Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A couple of things (Score 1) 488

-Keep every e-mail.

Keep your own backups of critical information (emails, files, notes, whatever), personal or project, in particular of your personal HR information.

Don't violate security policies doing this (i.e. Cloud services like Dropbox may not be acceptable for sensitive or classified information), but DVD-R / BD-R and USB flash drives make this cheap enough to do as an out-of-pocket expense if necessary.

Spend time organizing or keeping your information organized. Having lots of data / information "on one of these old hard drives" isn't helpful.

RAID is not a back-up strategy.

Comment: Re:Large change with app permissions (Score 4, Informative) 83

Older applications not targeting M, will show permissions at install time and be granted by default, but the user will be able to revoke them, the platform will just give empty data or fail.

... and for those concerned about old apps failing under those conditions, Cyanogenmod's privacy guard has been doing this for quite some time and I've never heard of an app failing because of it. So it's possible to do it in a safe fashion. Whether that's how Google has actually implemented it remains to be seen.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 390

You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?

What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.

If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 390

That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision

Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 2) 390

It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.

So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?

  If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.

Comment: Defective (Score 0, Flamebait) 390

Any vehicle that is capable of any kind of autonomous movement that doesn't include pedestrian (or dog, or cat, or cyclist) detection is defective, period.

Any auto manufacturer that makes such a vehicle is 100% liable for any deaths or injuries that happen during said autonomous movement, period.

This isn't rocket science. This should be considered "seat belt saves lives" level of mandatory.

Now, someone needs to get cracking with that recall...

Comment: Re:Maybe because security people are dicks? (Score 1) 150

by c (#49734495) Attached to: Survey: 2/3 of Public Sector Workers Wouldn't Report a Security Breach

Security's motto: We break stuff, put ALL the burden on the users, walk away AND we get paid for it!

This is pretty much what happens when "Security" is a separate business group. Security-oriented admin groups can usually manage to balance security versus operational requirements, but if your only job is making things more secure and there's zero penalty for making things non-functional, well... honestly, I'd probably do the same thing.

Comment: Sounds great! (Score 1) 91

by c (#49734445) Attached to: Tweets To Appear In Google Search Results

At least, assuming these tweets are ranked appropriately.

Down near the bottom, with the ad spammers.

But really... what the fuck, Google? The most "useful" kinds of tweets are the ones who reference the authoritative material that you'd want to see instead of any tweet about it. As a means to add to the page rank of good (i.e. referenced) pages tweets might be valuable, but otherwise twitter activity is pretty much the definition of irrelevant.

Comment: From the very title: "Towards a Speed of Light..." (Score 1) 221

For faster Internet they clearly wants more bits to move as photons, at the speed of light through fibre. Nothing is faster (latency, throughput, bandwidth), and all the nearby alternatives including microwave as more expensive and less reliable.

The organizations that had microwave towers for communications, namely telecommunication companies and media broadcasters, have long since migrated to a) satellite or b) fibre for their primary connections. The only microwave links that I know of locally (~100km) are small short-haul for local broadcasters (not-for-profit media broadcasters) and piece-wise legacy systems as backups to fibre loops. Latency, throughput, and operational costs are all factors.

More researchers who know nothing about electrical or RF engineering (both fields with over 100 years of development) making stupid shark with laser style claims. Or at least the people who are writing about their speculations, are making such stupid claims.

All constants are variables.

Working...