Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 108


Our own Inland Revenue "lost in the post" a CD with 12 million or so UK residents' details including payment info some time ago, and it is accepted that the info should never even have been collated for this purpose.

I have removed my details from the public version of the voter rolls here to reduce marketing crap, etc.

Routinely selling voter details to random orgs seems generally a bad idea if voters cannot opt out.



Comment Re:Costs are hidden (Score 1) 216

1) There are fees to use ports and canals; those may or may not cover all the costs but they can. A completely free ride for the shipper seems unlikely.

2) Companies do get 'free money' to build all sorts of factories, regularly.

3) Other infrastructure also gets 'free money' such as road building which is notoriously not charged back to users for the wear they put on it.

4) This discussion is partly about energy/carbon/pollution for which the money element is separate. Yes, I'd like externalities to be included in prices to end-users via the shipping costs to steer users in the right direction, but the sheer efficiency of sea transport is still there, regardless.



Comment Re:There's still the pollution thing (Score 1) 216

Ah, my numbers come from course materials that may not be public, but I believe that I have had them corroborated, eg when pricing up our own manufacturing costs.

Would be happy to be shown to be wrong, but the point is for us that in making plastics locally in the UK vs China I think that transport (which will at least partly reflect energy for example) is more or less a rounding error.



Comment Re:Dear SJW morons (Score 1) 781

Someone, somewhere, cannot see the letters 'bro' used as a contraction for a type of pastry without concluding that this is actually a conspiracy of programmers in the male-dominated world of technology to intimidate females ...

Did you actually read TFBR?

No one anywhere claimed offence or conspiracy, simply that it could possibly be construed that way so why not finesse the issue entirely.

Then we have a whole bunch of (somewhat self-absorbed and nasty-sounding, possibly just fine once the spittle stops hitting the keyboard) people here saying how stupid it is to argue over a file suffix, which is exactly what they are doing and the original subjects of this shouting match were not.

So maybe, by the same token, so-called SJWs often aren't doing what it claimed of them either, I don't know*, but I hear the sounds of knees being jerked...



*I may even be one since I'm trying to get a social enterprise off the ground, and I try to both maintain a fairly robust sense of humour and avoid causing needless offence to people around me who have different bugbears and backgrounds. I fail on both counts from time to time.

Comment Re:Dear SJW morons (Score 2) 781

Indeed. Maybe I'm getting old, or just like trying to be thoughtful about how I treat my fellow human beings of whatever gender/etc, or maybe just as a British English speaker... (a) using this "SJW" term as some sort of demonisation seems unhelpful and (b) some of the comments in this story have been rank with small-minded "I'm all right Jack" selfishness. I wonder how many of those making those remarks have ever been on the wrong end of a despised (minority) grouping for any significant time?

I don't think someone should be *forced* to change a random file extension that is has a mildly-unpleasant association for some (possibly the same as SJW has for others BTW, think about it: what if Apple''s/Oracle's/Microsoft's new trendy file type had a .sjw extension), but I don't see that anyone was forced to to anything. Out of courtesy a shorter extension was selected which still has a decent mnemonic value and instantly saves a byte in many cases which is even better.



Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score 5, Insightful) 255

Life is not binary.

The bods in white coats said: burning oil (etc) may be bad news and furthermore it may be bad if you don't change your business strategy in the light of that soon.

It seems evident that the first part was true.

It is clear also that Exxon also chose not to alter its business model but instead to try to spread FUD.

The second is poor long-term business and poor ethics, and may well bite us all in the rear.

So as it happens the bods in white coats were right then and the trust of the summary is right now.

You seem to be trying to skip the caveats in the statement and ignore tha Exxon clearly failed to change direction when given the (basically correct) warning.


Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score 1) 255

Please read the actual words written. It helps. Just assuming that you are not here to start fires.

The key word for a start is "might" as in "might become critical".

There are at least two levels of indirection and conditional/probability in that statement. Failing to read them is failing to understand the meaning entirely.


Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score 0) 255

Which part of "five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical" did you actually fail to read rather than having fun baiting flames?

That talks of taking decisions, not how long it would take the bad effects from failing to take those decisions to show up.

That statement could yet be entirely right and Exxon wilfully doomed us all circa 1982, but the statement doesn't have to be read that strongly either.



Comment Re:Answers (Score 1) 77

Because I wanted the bank staff (and I raised it to a fairly high level) to understand and accept that the 'security questions' could never reasonably used the way that the bank expected, and having gained that insight (and the firestorm of complaint in social media at the time) the bank fixed the issue reasonably well.

It's not perfect, but the current system works reasonably well.

So, argument and persuasion rather than just whining seemed to be winning.



Comment Re:Sustainable password hashing (Score 1) 77

Hmm, yes, when I was putting together security for an online financial system (eg worth stealing credentials for) many years ago, (7) was nagging at me and I might have made do with an upgrade in hash mechanism at next login after a policy change, but yours is nice and/or in combination.



PS. (4) is also an interesting rule-of-thumb, thank you!

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg