Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Will you stop approving submissions by this gu (Score 3, Insightful) 220

IMHO you're wrong. Battery failure is the biggest reason to "upgrade." Availability of software updates is a close second. CPU, screen res etc are already overkill even on a 4 year old phone. Many phone lives have been extended by replacing the battery, though the industry is "on" that "problem" now.

Comment Re:Corrupt politicians (Score 1) 251

Common criminals have much more to gain from this idea than the NSA does.

It's embarrassing that people are only now beginning to pretend to care about communication security, thanks to NSA getting caught. (Have to say "pretend" because it's not like most people are really doing anything different. But at least they're talking about it. I guess that's something.)

But if we want to take all the threats that plaintext communications exposes us to (our own government, other governments, organized crime, insurance companies, nosey neighbors, political witchhunters, ad profilers, and yes: even the greatest enemy (our own fears, since even when you're not being watched, if you think you might be watched then you're still not free)) and put all that under the blanket label "NSA," that's fine. Just fucking fine.

It's bullshit, but it's ok. Whatever it takes to start going things right. If you wanna pretend the NSA is the threat that's ok because at least, they really are a threat. (Not sure they make the top-ten list, but hey, whatever.) Wear the label, NSA. Big Brother, be the proxy for all the little brothers. You'll do just fine, NSA.

Comment Not as much a boon as you would expect?! (Score 1) 51

The new IRS guidance could be a boon to providers of identity protection services such as Experian and Lifelock, though maybe not as much as one would expect. .. Fewer than 10% of those potentially affected by a breach opt for free identity protection services when they are offered.

That is the boon to those services. The whole point of asking Congress to subsidize a particular industry's customers, is to increase the number of customers.

If widget purchases are tax-deductible, then people will buy more widgets (and fewer gadgets). What's weird is that we still think of income tax as being merely a tax on income, rather than a system for encouraging certain spending and discouraging others. What I want to see, is Hollywood making entertainment tax-deductible. I can't believe they haven't bought that one yet.

Comment Re:we used to not use BAC (Score 1) 259

I will grant that your reading comprehension is shockingly below average, but if you were as stupid as you say you are, you wouldn't be able to communicate it so directly. Show, don't tell.

Your only refuge would have been satire, but when satire lacks humor or insight, the hopeful smiles turn to disappointed sighs. That's not even good craft. C'mon, man!

Here's how I would fix your post, to make it better. I am not an expert writer by any stretch of the imagination; I merely assert that I am your better. So learn:

And yet I had 100 people blow .14 and 101 of them passed the field sobriety tests, so let's stop pretending you have any clue what you're talking about. Since we all know that everyone is identical, that means you're lying if you say your reactions are noticeably substandard at 0.04%.
And even if you were slower-than-sober at that point, so what? You know how everyone is always saying the roads never have any surprises ("Another day, another complete lack of people-who-don't-give-a-fuck-about-their-own-lives darting into the street on that charming block that has both a methadone clinic and healthcare-for-the-homeless clinic(*)") and no other drivers are bad ("I just want to say, yet again, nobody drifted into my lane why they were on their phone. Why do I even still bother to pay attention to all the other cars? Everyone is so well-behaved!")? That lack of there ever being any hazards is why slow reactions don't matter, you lying moron.

The reality is, we have stupid legislators because of people like you, who explicitly said they would not enact a BAC limit based on their personal experience due to the fact that they know different people have different performance at different BAC, and if I had paid attention to what I was ranting at, I would have at least lampshaded (**) that fact.

Don't you see how that would have been a better way to say the exact same shit-for-brain nonsense that you said? This isn't even fancy and I'm sure you could do just as well, if you tried. But you didn't. So the question is: dude, what went wrong?

(*) This is a real place on my commute to work every day. It's awesome but in my fantasy, that same magic stretch of street would also have a 1970s style porn theater, a plasma donation center, a casino, and a sausage factory with a secret tunnel to a nearby funeral parlor. "Hey, why is the sausage factory always receiving shipments of sandbags? Their sausages don't taste like sand at all."

(**) tvtropes link included out of spite. I hope I just made your life shorter.

Comment Re:we used to not use BAC (Score 1) 259

After that, it's been steadily ratcheted down by neoprohibitionists

Please reach for Hanlon's Razor more often. You don't have to be a neoprohibitionist to lower the limit; simply being dumb is good enough. Combine a little dumbness with personal experience and you can form a strong opinion.

I am as far from a prohibitionist as you can get. I love beer. The house is full of beer and every time I drive out of state, I buy beer (oooh, Interstate Commerce!) just to try out products offered by different distributors. The closets are stuffed with aging barleywines.

And yet, I also know that I am definitely impaired before 0.08%. From my subjective point of view, the 0.08% standard is absurdly high. No, I wouldn't be swerving around at that point, but my reactions would be terrible and my judgement .. altered. If I were stupid and also in charge of setting policy, my personal experience would have me set the limit to 0.04%.

Luckily for society, I'm not in charge. But also, I'm not quite stupid enough to fail to realize that different people have different reactions. Again: what I'm saying is that stupidity would be enough, with prohibitionist agenda having jack shit to do with anything.

So you merely have to ask: do we have stupid people in legislatures? ;-) Because if we do, then it's likely there's your true explanation.

Comment Wouldn't these be "unauthorized" card charges? (Score 2, Interesting) 540

Dad: "Hey VISA, I didn't authorize this. Charge back." There. Now it's someone else's problem.

Honest question: doesn't it work like this? If the app or the OS (whatever's in charge) is both storing the credentials and also not taking common-sense measures to authenticate people who try to use those credentials, I'd think chargebacks would be an extremely common occurrence. Isn't this happening? If not, why not?

Comment Re:Remember that it's a disk RECOVERY key (Score 2) 314

Raids schmaids. In my experience, the most common case of data leaving the building are failing drives RMAed to manufacturer. I don't remember ever being raided but I have RMAed quite a few drives.

That is why everyone should always be encrypting. So that the drive (which is different from the boot SSD which has the key file pointed at by /etc/crypttab) is just noise. Worrying about the feds is like worrying that you're going to be killed by a terrorist, when you ought to be getting more exercise and driving more defensively. Prioritize your threats!

The Microsoft scenario isn't that they're going to hand your keys over to the feds. It's that a couple years from now we're going to be reading the news story that all Windows 10 users' keys were leaked in some unattributed breach.

Comment Re:This might be a good thing (Score 1) 115

I started replying but then I realized that it was all just jokes-but-serious that were outing me as a closet-anarchist, without my policy actually doing any good. I think this means you win, Obfuscant. Touche.

(For the amusement of the historians, I'll include my draft post below...)


Someone flying below 1000' AGL with a good camera can take a lot of incriminating pictures of your daughter by your swimming pool, especially if her boyfriend (or girlfriend) is there too.

Then my daughter and her girlfriend should stop murdering people at the pool ("Young lady, if I have to clean up all your messes, you'll never learn anything! You dispose of this drowning victim yourself! Oh, and you're grounded."), and do something less incriminating, such as having hott lesbian sexx. My daughter would know that the Cuban Missile Crisis happened over half a century ago so if a U2 could spot a silo at 70k then the horny 15-year-old next door can easily spot her at 1k with Wal-Mart grade equipment. It would never occur to my daughter that laws, rather than her discretion/countermeasures, would ever have a significant effect on her privacy.

(That's also why she'll encrypt her love-letter emails, too: because she knows that if she doesn't, they're possibly public just like her outdoor sex acts.)

I'm serious, but I also realize I'm totally dodging the issue and you deserve a better reply than that. Fortunately, you almost supplied the answer:

Does the FAA need to keep track of every local law...?

No, but turn that around, and I think you have the answer. If locals want to ignore the reality of both the FAA regs and their personal experiences that aircraft sometimes fly lower, then they're not really trying to do their jobs responsibly. If a government acts in bad faith like that, then yes, there will (and should) be conflicts. Obviously I don't really want pilots always worrying that they're going to be arrested every time they land, but everyone is always playing that game every day whenever they cross any jurisdictional boundary. If you didn't want to see a Taliban courtrooom then you shouldn't have flown to Afghanistan. (Or Los Angeles. Whatever.)

Hmm... let's pretend a local government has a safety agenda, rather than a faux (and futile) privacy agenda. They're not so much scared of voyeurs watching our hot nubian daughters having sex by the pool, but rather, they're scared of our daughters being shredded by the powerful cheaply-proliferating propellers, due to the pilot masturbating when they're supposed to be maintaining altitude or paying attention to the remaining LiPo voltage. This is a believable agenda, because one thing we are really good at, is getting scared. And probably even for good reason, since "drone" pilots tend to....

(At this point I realized that Shit Happens and our daughters are, in fact, going to be shredded if I run things, because I have so little faith in the laws (whether federal or local) really having an effect on what copter-operators end up doing. So don't vote for me. My opponent won't really keep you any safer, but at least he'll try to. His heart in the right place and mine's not. ;-)

Comment This might be a good thing (Score 1) 115

I don't have a problem with the FAA and local laws being so different and addressing different topics. Unless you live in a place like Texarcana, your neighbor peeking over your wall isn't a federal or interstate problem and the feds shouldn't be trying to protect privacy from peek-by-droners. Similarly, the local governments shouldn't be worrying about interference with interstate flights and all the other issues that the feds should be regulating.

What's wrong with two (or even three) sets of rules, each made by government entities tasked with addressing scopes of problems?

And if you have a silly situation where someone tries to make silly rules in the other entity's scope (e.g. cities trying to ban all flights over or within that city) just let the silly people lose. Yeah, there will be some complexity, and arguments about what belongs to who, but we've always had that going on. That's not an "aircraft thing," it's an "America thing" and we argue about where the lines are, all the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra