Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Clickbait-y headline is clickbait-y (Score 1) 150

by Mr. Freeman (#49756801) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police
Nope. His system just applies a blur filter to the video and strips the audio. He hasn't done anything that a very small script couldn't have done. In fact, most programs commercially available for body cams (usually used by private security in malls and such to avoid lawsuits) have an option to do exactly that already. This guy is getting paid for doing zero useful work.

Comment: Re:Love it (Score 1) 150

by Mr. Freeman (#49756789) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police
No, he's not.

His "solution" is to blur everything, yes literally *everything*. The entire video is blurred so that you can't make out faces, which makes sense, but you also can't make out guns, weapons, street signs, small movements of hands, clothing, etc. Depending on the light, you often can't even tell the difference between a police officer and a trash can. It's worthless for any practical purpose.

This guy literally got a job to do nothing other than to copy data from a camera to a server and to post a public copy with blur filter applied to the whole thing. There's no face detection to selectively blur faces, there's no intelligence or any kind of special algorithm applied whatsoever. It's fucking stupid.

Comment: It's a PR campaign (Score 4, Insightful) 190

No researcher would be so reckless as to actually screw with an airplane's engines mid-flight. The fact that the FBI alleges that he did means that they know damn well they have nothing to do on, but need to paint this guy as a terrorist in order to save themselves looking like idiots for arresting a guy based on a single twitter message.

Comment: Few and far between (Score 1) 420

by Mr. Freeman (#49656441) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Moving To an Offshore-Proof Career?
The only jobs that are "offshore-proof" are jobs that require a *very* high security clearance and can't be done by non-citizens for reasons of law and national security or jobs that literally cannot be done from a remote location, such as janitorial work. So, you have to either be the absolute top in your field or switch to menial labor.

Or, and I know this might sound ridiculous if you buy into right-wing politics, you could actually support politicians, laws, and unions that work towards ensuring that every American has a good paying job and that penalize companies for sending jobs out of the country.

Comment: Re:and people say unions are bad this is what happ (Score 2) 294

by Mr. Freeman (#49489309) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination
Oh bullshit. If there's no right to employment then how do we have the responsibility to pay in order to live? You can either give people a right to employment and a right to be able to support themselves, or you have to give people a responsibility to pay for those who are denied work. You can't have it both ways. I prefer the former, although there are arguments for the latter as well. But this attitude that we can refuse to employ people and then get upset when they can't afford to live is just asinine.

Comment: Re:Isn't Cheaper, the American Dream? (Score 3, Insightful) 294

by Mr. Freeman (#49489111) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination
Actually, no. A common tactic is to take out a classified ad in a low-circulation newspaper. The ad is, of course, poorly written and looks like a scam. (Generally accepted practice is to run it in two news papers one day per week for two weeks) This is to reduce the chances of an American applying to the position. After all, what professional actually reads the classified ads? None that I can think of. And writing the ad poorly and like a scam is designed to dissuade any professional from calling about the job even if they happened to somehow stumble across it.

Nevertheless, sometimes an American will respond to the ad, which is where the "qualifications" section comes in. The company will publish a laundry list of qualifications that no one has. sometimes they'll demand more years of experience with a particular piece of software than the piece of software has been in existence for. (e.g. 10 years experience with Windows 8). More frequently, they'll just chain together arbitrary pieces of software that are totally unrelated. This allows them to trash the applications of any Americans. The foreign workers, however, know to put this huge list on their resumes, even if they don't actually have the experience. Importantly, there is no requirement for the company to verify the experience of any applicant. However, if an American attempts this same tactic, they'll exercise their *option* to call employers and check references to prove that the American is lying.

Comment: Re:Isn't Cheaper, the American Dream? (Score 3, Interesting) 294

by Mr. Freeman (#49489053) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination
There are a fuckload of comments here that are making similar errors. It's a grammatical wasteland (more so than usual).

I wouldn't be surprised if the company mentioned by OP got a bunch of their workers, particularly the ones located outside of the US, to jump on here and try and help defend them.

Comment: Re:Do not want (Score 1) 192

by Mr. Freeman (#49488961) Attached to: The Car That Knows When You'll Get In an Accident Before You Do
It's bad enough that car manufacturers intent to install synchros into transmissions because the poor, coddled generation cannot handle the "complexity" of double-clutching and rev. matching. I hate modern manual transmission vehicles because I lose nothing of value, except the ability to feel superior to everyone who hasn't used one.

Comment: Re:I have a solution (Score 1) 167

by Mr. Freeman (#49351281) Attached to: NJ School District Hit With Ransomware-For-Bitcoins Scheme
They really do, though. It's only a matter of time before governments start paying out these randoms using taxpayer funds to cover up the cost of IT staff incompetence. If it were illegal to pay them out then we'd see more idiots get fired and more competent people hired to clean up the mess instead of paying randsom money to shady criminals.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.