social safety net in the United States is one of the biggest drivers behind "frivolous" lawsuits like this.

In most European countries, the injured couple would have all their medical expenses automatically covered. They would not face the risk (ubiquitous in the U.S.) of medical bankruptcy. They would also be able to take advantage of other social programs if they were too seriously injured to continue work in their current jobs.

In the U.S., when you get seriously injured, you face the very real probability that you will be financially ruined as well. Therefore, your only defense is to find someone with deep pockets who is arguably responsible for the accident, and sue them.

Likewise, in Europe, it's harder and less lucrative to sue for injuries arising from consumer products – but there are also much stricter safety regulations and the regulators are less shy about yanking products from the market if they do prove genuinely unsafe.

We as a country have decided to outsource large parts of our regulatory and insurance apparatus to the courts, and this is the result.

Free News Unsustainable, Says Warren Buffett

Posted by Soulskill in News • View
Koreantoast writes "Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway recently purchased 63 newspapers and plans to purchase more over the next few years, noted during an interview that the current free content model is unsustainable and will likely continue pushing toward more electronic subscription models. This coincides with moves by other newspaper companies like Gannett and the New York Times, which are also erecting paywall systems. Buffett notes that newspapers focusing on local content will have a unique product, which would succeed even if they lose subscribers, because their services are irreplaceable. Is this the beginning of the end of 'free content' for local news?"

Buffet can go stuff it.

By hackus • Score: 3, Funny • Thread

Yeah, free news is unsustainable, right Mr. Buffet!

Oh, you must mean don't buy Gold because gold isn't money too eh Mr. Buffet? (As he secretly uses proxies to sell off ETF's to drop the price so he can buy _physical_ gold for low prices.)

Or maybe Mr. Buffet really means in translation: We need to put the alternative media out of reach of the internet because too many people are connecting the dots and realize how much of a scam our government is and how the political system really works.
(ala Rothchild shenanigans via the Federal Reserve and how all this crisis crap with the Euro is stage one to crash paper currencies so they can introduce a one world government coinage.)

Euro is going to crash. Van dipshit, I mean Rumpy or whatever the guys name is, already has the plans laid out too saying, The Euro Union is doomed because the power wasn't concentrated enough into the fewest hands possible. So we just need to make all of these european governments go away, destroy the citizenry and have absolute dictatorship style government. You know like those Chinese we admire so much.

Only then will the Euro Union succeed!

Go Van shithead and the rest of the Warren's friends he hangs around with at the G20/Bilderberg and other crap they do behind our backs.

Well, it is going to come to an end very shortly, because too many of my friends, as well as myself know the deal with the banks, the loans forced on populaces to pay after the banks gut the countries pensions then claim austerity is required.

This bank crap fostered on the poor Greece people by a setup deal by Goldman Sach's is going to be there undoing. Including Goldman flasifying huge numbers of financial documents to get Greece into the EU to begin with.

If there is any justice in this world, Goldman Sach and its entire workforce that engineered that criminal takedown of Greece will eventually get exactly what is coming to them.

They do that crap here in the USA and there is going to be a gigantic response.

They better have the portable Furnaces setup in mass because the body count is going to be gigantic as the USA military culls the citizenry for the bankers.

and Oh, by the way...Mr. Bernanke and friends who stole 17 trillion of our tax dollars for over seas friends and well to do families.

YOUR DEBT IS NULL AND VOID.

-Hack

Re:hardly

By reallocate • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

...when so many people are happy to do it for free.

Omaha World-Herald

By Enderandrew • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Buffet bailed out his local paper first. I worked there. It was "employee" owned in that you could buy stock, but the stock had to stay with the company and usually when the company got rid of people, the executives kept just awarding more and more stock to themselves. They kept paying themselves huge bonuses and talked publicly about record profits, but they maintained the profits by layoffs and pay cuts followed by more layoffs and pay cuts.

The publisher/CEO told me that the thought the internet wouldn't affect the newspaper industry at all. It was the same as radio and TV before it.

He also bragged about how proud he was of the newspaper's legacy of enacting change in the community via propaganda. When Nebraska was being considered for the first legal casinos outside of reservations, Atlantic City and Vegas, the World-Herald ran front page stories daily about how gambling was evil and would immediately destroy any metropolitan area it was in. So the casinos built right across the river in Iowa. Iowa has been rolling in tax revenue since then, while all the money comes from Omaha. The casinos haven't destroyed our city, but we missed out on all the tax revenue thanks to the paper. I also spoke to a reporter whose assignment was literally to slander someone running for city council in Lincoln, Nebraska as much as possible. He owned a sex toy company, which was against the morals of the paper, and they felt it was their duty to bury the guy. Oddly enough, the paper didn't have morals when it came to abusing employees and laying them off.

The company was run exceedingly poorly. Oddly enough, most of the suggestions I made to improve the company were implemented about two years later when the newspaper was somewhat forced to embrace the digital era.

Google News has said they'd share revenue with newspapers who feed them stories. And I specifically frequent news sites that have good writers and good view points. You can run a successful newspaper, though the physical product may eventually die out. It is a shame that Buffet is bailing out poorly run companies, because the same corrupt executives who lined their pockets as they laid everyone off just got rewarded for their behavior so it can continue some more.

Re:The End of Free?

By sortius_nod • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

As someone who has worked for a newspaper/online news org, I've seen the profit/loss statements, & subscriptions/sales don't even rate on it.

Newspapers make the lion's share of their revenue purely from advertising contracts. Some may see this as an outdated business model due to the prices charged for advertising space (upwards of AU$100k per full page), but it's is how they've made money in the past. The main hurdle with going online is that no one is going to pay you the same rates for banner ads. Paywalling has its own problems too: Murdoch paywalls are easily bypassed, others drive consumers away due to no free content.

I really don't see any answer other than accepting the fact there's not massive amounts of money in news media these days.

Personally, I tend to read independent online publications such as New Matilda, Conversation AU, & Independent Australia, (yes, I'm an Aussie) which rely on donations & small amounts of advertising revenue. The level of journalism is actually higher than that of news sites subsidised by their print or TV media.

In other news....

By JustNiz • Score: 3 • Thread

Free News Unsustainable, Says Warren Buffett

Billionaires Unsustainable, says Free News...

Curt Schilling Fires Entire Staff At 38 Studios

Posted by Soulskill in Games • View
redletterdave writes "On Thursday, former Boston Red Sox pitcher and tech entrepreneur Curt Schilling fired his entire staff at 38 Studios, his Rhode Island-based video game company, leaving more than 300 employees without jobs because the company couldn't repay its debt to the state. 38 Studios failed to pay Rhode Island's economic development agency $1.1 million, which was due last week, and also failed to meet payroll for its staff in both its Providence office and its Maryland subsidiary, Big Huge Games." The company's recent action RPG, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, sold 1.2 million copies — which would have been great if they hadn't needed to sell 3 million to break even. An article at Massively goes through some of the lessons the video game industry needs to learn from this situation.

Re:Needed to sell 3M copies to break even?

By Sir_Sri • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Uh... you realize that the market for video games is a hell of a lot bigger than just the US right?

Diablo 3 had 4.7 million sales *on day 1*. And that's without korean cafes.
Skyrim (which was cross platform) is up around 9 and a half million copies in about a week.

The problem with Kingdoms of Amalur:reckoning is that no one has any fucking clue what an Amalur is, and it's not obvious that is the world they were creating, which immediately turns attention away. And as an RPG it's nothing spectacular, run around do quests. It's decent enough, and well executed, but there's nothing in it that you call your friend and say 'you have to play this game to see this' the way skyrim or fallout has.

No one knows what the fuck skyrim is either, but when you're an established series you can build press and momentum for whatever name you want, and people will go for it. Kingdoms of Amalur may have failed in part because they didn't invest enough in press and marketing, released at the wrong time, etc. But it's certainly not a huge barrier for a game at the production quality they had to sell 3 million copies, especially across all 3 platforms. Granted, it has been out for 3 months and is *still* 60 bucks on steam, so that's not helping either. They'd have been well served to do a sale at say 20 bucks and use it as an experiment to see if they can get more sales. At this point, there's nothing else to lose, so it can't hurt to try.

Re:Aww poop

By DaveInAustin • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
Only slightly different from Curt Shillings first industry, professional sports, where they take taxpayer money, stay in business, then demand more. Had the state just given him the money, he could have stuck around for a while, then went back for more a few years later by threatening to take jobs elsewhere.

That sucks and all ...

By WankersRevenge • Score: 5, Funny • Thread
but on the positive side, it looks like they're hiring! ;)

In light of recent events, I'd advise the site developer to update that page but I'm guessing he or she was just fired :/

Re:Needed to sell 3M copies to break even?

By medv4380 • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
It also didn't help to have single player quests behind a online pass. Fighting with the user-base when you're just beginning is never good.

I can tell you part of it:

By RMingin • Score: 3 • Thread

I saw Amalur advertised. It looked interesting. I checked Steam, it was 60$. I mentally filed it under "maybe someday if there's a sale". Sale didn't happen before developer tanked.

Maybe now it'll go on sale?

Bessel Beam 'Tractor Beam' Concept Theoretically Demonstrated

Posted by Soulskill in Technology • View
cylonlover writes "Last year, NASA revealed it was evaluating three potential 'tractor beam' technologies to deliver planetary or atmospheric particles to a robotic rover or orbiting spacecraft. At the time, the third of these, which involved the use of a Bessel beam, only existed on paper. Researchers at Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) have now proven the theory behind the concept, demonstrating how a tractor beam can be realized in the real world – albeit on a very small scale (abstract)."

So how long until the drones can be armed by this?

By Eightbitgnosis • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
"Civilian No. 955,436,725, you have been found in a restricted area. You have no more points on your criminal record. You will now be taken the camp for wayward patriots to receive reeducation!"

Any experts out there?

By mykepredko • Score: 3 • Thread

The article isn't very helpful and the paper is only available for sale.

In the article it states that Bessel beams are unlike laser beams which "diffract or spread out as they propagate". I know laser beams diffract but I didn't think they spread out (and that was the whole point of them).

Can anybody explain exactly what's going on here and why are the Bessel beams imparting force/energy on the objects toward the beam source?

Thanx,

myke

impossible to create

By rbowen • Score: 4 • Thread

From the article:

  While true Bessel beams are impossible to create, as they would require an infinite amount of energy, ...

This would seem like a good reason not to use them, even in a government project.

Re:Any experts out there?

By Jellodyne • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
It looks to me that we could use this technology to produce artificial gravity for say, a person. There are some minor limitations -- since the tech only works on very small particles, you'd have to use a very high energy Bessel beam or possibly a conventional laser to completely vaporize the person, and then the Bessel beam would be able to act on them, pulling their individual particles in the direction of the floor.

The actual paper, freely accessible

By dsinc • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.5285.pdf

Are Porn and Video Games Ruining a Generation?

Posted by Soulskill in Games • View
silentbrad writes "An editorial published at CNN is titled 'The Demise of Guys: How Videogames and Porn are Ruining a Generation.' It makes the sensationalized case that not only do game addiction and porn addiction share similar characteristics, but they're also both damaging to young men, destroying their ability to connect with women, and therefore threatening the future of our entire species. A response by IGN dissects the idea that pornography and videogames are pretty much the same thing. 'The article, by psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan argues that young men are "hooked on arousal, sacrificing their schoolwork and relationships in the pursuit of getting a tech-based buzz."' Zimbardo, has danced this jig before. At the Long Beach TED conference last year he told a delighted audience that "guys are wiping out socially with girls and sexually with women." He added that young men have been so zombiefied by games and porn that they are unable to function in basic human interactions. "It's a social awkwardness like a stranger in a foreign land", he said. "They don't know what to say. They don't know what to do."'"

move, maybe?

By Chirs • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

I lived in equatorial Africa with no air conditioning for years. I don't buy the excuse that it's too hot to go outside.

Besides, if it's that bad then why not move somewhere better?

Re:Well, if they're going to generalize, I am too

By griffjon • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

... I dunno, there could be an intelligent discussion on this topic, but obviously not here at slashdot. Most of the posts are completely reactionary.

No they're not!

Re:Well, if they're going to generalize, I am too

By Sycraft-fu • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

"I dunno, there could be an intelligent discussion on this topic, but obviously not here at slashdot. Most of the posts are completely reactionary."

Not when you take that attitude there won't be. It is an annoying, and rather juvenile, way to try and say "I'm right, you are all wrong, and anybody who argues with me is an idiot!" You dismiss responses as "reactionary" without there being any posts to dismiss, and present a thesis with almost nothing in the way of evidence.

So though I imagine you don't want any sort of real response, I'm going to write one anyhow:

We need to have a changing system or sex and relationships because society has changed. We've undergone some major changes that will necessitate that we deal with things differently as a species if we are to continue to thrive.

A big one is length of life and infant mortality rate. Time was you'd better get to fuckin' not long after your body was physically ready because you weren't going to live that long. You needed to start producing offspring early and often. Many of them wouldn't make it and you likely didn't have many years within which to procreate. Not the case now, not in first world nations. IMR is quite low and people live to their late 70s early 80s on average.

Along those lines there's population growth and carrying capacity. When humans numbered in the tens of millions, we could grow as we wished. There was more land and resources than we could reasonably use. Not the case now that we are approaching 10 billion. Science and technology allow us to increase the carrying capacity of Earth and I don't think we are going to hit it any time soon, but there are limits, particularly if we want people to have good lives and not just subsistence ones. We need to level off growth, we need to try and sustain numbers, not exponentially increase them. That can be done without draconian measures, but only if it becomes ok for people to choose not to have kids, or have them later.

Then there's the changing nature of relationship and gender rights. For most of human history women were essentially (and sometimes explicitly) property. As children they belonged to their father to be sold (for a dowry) to another man. They then became that man's wife, his property, so long as he would keep her. Women relied on men to provide economic support for them and their children. Not the case any more. Women are fully independent in fact as well as law in developed first world countries. They can choose their own life, on their own terms.

However with equality comes responsibility to act that way. Our courting rituals very much come from our history. Women were completely passive, men pursued them. Again, when they were property one could see why. My house took no initiative to get me to buy it, it was all on me to find the property I wanted and could afford. However now that is not the case, yet there is the societal assumption still that men should go after women. It puts all the emotional risk on men. The women now have the option of accepting or rejecting advances, the men have to take the emotional risk to make their desires known.

So I'm going to say things have changed and need to change with relationships because things have changed (and will continue to change) with society.

If you want to get in to video games, we can do that too, but it is a different lengthy discussion and relates to America's favouirite passtime (still): Television.

Re:Well, if they're going to generalize, I am too

By ffflala • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Your attitude is not outrageous, it's just annoying and condescending. Often parents think they've suddenly become enlightened with selflessness because they suddenly have little to no free time. However, what they're really experiencing is a type vicarious selfishness; they're being selfish for their children. Sure you might have knocked yourself knocked out of the center of the universe, but you've replaced that center with something that will insure your genetic survival. You'll do anything for your kids, right? Many will go so far as to actively harm others to gain advantages for their kids.

At the extreme would be parents who actually kill the perceived rivals of their children (see murderer cheerleader mom, or the mom who faked a MySpace boyfriend to the point that her daughter's "competition" committed suicide.) At the mundane are the obnoxious parents who lobby their teachers to give their precious genetic survival some exception to the rules. Are those kinds of behaviors "adult"? Nope, those behaviors are the same kinds of rivalries you see played out in young children.

If you ever want to actually learn what selflessness actually means, spend your days being of service to those whose survival will not propagate your own genes. Until you're willing to treat every person you encounter with the same levels of deference, empathy, and concern that you treat your children, do not continue to think that your willingness to take a bullet for your kid means you've found wisdom or perspective.

Re:Well, if they're going to generalize, I am too

By Ironhandx • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Actually I believe you're both wrong.

Also you're both mostly right.

A childs /NEEDS/ should be paramount. The problem is the bubble wrapping and the catering to the childs /WANTS/.

You know something I noticed not too long ago? A lot of children these days simply have no concept of "need". If they don't "want" to do something they won't, and see no reason they should. For instance if they don't "want" to do their school work, many of them won't. Its really quite simple, and while anecdotal to some extent, my experience with children recently has shown me that simply understanding that things that "need" to happen simply must, are the ones that are thought well of and have good work ethic.

For instance, the trash needs to be taken out. They want to have ice cream. Also a constant rewarding of needed doings with wanted items creates a similar problem.

Court Ruling Shuts Down Australian Cloud TV Recorders

Posted by Soulskill in Entertainment • View
joshgnosis writes "In the wake of an Australian Federal Court ruling last month that free-to-air TV recording app Optus TV Now was infringing on the copyright of some of the country's biggest sports broadcasts, two other services — Beem and MyTVR have also been forced to suspend their services. Beem lashed out at the ruling, telling customers that their rights had been 'diminished' by the judgment and rights owners were 'scared' of cloud-based TV recording services in the same way they once were of VCRs."

There goes innovation...

By thrill12 • Score: 3 • Thread
...but I guess this fit's right in the studio's (TV ones...) idea of keeping control of whatever they produce.
There is no real reason cloud recording isn't a perfectly valid, legal way to record stuff where even the owners could benefit. But no, judges intervene based on old laws and politics take a while to catch up and realize it is not 1980 anymore.
Wake up people, the new world is coming, and floating out of the window before you know it.

Re:There goes innovation...

By BSAtHome • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

It is called fear and consumption. The way to control; be it media or politics (what is the difference?).

You are only allowed to consume. Consume what we tell you, how we tell you, when we tell you. Or else! The world will come to s standstill and judgement day will be upon us. Do as I tell you when I tell you how I tell you.

this is a good thing

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 3, Interesting • Thread

I have no problem with individuals recording stuff. But the moment business profits from creating infringing copies, fuck 'em.

The "cloud" is not innovation. It is regression and loss of control, all the way to IBM '60s mainframes. Although not intended, government measures which make the cloud less attractive and encourage us to decentralise and retain control of information are doing us a favour.

Ah fearing VCRs

By holophrastic • Score: 3 • Thread

It would seem that argument is long dead. Looks like they were right to fear VCRs. It may have taken quite a while, but a this point, the VCR certainly did lead to DVR, PVR, and ad skipping in general.

Where's HAL 9000?

Posted by Soulskill in Technology • View
An anonymous reader writes "With entrants to this year's Loebner Prize, the annual Turing Test designed to identify a thinking machine, demonstrating that chatbots are still a long way from passing as convincing humans, this article asks: what happened to the quest to develop a strong AI? 'The problem Loebner has is that computer scientists in universities and large tech firms, the people with the skills and resources best-suited to building a machine capable of acting like a human, are generally not focused on passing the Turing Test. ... And while passing the Turing Test would be a landmark achievement in the field of AI, the test’s focus on having the computer have to fool a human is a distraction. Prominent AI researchers, like Google’s head of R&D Peter Norvig, have compared the Turing Test’s requirement that a machine fools a judge into thinking they are talking to a human as akin to demanding an aircraft maker constructs a plane that is indistinguishable from a bird."

Re:Dijkstra said it best

By Darinbob • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

A problem is that terms like "intelligence" and "reason" are very vague. People used to think that a computer could be considered intelligent if it could win a game of chess against a master, but when that has happened then it's dismissed because it's just databases and algorithms and not intelligence.

The bar keeps moving, and the definitions change, and ultimately the goals change. There's a bit of superstition around the word "intelligence" and some people don't want to use it for something that's easily explained, because intelligence is one of the last big mysteries of life. The original goal may have been to have computers that indeed do operate in less of a strictly hardwired way, not following predetermined steps but deriving a solution on its own. That goal has succeeded decades ago. I would consider something like Macsyma to truthfully be artificial intelligence as there is some reasoning and problem solving, but other people would reject this because it doesn't think like a human and they're using a different definition of "intelligence". Similarly I think modern language translators like those at Google truthfully are artificial intelligence, even though we know how it works.

The goals of having computers learn and adapt and do some limited amount of reasoning based on data have been achieved. But the goals change and the definitions change.

Back in grad school I mentioned to an AI prof how some advances I saw in the commercial world about image recognition software and he quickly dismissed it as uninteresting because it didn't use artificial neural networks (the fad of that decade). His idea of artificial intelligence meant emulating the processes in brains rather than recreating the things that brains can do in different ways. You can't really blame academic researchers for this though, they're focused in on some particular idea or method that is new while not being as interested in things that are well understood. You don't get research grants for things people already know how to do.

That said, the "chat bot" contests are still useful in many ways. There is a need to be quick, a need for massive amounts of data, a need for adaptation, etc. Perhaps a large chunk of it is just fluff but much of it is still very useful stuff. There is plenty of opportunity to plug in new ideas from research along with old established techniques and see what happens.

Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea

By Kielistic • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Computers can be used to model and compute chemical reactions. If a chemical can produce "thought" than nothing stops a computer from doing it other than computation power.

Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea

By similar_name • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

You're never going to get a Turing computer to actually think, although some future chemical or something machine may.

Never say never :) It is hard to say whether an AI could ever accomplish thinking (or sentience) or not. It seems to be an emergent quality and I doubt whether it is chemical or electrical will matter much. And for the most part appearing sentient might as well be sentient. Outside of myself I can only assume others are sentient because they appear so and because we are genetically similar. There is not exactly a good standard or definition of what is or isn't sentient that doesn't depend on the bias of being human.

Wrong Question asked out of ignorance

By cardhead • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

These sorts of articles that pop up from time to time on slashdot are so frustrating to those of us who actually work in the field. We take an article written by someone who doesn't actually understand the field, about an contest that has always been no better than a publicity stunt*, which triggers a whole bunch of speculation by people who read Godel, Escher, Bach and think they understand what's going on.

The answer is simple. AI researchers haven't forgotten the end goal, and it's not some cynical ploy to advance an academic career. We stopped asking the big-AI question because we realized it was an inappropriate time to ask it. By analogy: These days physicists spend a lot of time thinking about the big central unify everything theory, and that's great. In 1700, that would have been the wrong question to ask- there were too many phenomenons that we didn't understand yet (energy, EM, etc). We realized 20 years ago that we were chasing ephemera and not making real progress, and redeployed our resources in ways to understand what the problem really was. It's too bad this doesn't fit our SciFi timetable, all we can do is apologize. And PLEASE do not mention any of that "singularity" BS.

I know, I know, -1 flamebait. Go ahead.

*Note I didn't say it was a publicity stunt, just that it was no better than one. Stuart Shieber at Harvard wrote an excellent dismantling of the idea 20 years ago.

Regarding the feasibility of AI

By JDG1980 • Score: 3 • Thread

Some commenters in this thread (and elsewhere) have questioned whether "strong" artificial intelligence is actually possible.

The feasibility of strong AI follows directly from the rejection of Cartesian dualism.

If there is no "ghost in the machine," no magic "soul" separate from the body and brain, then human intelligence comes from the physical operation of the brain. Since they are physical operations, we can understand them, and reproduce the algorithm in computer software and/or hardware. That doesn't mean it's *easy* – it may take 200 more years to understand the brain that well, for all I know – but it must be *possible*.

(Also note that Cartesian dualism is not the same thing as religion, and rejecting it does not mean rejecting all religious beliefs. From the earliest times, Christians taught the resurrection of the *body*, presumably including the brain. The notion of disembodied "souls" floating around in "heaven" owes more to Plato than to Jesus and St. Paul. Many later Christian philosophers, including Aquinas, specifically rejected dualism in their writings.)

Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright

Posted by Soulskill in YRO • View
New submitter JamieKitson writes "Photographer Jay Lee got more than he bargained for after sending some DMCA takedown notifications out to hosts of sites using one of his pictures. One Candice Shwagger accused him of everything from conspiracy over local sheriff elections to child abuse. Since Candice is now threatening legal action, Jay has said he'll take down the post, so here's a snap shot. After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit."

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

By blind biker • Score: 4 • Thread

So if I walk up to you and take something that belongs to you, in your world view I should track you down and ask nicely for it back before I call the cops? It's not like she and the others didn't know they were taking someone else's work, without permission or credit, and using it to make money for themselves. And you genuinely want to make out that he's the bad guy here? You believe this? Really...thanks for making sure I'm not getting out of this week without one more reminder how hopelessly fucked up and bankrupt some peoples moral world view can be.

Wait a minute: did you just compare a felony (theft) with copying one file?

And you have the nerve to call the GP's morals as "hopelessly fucked up and bankrupt"? Why don't you go fuck yourself, mate.

GoDaddy is the guilty party here

By MobyDisk • Score: 3 • Thread

The focus has been on the crazy woman, but GoDaddy has a big part of the blame here:

And, as it turned out, all of these sites are linked together as far as GoDaddy is concerned which resulted in all 14 of them going down after I filed my complaint.

A photographer filed a DMCA request asserting that a single image was infringing. GoDaddy took down 14 web sites in response. GoDaddy should be liable for damages for taking down 13 of those sites, and potentially for all 14. Now in this case, little harm was done. But imagine the real-world equivalent: A poster is on a wall and so the entire building is leveled. Does that make sense? If a single phone bill is late, does the entire neighborhood lose their phone service? If an electric bill is late does the entire city block lose power? GoDaddy's response makes no sense, and the DMCA should not protect them from such stupidity.

The copyright holder sucks

By Nyder • Score: 3 • Thread

He sends DMCA notices, then he gets threated to be sued over crap and he gets scared?

Why the fuck did he sent the DMCA notices to begin with, if he wasn't prepared to stand his ground? All he's doing is giving this other person ammo and basicly permission to be a cunt with other peoples properties.

Candice Shwagger is a bully, you stand up to bullies.

Ya, bitch, sue me, stupid cunt.

Is Jay Lee free of any blame?

By swell • Score: 3 • Thread

With so much overwhelming support for Mr. Lee and so much vitriol against the unstable Ms. Shwagger, there should be at least one voice questioning the matter...

If you read TFA you might note that Jay Lee may have a connection to the political candidate Candice hates so much. You will also note his connection with the newspaper, but not his role (does he or his close associates report on politics?).

We can't really determine from the information he has provided whether there is any ulterior motive for his takedown notice.

He seems to have sent notices to other infringers- but how many? Five or fifty? If five then one might possibly suspect that he was out to get her or the political candidate she supports. He seems surprised that GoDaddy would shut down her sites; but how can we be sure he didn't know?

Not saying it's true, and I admit that he sounds like a reasonable person, but with all the words flying around there is still a shortage of solid information or assurances to defend his innocence.

Re:How

By cpu6502 • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Excellent.
Downbelow someone posted:
>>>Treasure hunt! Try to find another photo she has that is infringing and get the owner of the copyright to submit another DMCA takedown!

I like it. :-)
They already caught her using the Photographer's photo illegally on facebook. It appears, even after being notified the photo was copyrighted and not for free use, she kept using it anyway on her facebook page (right up to a few hours ago).

Higher Hard Drive Prices Are the New Normal

Posted by Soulskill in Hardware • View
An anonymous reader tips an article looking at the state of HDD pricing now that the market has had time to recover from the flooding in Thailand and a round of consolidation among manufacturers. Prices have certainly declined from the high they reached during the flooding, but they've stabilized a bit higher than they were beforehand. Quoting: "Are things going to change any time soon? We doubt it. WD and Seagate both reported record profits this past quarter. In Q1 2011, Western Digital reported net profit of $146M against sales of $2.3B while Seagate recorded $2.7B in revenue and $93 million in net income. That’s a net profit margin of 6% and 3%, respectively. For this past quarter, Western Digital reported sales of $3B (thanks in part to its acquisition of Hitachi) and a net income of $483 million, while Seagate hit $4.4B in revenue and $1.1B in profits. Net margin was 16% and 37% respectively. With profit margins like this, the hard drive manufacturers are going to be loath to cut prices. After years of barely making profits, the Thailand floods are the best excuse ever to drive record income for a few quarters. All of this means that while we expect prices to gradually decline, holding off on a necessary purchase doesn’t make much sense."

Re:New solid state storage

By tlhIngan • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

My laptop consumes around 20W for normal desktop use. The HDD is rated at something like 1.5W. Cutting 20% off that 1.5W will have a negligible impact on battery life.

Ah, but we're neglecting the rest of the system. While the laptop hard drive is busy loading data, the rest of the system is consuming 20W. If it takes a minute grinding away to do something (and you're waiting for it), that's 20W-m of energy used up. If a more efficient SSD cuts it down to 20 seconds, that's 6W-m, and you get to do your stuff sooner. Win-win - laptop consumes less energy while waiting o nthe hard drive, user gets going faster.

Basically, individual component battery life measurements aren't as relevant as whole system power measurement.

It's just like the old Tom's Hardware report that SSDs consume more CPU, when in reality it's because the SSD is returning data faster so the CPU is busier giving it new I/O to do.

Hell, an SSD can give an older system new life - I have an old work laptop with a core2duo ("Vista Ready" to give you its age) in it. Replaced its hard drive with an SSD (from 160GB down to 120GB), damn laptop super-snappy and responsive.

Re:Really?

By CSFFlame • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Fierce: Nvidia vs AMD and Intel vs AMD. No quarter.

My charts say otherwise

By subreality • Score: 3 • Thread

And by "my charts" I mean camelegg: http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16822152245

The market spiked and it's slowly returning to normal. It hasn't bottomed. I think that the time required is a combination of rebuilding manufacturing capacity, backlogged demand slowly being filled, and simple price inertia.

Re:Really?

By Grishnakh • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

SSDs actually make some sense here, because they use less power, and because they have a limited number of write cycles. A media library isn't written to very often, usually just once for any location, and then it's mainly read-only after that. The main downside, of course, is that at the moment, SSD has a significantly higher cost-per-byte than rotational storage. If the cost-per-byte were the same, even if the speed weren't any better, it'd probably make a lot more sense to use SSD for your media library.

Re:Really?

By Grishnakh • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

That's totally false. Intel would be trying to sell you an Itanic chip for 64-bit applications.

Remember, at the time, Itanic was what Intel was pitching to anyone talking about 64-bit.

IBM's Ban on Dropbox and iCloud Highlights Cloud Security Issues

Posted by Soulskill in Management • View
IBM has forbidden its employees from using cloud-based services such as Siri, Dropbox and iCloud, according to reports. These products (along with many others) are presenting a challenge to IT administrators who want to keep their organizations secure, as well as to consumer-software developers who suddenly need to build features with both consumers and businesses in mind.

Trust

By StikyPad • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Ironically, IBM is probably providing a lot of the hardware and software that run these farms. Of course, it still comes down to trusting another company with access to your vital information. This has been the obvious Achilles heel in "cloud computing" since day one. It's one thing to pass encrypted data through an untrusted party, but it's another thing entirely when the untrusted party is an endpoint with access to the plain text. Not only do you have to trust that the endpoint has properly implemented security, but also that every individual with access to the data has uncompromising integrity.

What about search engines?

By hsmith • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
anything you google, type into bing, yahoo, are all captured somewhere. Seems that they are fighting a losing war of data leakage protection.

Re:Self-Serving?

By CannonballHead • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
How is it self-serving? Keeping your employees from using non-internal storage services for confidential data... I guess that's self-serving in the "protect your assets/intellectual property" way, but forbidding your employees from using external companies for storage of confidential data is hardly self-serving. It's right up there with making your employees password and/or encrypt their work laptops... :)

Re:Not the first or only

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

I give my IT department a 5-star rating, too!

Re:Self-Serving?

By gstoddart • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Ummm. Asking a question here. What does the Patriot Act have to do with anything?

The difference being you'd need to go to court to get a warrant, and I believe there would be a legal opportunity to be notified of this. If Canadian law enforcement accessed your data, you could legally know about it.

The Patriot Act basically says they can demand it, with very little legal support, and it is against the law to tell someone that their data has been accessed from your servers under this request.

So, it comes down to the US having granted themselves access to any and all data from a US owned company or US hosted server ... and made it illegal to disclose that access has happened.

If that data access comes under the guise of secrecy and not going through the normal courts, you'll never know it happened.

As I said, those provisions of the Patriot Act give access that concerns a lot of people ... see here.

So, based on what I've read, and what I've been told by corporate policies ... for anybody who isn't in the US, America and American owned companies are completely untrustworthy since the law reads like it bypasses local laws when it comes to data security and privacy.

Now, for a bit of balance the other way, I see that people are starting to say the Patriot Act isn't so intrusive and this is all blown out of proportion.

But, until I see company and legal policies changing here in Canada, I will continue to treat data being put into a US server as a stupid idea, and I will continue to treat those entities as hostile and not trustworthy.

Since I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have anything to gain by suddenly trusting these entities, if I stick with this, I'm in compliance with company policy. I'll just err on the side of caution -- not trusting the US government is just a bonus at this point.