Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 3, Informative) 470

All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already

Are you conveniently forgetting that Jeb did literally the exact same thing? He had a personal server, then decided what to forward for state archives and deleted the rest.
And so did Christie
And so did Jindal
And so did Rubio
And so did Huckabee
And while they no longer candidates, so did Perry
And so did Walker

I'm not excusing Hillary, because she did fail to follow security protocols. But lets not pretend that she's in some rare company, and lets not pretend that state level governments operate with complete transparency and that state governors could never possibly discuss classified or secret information under any circumstances.

Comment Re:Wrong Technology (Score 2) 397

I think what should have been installed decades ago are safety systems such as proximity and speed limit sensors. These types of devices would alert the driver to potentially hazardous situations and allow them to avoid an accident.

These things exist? They are extremely common in fact?

there really isn't much - if any - high tech safety features (other than ABS brakes, etc).

You mean other than traction stabilization systems, and backup cameras, and rear object detection systems, and collision avoidance systems, and navigation systems tied to speed sensors, and the software which tunes the engine to keep it operating in safe parameters and warn you of failures... the list goes on. There are millions of lines of code in basically every car manufactured today, and a huge chunk of that code is dedicated to keeping the occupants safer.

But hey, GPS once told you to drive off a bridge, so you might as well dismiss every other engineering & software advance that has occurred or ever will?

Comment Re:Hipsters fight over limited supplies of juice (Score 1) 554

65% of people live in homes they own. Of the 35% who rent, a third of those are renting single family homes. So yes, "most people", by a huge margin, live in houses. This percentage obviously may not apply in very urbanized areas like NYC and San Francisco. But, why the hell would somebody buy an electric car that they have no way to charge at home?

Comment Why blame amazon? (Score 1) 223

Amazon sells hundreds of other media playing devices that offer streaming video that directly competes with their hardware, and those devices play streams that directly compete with their service. I think customer confusion is indeed accurate, because I've been considering purchasing a streaming media player to show primarily Amazon Prime video & Netflix. Until reading this article, Chromecast and Appletv were near the top of my list, and I would've been really irritated if I had purchased and they didn't play Amazon video. I would then return the device, which costs Amazon money, and results in a poor customer experience. Nearly every other media device supports Amazon video, so it seems to me that Google and Apple are the ones who are choosing not to support a competitor.

Comment Retailers can ignore chip and sig completely (Score 1) 317

Most Brick and Mortar Merchants are already liable for the vast majority of fraudulent transactions. Chargebacks for identity fraud (ie, a stolen credit card) currently hit the merchant, not the issuing bank.

That liability will shift temporarily to the bank, IF the merchant has the new technology, AND the bank does not. Once both have the tech, the liability falls back on the merchant, because anybody with a stolen card, has also stolen the chip.

This is primarily a stick for the banks, since they will have to eat a larger percentage of chargebacks until they issue new cards. There is very little carrot for merchants. The best incentive is for early adopters to defray some of their equipment costs, as the money drops off very quickly, as banks issue new cards.

In six months to a years time, there is going to be almost zero incentive for any merchant to buy new chip & sig equipment, until it becomes part of PCI rules. The US implementation is ridiculously stupid without the pin, and this entire transition will prevent exactly one type of fraud- when organized crime manufactures fake cards with real numbers. The more common types of fraud (stolen physical cards & stolen card numbers used online) will not be impacted one bit, and merchants will continue to eat the costs.

Comment Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score 1, Interesting) 248

Thriving?? The areas closest to Chernobyl have very little life. The forest is so dead, that the dead leaf litter from 30 years ago is still sitting on the ground, because there are no microbes to break the leaves down. There is no microbial life, and thus no plant life. The exclusion zone is much larger than the dead zone, and some of the area has low radiation and is indeed thriving. But there are still hundreds of square miles where the trees will likely still be standing in a thousand years, because they are too radioactive to decompose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-nuclear energy, but when you look at the risk / reward, you have to throw in potentials for meltdown on the nuke side, and potentials for global warming on the coal side. You can't just compare historic figures of estimated annual deaths per year.

Comment Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score 1, Interesting) 248

You have to also balance the thousands of square miles of radioactive wasteland that currently exist, that won't be habitable for thousands of year without a jump in technology. And you have to consider the safety requirements of storing the waste securely, forever. And you have to consider what would happen in the event of a conventional or terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, unless you simply choose to believe that humans will stop going to war, and that a true "total war" will never happen in the future.

Yes, coal is dangerous, and has serious drawbacks, and definitely has a fixed number of deaths that can be attributed to it every year. But an enemy determined to stop the energy production of a country that has widespread nuclear energy could dwarf those numbers in a single strike. It isn't a black and white issue, and you can't simply assume a best case peacetime scenario in perpetuity.

Comment Re:I don't see how this helps (Score 1) 50

Two of the three biggest variable factors- traffic congestion, and industrial activity, can be significantly altered based on the response to the predictions. Ideally, they can predict bad days ahead of time, and instead impose travel restrictions & production restrictions, and give people enough advance notice to make it effective. With it being an authoritarian govt, they might be able to get away with that type of heavy handed approach.

Comment Re:The solution is easy (Score 1) 842

I'm a millionaire many dozens of times over. I drive an old Volvo wagon I bought used for $2500.

You know, keeping a low profile is great, but why not buy a more up-to-date & hopefully more reliable car?

"OH damn, thats guys driving a 2 year old Honda Accord, he must be have millions of dollars in the bank" ?

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 192

The realtor doesn't always have the luxury of arranging written permission from someone who's away at work or otherwise unavailable

Look, the realtor stands to make tens of thousands of dollars off the sale of a million dollar house. I don't have a lot of sympathy that they may need to spend an extra thirty minutes driving back to the property to talk to the neighbors because they weren't there on the first knock. Hell, give the house owner a week to secure permission, and leave some boilerplate forms with them, and make the owners talk to the neighbors, they'll probably have a better success rate anyways.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 192

Speaking from years of experience, I can assure you that it is NOT easy to get.
Most people are intrigued by the technology, some become very enthusiastic
But perhaps one in twenty people shut down their brains the moment they hear "camera"

Using the inverse math, you've effectively stated that 95% of people give permission. The other 5% value their privacy, and have concerns about new technology. That sounds like a pretty reasonably success ratio to me.
Why do you say it is so hard to get permission then? Because somebody has to talk to the neighbors in advance, and you may not get a response if you pop by in the middle of the day?

Comment Re:Wow (Score 5, Insightful) 327

Solyndra gets a lot of criticism, but it's important to note that the program as a whole made money for the public AND spurred energy growth. How is that not a win-win? There were dozens of companies involved, and a few of them didn't pan out, but it is unreasonable to expect a 100% success rate.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 698

Do arms include RPG's, heavy machine guns, howitzers, or suitcase nukes? While I'm in favor of legal private ownership of stun guns and tasers, there are basically no reasonable people who think nuclear weapons should be available to all citizens.

From wikipedia: A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

Therefore, nuclear weapon == Arms
It thus follows that no reasonable person believes in the 2nd amendment.

This is obviously an inflammatory statement to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.