Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Is he sure? (Score 1) 131

Reasons Google is more secure:

- Two Factor Authentication built into each and every service by default. Meanwhile you can't even enable two-factor for your AWS account, let alone your Amazon buyer account.

- No "online chat" customer service. Google has a very simple customer service model - you either fill out a form and start an email case, or you enter a callback number and they phone you, or the service has no customer service whatsoever. I know of no Google service that has an online chat.

Comment Re:Say what you will (Score 2) 231

I think you are making leaps here for several reasons

- As of 5.0, All android devices have full disk encryption as an option that is just a checkbox away. If you check that box, Google can't unlock your phone any more than Apple can

- The metadata Google uses for delivering advertising is mostly anonymous. The few parts that are not anonymous are the types of things the police would know about you anyway, things like your gender, race, and interests.

- The live metadata Google uses for delivering advertising (like page history) is mostly not stored. I know this because it would serve them no benefit to do so - they don't need to actually store your browser history to build a user profile - so the laws of economics and business say they would not be storing it. Companies wont spend enormous amounts of money to store stuff that they don't need to.

Comment Not unreasonable. (Score 1) 151

If Amazon and Dominos and whoever else are going to be peppering the sky's of metro areas with autonomous delivery drones, I don't think it is unreasonable for those companies to be required to have some type of insurance policy to cover the inevitable but unexpected accidents, things caused by birds or weather or malfunction or LiON battery fires or who knows what else. I sure do not think my home insurance should take a hit because a bird flew into an Amazon drone over my house and it crashed through my skylight.

I also don't think it is unreasonable to require an identification mechanism for an autonomous drone. If you are going to make the insurance claim process work, you need to be able to trace a drone to its owner.

Comment Interview "Grilling" or "Testing" is Poppycock (Score 5, Insightful) 227

I am a dev, and for a long time was a hiring manager. The idea that grilling, testing, or creating "challenging" interview questions for candidates, and thinking that it will give you ANY introspective on how they will perform on the job, is complete and total poppycock.

Honestly, I feel kind of bad for silicon valley companies that have gotten this strange idea that if you hire a whole bunch of "smart" developers who can answer a bunch of esoteric interview questions, and/or complete silly coding assignments in under an hour, that it will somehow magically enable those developers to coalesce as a team, work hard, solve difficult problems together, and release a viable product.

Raw intelligence is not everything. In fact, it is not even in the most important facet when hiring a software developer. Much more important are experience problem-solving and collaborate in a team environment. I have zero interest in the zen guru who sits at his desk all day churning out algorithms without involving his other team members in what he is doing - because other people need to understand what he is doing and contribute to it as well, if you want to create a successful organization (which will result in a successful product)

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 139

You are thinking far too small. Why would you park a car you don't own in your garage or change it's oil?

Autonomous cars won't be owned by individuals. They will owned by Uber and Lyft and other such companies.

Why would anyone go through the expense and hassle of owning their own car when I can use Uber to summon an autonomous car from it's fleet of thousands to arrive to pick me up in under a minute, and take me where I want. On-demand transport will be orders of magnitude cheaper than owning a vehicle because there isn't the cost of a driver to pay anymore, so the cost of booking a ride will be substantially less.

This is the real paradigm shift of autonomous cars.

Comment Re:I'm confident 80% of posters didn't watch video (Score 1) 222

And in that case, you would simply use the bolt cutters on the door shackle the lock is attached to, which are likely very thin steel. Or you simply use your $10 crow bar to rip the door right off the door jamb.

Anyone who thinks padlocks protect anything have rocks in their head.

Comment Re:Padlocks are a deterrent (Score 1) 222

Oh yes, because someone who has no thefts planned will just be casually strolling down the street at 2 AM and see the master lock on your toolshed and decide "you know what? I have had enough of the straight and narrow, time to steal some hedge trimmers".

Yes, because that is how most thefts happen. They never happen with someone canvassing a neighbourhood and taking as many quick-win items as possible.

Why would anyone goof around trying to find a rock to break open your cheap $10 padlock to get at your worn out hedge trimmers when your neighbor likely has hundreds of dollars of stuff sitting out in the yard unsecured?

Home security is all about making your house MARGINALLY more difficult to steal from than the guy beside you - nothing more, and nothing less.

Comment Padlocks are a deterrent (Score 0) 222

These articles are so dumb.

Any padlock no matter how well engineered is simply a deterrent that can be foiled by a $20 pair of bolt cutters. No one is going to be screwing around with brass hammers or lockpicks to get into your stupid tool shed. If they want what you have locked up, they would simply use bolt cutters and be in and out in seconds. The idea that anyone is going to screw around scoping out Masterlock locks so they can tap them with brass hammers is ridiculous.

Padlocks, much like the fancy-pants locks on your house, are not going to keep anyone who REALLY WANTS IN out.

The whole point of locks is a DETERRENT, they are not pure security. They will keep out casual thieves, who will go onto the next house that has no locks at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings