Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 3, Insightful) 202

Oh your car chose to kill a kid on a bike instead of hit an old person crossing the road?

What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?

Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?

Comment Re:Duh (Score 4, Insightful) 131

And that article is one of the worst I've seen.

I would say that I see our primary role is to proactively drive positive change while developing the right responses to capitalize on disruption in our industry.

If that even made sense ... is there any "management" or CxO role in a company where the exact same could NOT be said?

I would make it clear that my team is not going to spend a lot of time spinning wheels on inventorying every nuance and the current state of our infrastructure.

I've worked for hazardous waste disposal companies, insurance companies and manufacturing companies. The CRITICAL parts are always 100% "nuance".

Otherwise you're operating the same as someone else and they're probably doing it for less than you charge. And taking all your clients.

We're also tasked with taking innovative new technology and coming up with a plan to apply that innovation to dominate the competition.

In other words, you want to play beta-tester with the company's business. For technology that you do NOT control.

The rest of it really is focused on driving change and optimizing.

I'm reminded of some old advice for CxO's. Claim something is a problem and then change it. No one ever filled out their resume with "maintained the status quo".

We will do everything in our power to build that trust and to aid in taking advantage of the rapid change that is happening in our industry.

What "rapid change"? If your name is "Google" or "Amazon" then you're probably doing the same thing in the same way in the same time you've been doing it for 10 years.

I'm more reminded of this:

Comment Re:The real problem (Score 1) 299

Isn't that known as "gathering requirements"?

It can be difficult and they can change and they will probably be incomplete ... but as you get more experience you should be better prepared to deal with those issues.

I've seen a company build a new production center and not know where the people would be who would be operating it. Some of it was backwards. We ended up putting down tape to delineate the different areas so they could be painted. So yeah, stupidity is rampant.

But the contractors all got paid. They didn't care whether what they were delivering met the customers actual needs (that the customer could not identify) as long as what they delivered met the specs and was up to code.

Software should, for the most part, be the same way. I'd guess that less than 1% of the programmers out there are really doing anything new.

Comment Re:PP slogans won't cut it (Score 2) 233

The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it.

Which does not seem to be addressed by any of the people in TFA.

I see it as a manifestation of the The Dunningâ"Kruger effect. Those people got their positions NOT through creating something new and valuable but through relationships with other people.

So, should they be worried about getting "Ubered"? If by "Ubered" you mean "having your business cut out from under you by some who understands IT better than you" then yes.

The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 148

Now imagine that one of those junk sites gets cracked. They now have:

1. your email address
2. your password for that site
3. the "security" answers you've provided

Using #1 & #2 they can try to access other sites to collect more of #3.

Have you used the same email address (#1) and security answers (#3) on critical sites? If so, they can potentially bypass the password (#2) that they do not have for those critical sites.

So, unique passwords AND unique email addresses (with unique passwords) for critical sites.

Comment Re:If only there were a system like this... (Score 1) 128

But that's not even the greatest flaw. The greatest problem is expecting people to do a bunch of research to dig through past archives (thousands and thousands of jokes?) to determine if any of those are a substantial match with this one.

There are MANY flaws with Bennett Haselton's idea. There always are. That's the problem with his posts getting front page placement.

Anyway, let's deal with them in order of time.

1. Who is going to sign up to read a list of JOKES just because it promises "new" jokes in exchange for your work?

2. Who is going to SUBMIT jokes FOR FREE to that list to reach those readers?

3. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of documenting duplicate jokes?

4. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of verifying the documentation of #3?

That's why I think sock puppets will be the biggest exploit of those flaws. Anyone incentivized to reach the people in #1 will be incentivized to game it by creating sock puppets. It won't take many sock puppets because most people will soon give up on the effort to document a joke / moderate the documentation of a joke.

Eventually you will end up with sock puppets documenting jokes and sock puppets moderating that documentation. And the list of jokes will devolve into whatever personal vendetta the guy with the most sock puppets has.

Comment Re:If only there were a system like this... (Score 1) 128

We should implement Haselton's stupid idea then!

EVERY story should be emailed to 1,000 /. users who will ignore it and hope that they will do the research necessary to find if it is a dupe or similar enough to something that they will remember and care enough to link to so that SOMEONE ELSE can check that it is valid before releasing it.

Bennett Haselton has, once again, come up with an idiot "solution" to a problem that does not exist and and he expects free labour from THOUSANDS of people will solve this problem.

Yes, you idiot, that idea is "gameable" because sock puppet accounts will be the most likely to respond while real users will not have the time/dedication to research (for FREE) whether a joke is a dupe or not.

Who the fuck even cares?

Why is Bennett Haselton still posting to the front page of /.?

Comment How? (Score 4, Insightful) 232

"The nice thing about Snappy is that it's completely worry-free updates," Shuttleworth said.

I don't think it was the PACKAGE that caused people to worry about an update.

For example, Shuttleworth said that if there is a security vulnerability, like a Heartbleed flaw, the way Ubuntu fixes the issue is with a .deb package.

Isn't that an issue with the code itself?

The great thing about .deb packages was that the OFFICIAL ones underwent a lot of testing to try to catch problems BEFORE they were deployed. NOT because they were magical .deb packages.

Comment Re:woooh technology is out to git ya (Score 1) 214

And he's wrong.

According to Rubalcava, the biggest barrier to carrying out terrorist plans until now has been the risk of getting caught or killed by law enforcement so that only depraved hatred, or religious fervor has been able to motivate someone to take on those risks as part of a plan to harm other people.

No. Because look the times when we have caught the criminal. We cannot stop them from setting off a bomb, but we will catch them after they do so.

So to be a terrorist you have to be willing to die or to spend the rest of your life in prison.

"A burner email account, a prepaid debit card purchased with cash, and an account, tied to that burner email, with an AV car service will get him a long way to being able to place explosives near crowds, without ever being there himself."

But it will not stop him from being found AFTERWARDS.

Because those actions leave traces. And you will be spending the rest of your life in jail.

Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.

No. You're confusing two different scenarios and ASSUMING that the technique that worked in one scenario WOULD BE THE ONLY TECHNIQUE USED in the other scenario.

"That shutdown could stretch from temporary to quasi-permanent with ease, as security professionals grapple with the technical challenge of distinguishing between safe, legitimate payloads and payloads that are intended to harm."

It COULD. But more likely it won't.

Mostly because he's assuming that an autonomous car will be exactly like a current car + driver ... but with a really stupid robot driver that will do anything you tell it to do. Don't assume that.

Comment But it wouldn't work anyway. (Score 5, Insightful) 576

But it wouldn't work anyway.

I don't think he even understands FedEx. FedEx cannot tell you where a package is RIGHT NOW. They can only tell you where it was LAST SCANNED.

The reason this works well for packages is that packages don't move themselves. And even then it has failures. This will completely fail because HUMANS can wander around on their own.

Sounds more like Christie wants to associate his campaign with something that people have a mostly positive opinion of. But I'm pretty sure that FedEx will not want to be associated with a losing candidate OR the concept of tagging and tracking undesirable races/nationalities (shades of Nazi German there).

People are always available for work in the past tense.