Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Night-time pop-up urinals (Score 1) 210

So yes, you also need "repression", and I think that walls that pee back are a particularly nice form of that :)

But are they really? If someone needs to take a piss then this only changes where they'll do it; the relocation could actually be worse: cars, windows, doors etc. Also, the number of people caught doesn't tell you anything, except that more people were caught, the number doing it could be decreasing but more effort is being put into catching people.

Comment Re:Ball tracking is not new (Score 1) 68

All true, but not really relevant to my point. The ball would also have had to be on a path to hit the stumps as well, thus any decision to give someone out LBW requires extrapolation of available data. Hawkeye is not used in cricket to automatically decide if a player is out or not, which is what makes this development in baseball novel. One of the reasons it should be easier to establish in baseball is because it doesn't require people to rely on the predictions of a machine (even though the machine probably does a better job of LBW calls than umpires already imo).

Comment Re:Blinding lasers are already here (Score 1) 83

Why expect it to happen at all? What use would a laser capable of nothing more than blinding provide a criminal which they don't already have a better/cheaper/more reliable alternative. Armies could, but generally don't, already deploy far more effective weapons to reliably disable enemies (chemical weapons), what gap would a non-lethal laser fill even ignoring the fact that blinding laser weapons were specifically banned under the convention certain on conventional weapons back in the 1980s.

Comment Re:Ball tracking is not new (Score 5, Informative) 68

The article didn't suggest ball tracking was new, I'm not sure what led you to believe it did. It was about computers making the decision in professional sport, which afaik is new.

Cricket is actually a poor comparison as Hawkeye is used to predict where the ball would have gone, whereas in Baseball you're looking at where the ball went and defining whether it passed through the correct window. This should make it a lot less controversial as there's no debate about whether the computers extrapolation is correct or not, like there is with hawkeye in cricket.

Comment Re:A plea to fuck off. (Score 2) 365

I tend to work on the premise that if it's an important password it either doesn't go in my password manager unless it supports 2 factor authentication. I'm yet to hear an argument against password managers that isn't wrong, trivial or blatantly obvious. Yes it'd be stupid to put all the information required to get into your bank account and transfer money out onto a password manager, however none of my financial service providers allow money to be sent to an account it hasn't already been sent to without requiring some form of additional authentication (SMS code etc).

There's 230 passwords in my lastpass vault, they're all reasonably complex and none of them are the same. You can't get into any email or financial account with just the information in there. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it's vastly better than I could viably manager without it and I've made an informed decision on the trade off.

Comment Re:Makes sense to me (Score 1) 157

My point is that it shouldn't be a difference. If a judge is supposed to treat requests differently for warrants when the search is digital I think that's wrong, if the judge isn't supposed to be is in practice then that's clearly wrong.

I have nothing against the principal of subjects of warrants only finding out after the warrant is executed, as long as the system for issuing a warrant is robust and transparent. I don't even have an issue with a warrant being 'secret' but again this would require even more robust protections and regular independent judicial authority to maintain the secrecy. An example of this might be (I hate to use Terrorism as an example as it is so often used to justify removing rights) when evidence of a plan to commit a terrorist offence is found, using a secret warrant to access email/IM etc communications discretely and not disclosing this for a very limited period while people implicated by those communications are investigated.

Comment Re:Makes sense to me (Score 1) 157

Except that the defendant/accused isn't informed of the search warrant. Effectively, this ruling says that NOBODY can challenge search warrants.

If a warrant allowed the police to enter your property when you weren't present then in theory you'd only if you could see something had changed when you got back. If that is acceptable, then I really don't see why digital records should be any different. That said, I would hope that Facebook would be allowed to tell you that your data had been accessed. My understanding is that conventional search warrants are challenged after the search (when the subject is aware of it), in which case as long as the subject was informed of a digital search they could still do this.

None of the above is intended to defend the police or the judge; I just think there should be consistency between warrants for physical and digital access.

Comment Re:Yea- we need the GPL or we won't get sources (Score 1) 250

Don't be so patronizing, you're not that more smart or special in comparison to the "people" you refer to. Contrary to your claim, people have no problem with installing software,

Hypocrite much? Where exactly did he say they have a problem in your quote, he said they don't want to do it which is obviously not the same thing. Most people don't want to buy a mobile phone, then need to download software to handle core functionality like contact management etc. Hell, I don't, although I want to be able to replace the software with alternatives if I decide I want to.

Comment Re:Not obsolete if it meets specs (Score 1) 620

Although a system in that situation is probably a major risk issue it isn't obsolete:

No longer produced or used; out of date:

If code is still being used in a production environment then it is still used and thus not obsolete, even though it is outdated.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 1) 176

So here's the question, if we're willing to do it then, is it really such a stretch to also hunt down, or encourage the hunting down of those industrial scale poachers that are also involved in murder, rape, and the funding of groups like IS?

No more of a stretch than it is to put out cash rewards for killing any number of other criminals.

Tell me where I can pick up my reward for knocking off some of the bank executives that caused the financial crisis and then I'll accept that we see violence as a solution to crime (other than crime that involves killing Africans who we care less about than the animals that live nearby).

Comment Re:Fiction vs. Reality (Score 1) 176

When exactly did I police content. I get plenty more than ignorant fools who jump to unsubstantiated conclusions tyvm. I'm just not stupid enough to think a game about killing people is going to win in a competition which, to use its own description:

Imagine Cup is a global student technology program and competition that provides... solutions that can change the way we live, work and play.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 4, Insightful) 176

If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.

Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer. We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

Comment Re:Still too much (Score 1) 114

It would make more sense to charge people you don't 'know' to receive email their email, and even that doesn't make sense as it would push spammers towards even more focus on hacking into other people's email addresses or servers where they wouldn't be the one paying.

Email doesn't need to have a charge to dissuade spam, the amount of spam is falling and if there was a concerted effort to find and prosecute a much higher proportion of spammers it would fall much further.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly