Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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: TaxAct for me (Score 1) 386

by SwingKing (#46757239) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: How Do You Pay Your Taxes?
I have use TaxAct for several years, for reasons similar to the OP. I'm also not a big fan of Intuit's business practices, so I avoid them where possible. On filing, I generally get a (small) refund so I file electronically to get my money ASAP. However, when I do something big like selling a bunch of stock, I'll file with paper and as late as possible. Gives me more time with my money, and rumor has it you're less likely to get audited with a paper return. Don't know if it's true, but doesn't hurt and even a little less probable is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Needs oversight (Score 1) 352

by SwingKing (#46412209) Attached to: Vast Surveillance Network Powered By Repo Men
I agree and disagree. I don't see oversight is needed for the Repo case, because unless they're using Google's new automated towing service (TM) there will be people in the loop. The tow truck driver will need to confirm the plate directly or he's (theoretically) committing a crime by stealing your car.

Where I have a problem with this is when law enforcement starts using the historical data in the database as direct proof. The government shouldn't be allowed to say "Based on information provided by XYZ Tracking, your car was in the McDonalds parking lot when it was robbed so you must have committed the crime" without some validity checking. Something like archiving all the scanned photos with embedded date/location info for X months. Of course the gov't would have to pay for all that data retention, but that's the only way to combat the inevitable errors in these huge databases.

Machine Translates Thoughts Into Speech 93

Posted by timothy
from the think-I-better-not-wear-one dept.
An anonymous reader points to this explanation of a brain-machine interface for real-time synthetic speech production, which has been successfully tested in a 26-year-old patient. From the article: "Signals collected from an electrode in the speech motor cortex are amplified and sent wirelessly across the scalp as FM radio signals. The Neuralynx System amplifies, converts, and sorts the signals. The neural decoder then translates the signals into speech commands for the speech synthesizer."

Does the 'Hacker Ethic' Harm Today's Developers? 436

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the someone-needs-to-be-a-maverick dept.
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister questions whether the 'hacker ethic' synonymous with computer programing in American society is enough for developers to succeed in today's economy. To be sure, self-taught 'cowboy coders' — the hallmark of today's programming generation in America — are technically proficient, McAllister writes, 'but their code is less likely to be maintainable in the long term, and they're less likely to conform to organizational development processes and coding standards.' And though HTC's Vineet Nayar's proclamation that American programmers are 'unemployable' is overblown, there may be wisdom in offering a new kind of computer engineering degree targeted toward the student who is more interested in succeeding in industry than exploring computing theory. 'American software development managers often complain that Indian programmers are too literal-minded,' McAllister writes, but perhaps Americans have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. In other words, are we 'too in love with the hacker ideal of the 1980s to produce programmers who are truly prepared for today's real-life business environment?'"

Comcast Intercepts and Redirects Port 53 Traffic 527

Posted by kdawson
from the why-we-need-ipv6 dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting (and profane) writeup of one frustrated user's discovery that Comcast is actually intercepting DNS requests bound for non-Comcast DNS servers and redirecting them to their own servers. I had obviously heard of the DNS hijacking for nonexistent domains, but I had no idea they'd actually prevent people from directly contacting their own DNS servers." If true, this is a pretty serious escalation in the Net Neutrality wars. Someone using Comcast, please replicate the simple experiment spelled out in the article and confirm or deny the truth of it. Also, it would be useful if someone using Comcast ran the ICSI Netalyzr and posted the resulting permalink in the comments.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."