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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Of course (Score 3, Insightful) 88

by ShieldW0lf (#49142909) Attached to: OPSEC For Activists, Because Encryption Is No Guarantee

If I'm the only one who can unlock your encrypted communications, then it's in my best interest to have everyone encrypt their communications, because then, I'll be the only one with total situation awareness.

It won't be in any of your interests, of course, because you'll be handing me my advantage on a silver platter... but you're all far too shortsighted to pay attention to such things.

Of course Obama and the NSA want you all using strong encryption. Stupid of you to give them what they want, though.

Comment: Re:Time for men's liberation (Score 1) 369

by ShieldW0lf (#49069095) Attached to: Two New Male Birth Control Chemicals In Advanced Stages


What if you're one of those people who has gone around the track long enough to understand that sex divorced from reproduction is meaningless, who always wanted to have that family that everyone seems to want to be "liberated" from taking responsibility for?

Because, honestly, that's how I feel, and I've quite literally given up on women, and sex.

Reproductive sex isn't boring, like something out of a Puritan movie. It's just as nasty and wild and passionate and kinky as it always was. But, it's overlaid with the knowledge that, in that moment, you're like God, reaching down to create life, and your dick is his finger, and this might be the moment that your child is created. It's like taking everything that was pleasant about sex and elevating it to a spiritual level without taking anything away from it.

Contraception takes all that away, and renders sex with a woman no different from sex with an apple pie, or a man, or a dog.

It should be the first letter in the acronym. SLGBT, with the first letter representing the word "Sterile".

I used to spend my free time chasing a mate. Now that I realize I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family, I find it hard to find reasons not to sit and grow moss.

But hey, thanks for setting us all free.

Comment: Re:Welcome to the 90s! (Score 2) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#49055421) Attached to: Vint Cerf Warns Against 'Digital Dark Age'

As we become more sophisticated, we design things that are more delicate. The more advanced we are, the less likely our creations will be accessible to those who come after we fall.

Which, considering that we've demonstrated these capabilities once already, and considering how long we or bipeds like us have been around, implies that it's happened before.

If there were more advanced civilizations before us, there's no reason to think we'd know about them.

Comment: Re:Literally? (Score 5, Insightful) 645

Is the purpose of journalism to control the population, or to inform the population?

If it's to control the population, then these discussions are reasonable. If we share the message, how will the population react... will they be sympathetic, will they be fearful, will they be angry?

But, if the purpose of journalism is to inform the population, then, showing us things that might make us sympathetic are just as important as things that might make us angry.

I see no larger merit in journalism if it doesn't exist to provide us agency.

Comment: Re:Cool (Score 1) 225

by shaitand (#48963521) Attached to: Facebook Will Let You Flag Content As 'False'
When discussing biblical texts it is the word typically used to describe catholic priests translating and "correcting" texts while copying them.

For example, if the Church says Jesus was tried that is a fact and it is an error on the part of this Jewish historian who forgot to include it in this historical record. Therefore the priest will do his best to correct the error while preserving the integrity of the work. He'll integrate it in his best approximation of where it goes with minimal adjustment to the original and to preserve the original tone. This way it can be the best and most accurate history.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 168

by shaitand (#48936139) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss
"I don't think taxpayer money should be invested in large Phase III trials (which can cost almost $1 billion) when they have a pretty low chance of succeeding. Moreover, you really do need teams of people to be competitive in today's research world - I work in a lab in academia, and there's no way you could do much drug development all by yourself."

Which is why Pharma companies are all bankrupt? No part of what I proposed involved taxpayer money or prevented working in teams. What I proposed are loans from the federal reserve on the same terms they are given to banks. The fed does not loan out tax payer money to banks, it loans out shiny newly created money at ridiculously low rates. We have an inflationary fiat currency and it actually depends on us putting new currency into circulation. Traditionally the finance industry gets all the benefits from this system. Advanced technology and especially medicine is certainly at least one obvious alternative place we could inject this money which benefits everyone in the nation.

"You absolutely shouldn't be allowed to make something that's going to go into people in a lab like you described"

I didn't actually describe a lab. Maybe you are mentally projecting your own assumption of some sort of inferior facility? Last I checked there is nothing magical about the pharma corps that makes them more capable than anyone else.

"I'm also not sure what you have against profits in general. For-profit companies aren't inherently bad, and non-profits aren't inherently good."

In general I agree. I just don't think healthcare and medicine is an appropriate for-profit industry. The costs are the same whether for-profit or non-profit. Profit has to come from somewhere and in the case of healthcare the result is higher costs which means less people benefit from the care. A for profit has an interest in maximizing profit and you maximize profit by providing as little as possible for as much as possible. This isn't in the interest of our nation. We all benefit if the health industries provide as much as possible at the lowest cost possible.

I don't propose blocking the for profit drug industry. I propose they shouldn't be allowed to use infrastructure that exists to provide an alternative to them and tie up those resources just to increase their own profits. Non-profits and partnerships still allow for teams to group together in a more established structure and work and allow for those people to profit from that work in the form of salaries in the case of a non-profit and in the system I proposed all the net profit derived from the fruits of their labor.

Comment: Re:The solution is obvious (Score 2) 579


Google are a highly effective propaganda company.

But, as providers of a platform for developers, they are absolutely horrible. Writing software for their "platform" is like building a house on quicksand.

They make me look back on the time spent developing for Microsofts products with fondness.

Comment: Step it up (Score 1) 324

by shaitand (#48870581) Attached to: What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?
No, don't discount the importance of lower pricing. Any lower pricing they'd feasibly offer would still be quite expensive.

I need use cases. I need killer apps. I need the flavor of killer apps that let me build customized functionality without actually having to build apps. Most essentially, I need to know nothing I look at goes to Google.

People unreasonably worry about glass wearers recording them. I'm far far more concerned about Google recording via glass. I'm worried about data mining, I'm worried about facial recognition. Imagine this day. Your workplace issues glass devices for everyone. You step outside the office to have a private conversation in the parking lot. You've been a good drone on paper and face to face but criticize your direct report to some of your peers during the conversation and admit your frustration. You indicate you might start looking for something else. The next day your boss who has been monitoring your feed thinks you are buried and finally wants you to train up someone to assist you. You think, omg, finally, recognition and with that you aren't so eager to bail. Just as your help gets up to speed and there is light at the end of the tunnel they find some unrelated excuse and can you because you've just trained your replacement.

Frankly, I wouldn't be any happier about the data being used to assist "law enforcement", "catch terrorists", allow parents to monitor and "protect" their children, or "catch cheating spouses" either. I certainly wouldn't be happy if my wife was feeling frisky in a dark corner on the boardwalk and some bored night shift admin at google captured the clip and uploaded it to the web either.

Comment: Re:Size (Score 1) 324

by shaitand (#48870479) Attached to: What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?
"So, you have no issues with people recording you when you don't know about it?

You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend, record it and put it up on the Intertubes?"

No, I'm not okay with it. But the restaurant is already recording me. The other patrons in the restaurant already have the capability to record me as well without it looking like they are doing anything more than playing with their phone. On top of that there are already glasses cams, lapel cams, hat cams, and pen cams to name a few.

Potentially, every person in the restaurant has that capability already and everyone at the table is likely carrying a device that can be used to record the conversation. Hell, there is a pretty good chance there is crap installed on your phone that gives your employer the ability to remotely activate the camera and microphone on YOUR phone to do the same and almost certainly apps you've voluntarily installed that carry those capabilities and probably even got you to click through an agreement giving them permission. The same with the camera and microphone on your company issued laptop as well.

At most google glass is giving someone a device that lets them flip on and point the camera a little more quickly when something interesting comes up to take a picture of. Otherwise, I don't see anything new here with glass vs cell phones and security cams. I also don't see glass users as somehow being more or less innately trustworthy than random staff and patrons at your restaurant or work place.

P.S. If you don't think your employer can/does do this, think again. They almost certainly do especially if a technology company. You can't actually trust any blocker that you install to prevent it but some of those blocker apps will monitor and detect when other apps grab your phone mic/cam and differentiate between the app simply securing the resource and actually activating it. You might be surprised.

Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach. -- S.C. Johnson