Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re:Bad move (Score 4, Insightful) 285

by hey! (#49161319) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

It is seldom the veracity of facts that the debate is over; it is their significance. But that happens to be where this falls idea falls short, because misinterpretation of facts is where the most potent misinformation comes from.

Case in point, "vaccine injury" -- which is a real thing, albeit very rare. Anti-vaccine activists point to the growing volume of awards made by the US "Vaccine Court" (more accurately called "The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims") as proof that vaccine injuries are on the rise.

It is a verifiable fact that the volume of awards has grown since the early years of the program. That is absolutely and unquestionably true. However, that this is proof vaccine injuries is gross misinterpretation, because the "Vaccine Court" program is no fault. You don't actually have to show the defendant *caused* an "injury", you only have to (a) show the child got sick after being vaccinated and (b) find a doctor to sign off on a medical theory by which the child's illness *might* have been caused by the vaccination.

Since you don't have to actually prove injury in "Vaccine Court", the rise in cases and awards doesn't know vaccine injuries are on the rise. All that is necessary is that more people think that their child's illness was caused by vaccinations, and the low burden of proof will automatically ensure more awards.

And so there you have it. A perfectly factual claim can be cited in a way that leads people to preposterous conclusions.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 4, Informative) 181

by ganjadude (#49160361) Attached to: Samsung Officially Unpacks Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 Edge At MWC
i dont want to carry around a charger on me at all times just in case

The only reason to remove SD slots is to force people to buy higher level storage phones. On a business level, i get it if i can make someone buy the 64 instead of the 32 gig model, its more money in my pocket. Me on the other hand, I use multiple SD cards depending on what im doing (blank if going to a concert, a few with different genres of music, a few with movies for long trips etc) i dont have ton constantly move things around, i just pop in the card.

keyboards. how I long for a slider like my droid 3

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 4, Insightful) 181

by ganjadude (#49160269) Attached to: Samsung Officially Unpacks Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 Edge At MWC
the funny thing is how all the bloggers and reporters are calling this a step in the right direction. for me it pretty much sealed their fate, no more galaxy line for me.

Everyone talking about how "premium" it feels and is... well a premium phone IMO has expandable storage. It has a removable battery. It can take a fall from a few feet up (glass back???? really??? all my friends who had iphone 4s had cracked backs

to top it all off i dont want to spend money on a "premium feel" when all im gonna do is wrap it in an otterbox anyway!

does anyone make a top tier phone, with an SD slot and a removable battery anymore? because that is who will be getting my business when i buy my next phone (it sucks too because I was putting off buying a new phone for a few months waiting on this one)

Comment: Re:Thrilling (Score 1) 22

by hey! (#49160063) Attached to: Spacewalking Astronauts Finish Extensive, Tricky Cable Job

Yeah, cause Mars Exploration Rover, GRAIL, Dawn, New Frontiers, Solar Dynamics Observatory, the Spitzer and Kepler telescopes, all those things are boring science. Only nerds find things like discovering Earthlike exoplanets or determining the origin of the Moon thrilling. They should get their own news site so the rest of us don't have listen to stuff that only matters to them.

Comment: Re:Hashes not useful (Score 1) 290

by hey! (#49159733) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Does One Verify Hard Drive Firmware?

Again not necessarily. For example the web page and the download server might not be the same, in which case it is not true that being able to modify the download necessarily means you can also modify the webpage checksum.

Another example is when people download and stage a large file on their local network, which is very common practice. If the server on their local network, in a sense the file is modified "in transit", but the malware needn't be anything special or exotic. I'd go so far as to say if you stage anything on your own servers you ought to check its hash religiously before using it.

Yet another example of "not necessarily" is monitoring. It wouldn't be hard to automatically monitor the download page for unauthorized modifications. Of course you should monitor the downloads themselves for modifications, but that takes more time. You can monitor the hashes on the download page continuously from another computer, automatically shutting the page down if anything changes. That wouldn't prevent your download page from unauthorized modifications but it would contain the consequences and it's very easy to do.

This is what I mean by it's the stuff that goes *around* a security measure that makes it work. A hash doesn't do anything unless people check the hash. That includes people who are hosting the file. I often think of this as a kind of diminishing returns exercise; since people often have spent *no* effort on preparing to respond to being hacked, often the best marginal expenditure is in that direction.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...