Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How is that legal without a warrant? (Score 1) 442

It's a rather ill conceived idea IMHO. If I were to get hit by it, I'd just tell them to arrest me. They'd spend more processing me than they'd get when I eventually paid the fine. /p>

And the next time you apply for a job or have a background check, the answer to the question "Have you ever been arrested?" will be "Yes". Don't forget to consider the cost of an arrest record in your cost benefit analysis.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 184

But it does not work the way you describe at all in regards to offline/online. Outlook simply shows you one years worth of email with this setting, period.

This is annoyingly useless for any user who even occasionally needs to look at older emails. To view older mail, you have to change the cache settings [...]

I don't experience this. When looking at the mail items in a folder (or a set of search results), you should see a link that reads "There are more items in this folder on the server Click here to to view more on Microsoft Exchange". A single click should redirect your search to the Exchange server and give you results across your entire email history. Microsoft knowledge base article describing this

Comment Re:Really? (Score 4, Informative) 184

Outlook isn't the fucking problem, exchange and its bastardised architecture is.

No. Outlook is also a fucking problem.

The architecture of the data stores is an ongoing cluster-fuck. A single-file data file-based data store that's simply allowed to grow into obscene, unstable, performance destroying sizes. More-over, if you crash one of the files, your chances of actually recovering anything is somewhere between "Pray for a miracle" and "Just start over".

When used in a corporate environment (with an Exchange server), the Outlook data store does not grow unbounded. Outlook caches a subset of your mailbox for potential offline use and the bulk of your data sits on the Exchange server. When online you can seamlessly search and access all of your past email; when offline you can access what you have cached. The Exchange server uses a fairly robust database which supports transaction logging and replication, and also has several recovery options if needed.

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 2) 261

Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.

So was the content classified when the emails were originally sent, or was the content later re-categorized as classified? By "content" I mean the information conveyed by the text, not the specific text itself.

I have not idea what the answer is, but I believe it is the question that should be asked and reported on.

Comment Re:Different applications (Score 2) 132

No one in their right mind should really be operating a personal email server in 2015. This is what Google Apps is for. If you earn minimum wage or above, anything you pay for Google Apps will be a lot less than the time you spent on maintaining an email server.

I disagree. True, it does cost you some time and you need certain skill sets to do it properly. You are purchasing benefits with that cost however, namely the comfort that no third party is accessing your already received and historically sent (archived) mail. In a legal discovery situation, you would know that there is legal action pending as you would have to be notified of a request to turn over old email; if your email is on someone else's server, you might never know. It may be true that for most people the cost benefit mix for running your own email server doesn't pay off, but it is not true for all people or "no one" as you say.

Comment Re:Any legal grounds for a refund? (Score 1) 358

Is the ability to control a non-Phillips device with the Phillips control software an advertised feature? Does Phillips advertise that the control software and bulbs adhere to a published and openly licensed standard? If the answer to these questions is "no", then you probably don't have a legal complaint. I am not a lawyer, but unless you are not getting something that was promised, you likely don't have a case. It is still a dick move, and I won't be purchasing the product.

Comment Re:Crappy engineering (Score 1) 199

So, to have an IOT thermostat I have to give it around 350 ma @ 5 v (over 1.5 watts) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? That's roughly 13 kWh over the space of a year.

It must be nice to design devices where someone else has to pay for the sloppy engineering.

Presumably the reason you would have an IOT thermostat instead of a regular (non-IOT) thermostat is that you want to be able to remote control it and have it collect performance data about the heating and cooling of your house. Being able to remotely turn something on when it is "off" requires it not to truly be off. 1.5 watts is not an unreasonable amount of power for this, especially if you include over time monitoring of temperature and that that the device needs to maintain a network connection. Where I live electricity costs about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, so a 1.5 watt load costs me $1.45 a year.

Good engineering is determining a plan that examines and balances the costs of various build options with a set of desired features our outcomes to arrive at an acceptable solution.

I suppose you could say that the engineering was sloppy and the load should only be about a watt bringing the annual cost down to about a dollar a year. What would the saving of that half watt cost in terms of design and manufacturing? Would the product now be too expensive to sell? Would customers even notice the reduced power consumption? Do customers care about a fifty cent operational cost annually? I would argue that extra effort to save the half watt is probably not worth it.

Setting aside the potential straw man, if the engineers who designed the thing considered the above questions then it was not sloppy engineering.

Comment Re: How much of it do I have to trust? (Score 1) 73

The fact that it existed as a default for sooo long though... I mean, at what point in time did that seem like a Good Idea ?

Probably at the same point in time that it seemed like a good idea to enable SSH to a box. I mean, oh my god, with the root password (or an account that has sudo privileges) someone could remote in and access the whole computer!

The administrative shares on a Windows box really aren't all that different, you need an administrative account (root) to use them and if you have an administrative account you get full access. You could argue that they are "hidden" and not well known, but I would counter that are plenty things on the Linux side of the world that are not well known and can lead to serious security exposure (SSH port forwarding to bypass firewalls for example.)

Security in any environment requires that those using and configuring systems understand how they work and assign the appropriate access to the appropriate actors. All environments have their security strengths and weaknesses.

Comment Re:Siri? (Score 1) 144

adding to this, some things still work surprisingly poorly. "show me the nearest gas station" is especially bad. it's a shame because when you're driving, this is occasionally a very important question.

The best implementation would be this: if you're already navigating a route, siri would show you stations that are ahead of you (so you don't have to turn around) and don't cause you to deviate from the route too much.

Even better, if you've been moving at 75 mph for the last 40 minutes along the same path as say, an interstate, then maybe suggest ones on the road, not 40 miles off the road to Radiator Springs.

Of course if it did this, we would be complaining about how Siri is "tracking our movements".

Comment Re:Chip is good security theatre (Score 1) 145

I'm not the least bit sold on the security of these new cards. I had one issued to me by my bank a couple months ago, and the card was nonetheless compromised within a month. I made exactly one POS transaction with it at a chip terminal (several at non-chip terminals) and all of a sudden someone else decided to pay their cell phone bill with my card. Rather unsurprisingly said cell phone company didn't give a flying fuck about the fraud and refused to be the least bit helpful. Now I have to pay my bank to go after it.

What does the cell phone company have to do with it? Your dispute is with the bank that issued your credit card. If your bank is charging you to dispute a fraudulent credit card charge, you need to find a different bank.

Slashdot Top Deals

Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360

Working...