Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Stop the panic! The headline is click bait. (Score 1) 236

Read again. The rules in your own quote require that "the device is not easily modified to operate with RF parameters outside of the authorization". That doesn't prohibit modifying the device with such parameters, this prohibits having devices that are even able to be modified, and a device that is merely able to be modified, period, is able to be modified with such parameters.

Furthermore, #1 says they must ensure that only properly authenticated software is loaded. It doesn't say "they have to ensure properly authenticated software if it affects RF parameters, but the rest of the software can be unauthenticated". And even if it could be interpreted that way, the easiest way to prevent unauthenticated software from modifying RF parameters is by preventing unauthorized software, period. Sure, in theory, the manufacturers can split the software up into a RF portion and a non-RF portion and let you modify the non-RF portion, but we both know that that's not going to happen.

Comment Re:First things first. (Score 1) 820

I saw a reddit thread that specifically suggested going to a lawyer and accountant that normally deal with big corporations with lots of money. If your lawyer routinely deals with similarly large sums of money, the lawyer and accountant won't be tempted to do any funny things to you, and they probably have more experience dealing with it anyway.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 4, Insightful) 303

What she probably said was "I want a server that isn't subject to legally mandated retention or public records requests". The IT person then responded with "Sure ma'am" like you suggest.

The fact that doing this also makes security hard is just a side effect. The security problem didn't happen because she told someone to make it secure without supervising them closely, the security problem happened because she decided she'd rather not be subject to the rules, and not being subject to the rules automatically comes with bad security unless you're really careful.

Comment Re:Remove KB 2952664 and what else? (Score 5, Informative) 394

3021917 (update for Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program
3068708 (update for CEIP and telemetry)
3080149 (update for CEIP and telemetry)
3075249 (telemetry)
2990214 (Windows 10 upgrade) (I suppose this isn't technically privacy. And Microsoft claims you actually need it; your choice whether to believe them. Also, 3044374 for Windows 8.1.

Comment Re:Summary is rather vague (Score 1) 179

He can't sue HR, because HR is not going to be dumb enough to send him a rejection letter saying "we won't hire you because you were accused of rape". They're just going to reject him without giving him a reason. There's no way he could prove that this particular rejection happened because of the false accusation.

Comment Re:No change (Score 1) 134

Some of it is because the people digitizing the books are just clueless.

There have been several cases where I specifically looked for a high resolution scan of a book from and did not get the Project Gutenberg one, because the Project Gutenberg one either did not include illustrations or included them in very low resolution. PG could include high res illustrations--they just don't, and in fact have guidelines which tell you to digitize the images at a resolution which is ridiculously low for today's retina tablets.

Comment Re:Whatever happened to free? (Score 1) 82

I've never heard of an open source license that allows you to release two versions and only give away the source for one of the versions, and I don't think that satisfies any common definition of open source anyway.

Either you aren't required to release the source, in which case the free version wasn't released to satisfy the license, or you are required to release the source, and the free version still doesn't satisfy the license because you need to give the source of all the versions you release. There may be a case where you only have to release the source for the part that isn't yours, but that still wouldn't lead to a broken free version just to satisfy the license--they'd just release the source that they received without modifying it at all.

Comment How to document for Windows 10 privacy? (Score 1) 515

Has anyone created a list of all the things one needs to do to change Windows 10 settings towards privacy?

(I know about the Reddit thread, which is full of fail because it tells you to use group policy editor, which does not exist in Home, leaves out items that are mentioned later in the comments, and doesn't describe exactly what each step does.)

Comment Re:One-Way Upgrade??? (Score 1) 317

According to which is on Microsoft's site,

Can I go back to my previous version of Windows if I don't like Windows 10?

Yes, while we think you will love all the features of Windows 10, you will have one month after upgrading to revert back to the previous version of Windows on your device.

Comment Re:The OEM UEFI locked with M$ keys issue. (Score 1, Flamebait) 317

Microsoft created the requirement to have secure boot with Microsoft keys, knowing very well that the incentives created by that requirement would lead to companies producing motherboards that can only use that and nothing else. Microsoft would not be able to do things that create these incentives if they didn't have a monopoly.

Just because the OEMs can choose not to lock down the hardware doesn't mean that it's the OEMs' fault rather than Microsoft's; the incentives were created by Microsoft.

Remember back when Microsoft were simply creating volume license agreements that made it expensive for companies to ship computers with Linux? They could do it--it wasn't prohibited by contract, it was just more expensive. All Microsoft did was change the financial incentives. But that's enough that it should be considered Microsoft's fault.

C Code. C Code Run. Run, Code, RUN! PLEASE!!!!