Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Fire-Resistant Safe (Score 5, Funny) 446

Drill a small hole into a fire-resistant safe where your power and SCSI/IDE/SATA/USB/ETH cables go, then put your drives in there. Won't be easily stolen and will likely survive a house fire. Googling the terms "fire-resistant safe" revealed dozens of good options.

Comment: Re:Only because they're stupid. (Score 1) 435

by Meditato (#47468491) Attached to: FBI Concerned About Criminals Using Driverless Cars

There should not be a *signal* to do it. Backdoors are too easy, which will also make them easier to abuse. The bar should be high.

There are already microwave transmitters that can fry a car's control system at range (such as the one promoted by SAVELEC). This should be the preferred method. The police should be *so sure* that the driver is a criminal that they're willing to stake a lawsuit on physically destroying a car's control system. That should be the bar.

Let's stop giving the police ways to cut red tape and instead occasionally make the police do it the hard way. Then there's less capacity for easy abuse.

Comment: Re:Why not just give up? (Score 2) 479

It wouldn't satisfy Putin. He took South Ossetia from Georgia and is likely still engineering a wider pro-Russia coup in Georgia. He engineered this situation in the Crimean Peninsula, and he's probably engineering other such incidents in other former soviet republics.

Comment: Re:Fuck off (Score 1) 144

At no point is surveillance involuntary on the parts of our clients, or their clients. Also, our main clients are not insurance companies, and this is generally true of most of the telematics industry. And with the exception of insurance on utility vehicles, there are still ethical, legal, and practical limits to deploying for all the clients of a whole insurance company.

This LoJack thing is advertisement. Relax.

Comment: Re:F**** off (Score 1) 144

"You can cry into your Cheerios"
"so don't get upset"
"Man up and get going."
"stop crying about competition"

Sorry kiddo, I remain unprovoked. But I do want to point out a few misconceptions you seem to be operating under.

First of all, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am concerned about our competition. No, by pointing out that we have competitors, I'm saying that there were many such businesses before (and besides) LoJack. LoJack's technology and business model is nothing new, which begs the question of why LoJack (and only LoJack) is suddenly being mentioned. In any other world it would be called spam.

Second, you are peddling the same old tired fallacy about capitalism, that optimal competition yields optimal results. In other words, "better product beats worse product, so make a better product and you'll beat them!". That's horseshit, and you know it. Such systems don't work because competitors can't agree to follow the rules of the framework in which they operate. Perfect example: a company manages to get free advertising on a very popular tech website that ostensibly has certain guidelines against advertising in posts.

Third, we're well within our rights to complain about advertising in Slashdot submissions. We're following the guidelines, and others aren't.

And...ah yes. The "life isn't fair" excuse. The excuse that the intellectually lazy (or personally invested, as case may be) use to rationalize the nonsensical aspects of modern society. Have fun when someone bends or breaks rules/guidelines to get an advantage on you, and don't come here to complain about it.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

Working...