Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: Did Snapchat write this story? (Score 5, Insightful) 140

This "stories" has all the hallmarks of some marketing dribble written by Snapchat. It has the right buzzwords, is full of itself, and touts some silly app as the future of the Internet.

When did Slashdot sell its soul and start accepting stories from companies?


Why We Should Celebrate Snapchat and Encourage Ephemeral Communication 140

Posted by samzenpus
from the get-off-my-lawn dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Within a few months of launching, Snapchat has made an enormous and lasting impact on the culture of communication on the Internet – and we should all be grateful. They have simplified a security process enough to the point that anybody can use it, while validating the market of the next generation of privacy-preserving ephemeral communication. Most importantly, we may finally get a break from the forced permanence of the Facebook and Google world, where everything you do and share is a data point to be monetized and re-sold to the highest bidder."

Comment: Re:Brain Dead Action Trumps Philosophy & Ethic (Score 3, Insightful) 514

by bignetbuy (#43757263) Attached to: Review: <em>Star Trek: Into Darkness</em>

JJ Abrams tell Jon Stewart that "he never liked Star Trek" on The Daily Show. Well, now he's had a chance to kill it by turning it 100% into a modern day blockbuster action flick and shirking any attempt to tackle an interesting philosophical or ethical dilemma as the main plot. As the modern reemergence of comic book and super hero movies have shown, those films are a dime a dozen that anyone can do. Tackling something deeper while still holding our attention is the hard part. The Watchmen was a good candidate for it but fell short. I'm sure JJ Abrams would rather cover up the complicated parts that question good versus evil with another lens flare.

Where are the mod points when you need them? You hit the problem squarely on the head with the JJ Abrams reboots. Star Trek has been reduced to an action flick. Something that will be forgotten in a month. A lot of action, pretty visuals, with a big fat void in the middle. I've seen both now and they are utterly forgettable.

Comment: Re:Okay, enough is enough (Score 1) 249

by bignetbuy (#43730201) Attached to: Drones: Coming Soon To the New Jersey Turnpike?

Ok, so you can buy a portable EMP that can impact electronics 1-2M away. Assuming you upped the power source enough to reach that Reaper drone at anywhere from 10k to 50k high, you might be good to go. Of course, you'd probably need a full-sized tractor trailer to haul the power supply.

As for shooting them, if a drone is flying at 100m, yes, it might be vulnerable to small-arms fire. Though, with your shotgun, you'd probably only get one shot before the drone, moving at an average of 200mph, is out of range.

Then again, most drones, at least the ones the public has seen in combat, aren't stupid enough to fly so low.

Comment: Re:Okay, enough is enough (Score 1) 249

by bignetbuy (#43727649) Attached to: Drones: Coming Soon To the New Jersey Turnpike?

The problem is the average citizen can't, legally, get his/her hands on some SAMs. Plus, do you know how much a Stinger costs on the second-hand market? There is the whole import problem too. A directional EMP (if there is such a thing) would probably rank in the top ten list of weapons Joe Citizen is NOT allowed to own. Shooting them isn't an option either. Most are too high, too fast, and shooting at them with automatic weapons would draw massive amounts of attention.

Passive measures are probably the best we've got for now. Safety in numbers. Do your naughty business in cities or underground.

Comment: Hard pressed to disagree (Score 4, Interesting) 457

by bignetbuy (#43667659) Attached to: US DOJ Say They Don't Need Warrants For E-Mail, Chats

Cue the flamebait accusations....

I'm can't disagree with the U.S. Government's position on this one. If data is sent via the Internet, the world's biggest public network, and isn't encrypted, then why should anybody need anything to read it? Unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply when one person is talking to another person on a street corner...or on the world's biggest public network.

Encrypt your messages and then an argument can be made for 4th Amendment violations.

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.