Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:It's a Limited Threat Model Definition, not DRM (Score 1) 204

And the same thing applies to people who don't want the message to disappear. If the message is important enough to warrant a self-destruct timer, it inevitably turns all recipients into uncooperative people.

+1 Insightful

Why do I only get mod points on boring days?
Well, at least here's a +2 for the AC...

Comment Re: Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 204

It seems strange, but even right now, some software will prevent you from modifying photos of certain things (Photoshop and hundred dollar bills for example).

Strange. why would it prevent me MODIFYING the $100 image - making it even clearer that my printout is NOT real money?

Well, another reason for using gimp then.

I imagine it's so that you can't alter the serial numbers; which you would want to do so that your counterfeit money will not be traceable to the person who had the real C-notes you copied. (Seems overly paranoid to me, since people pass real bills of this size all the time. Anyone else have a better theory?)

Comment Re: Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 204

[...] two other features. One is public. The other — while chatting with the head of R&D at the US Mint during a conference, I brought it up. He would only deny it, but a fresh sample of 15 is statistically significant. I checked again recently and they've quit using it, as it wears off.


No, he said they quit using it.

Cocaine is one hell of a feature.

Comment Re:"Automatic" Weapon? (Score 1) 312

It is illegal to construct or possess a gun that is "readily convertible" into an automatic (more than one round per trigger pull); any such device is classified as an NFA weapon (machine gun). A common example is a rifle that can, with only a small amount of milling or other work, accept an autosear. It is also already established that a solenoid (or in some cases, a piece of string) turns a gun into a machine gun. In the case of this drone, there is both the automation on the trigger (which is enough), plus the fact that changing a line or two of the software. These are federal laws; it's the ATF that will get involved.

I always thought there was also a law against arming any aircraft?

The ATF regulations and determinations often seem ridiculous and unreasonable; classifying a piece of string as a machine gun; saying that holding a gun a certain way makes it into a machine gun, etc. The laws and regulations and cases in this area are complex and seem arbitrary. Adding "with a drone" into the mix isn't going to be pretty, either.

When the guy supposedly checked into whether or not he would be breaking any laws, unless he consulted a specialist lawyer in this area, he was probably totally incompetent to make a determination and just kidding himself (and his father).

Comment Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 1) 334

But basic contract law fundamentally condradicts the notion of backcanceling. If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

You breached the part of your contract where you promised not to do what the insurer considers commercial driving. If you lied about it, it might also be insurance fraud, maybe even a crime.

Comment Re:Does Uber need executives in France? (Score 3, Informative) 334

they are protecting for the laws that exist that protect them, to be enforced. It's their rights. To be a taxi driver you need a pay a massive license fee, that's how it is. You can't just tell people you're a taxi driver and start making money, there's the insurances and all that, needed. Uber has NONE of it. If anything happens in a "uber taxi", you, your family and friends, essentially eat sh*t. Because not only was your using their illegal, they also don't any have sort of insurance that can protect you.

In the USA? Not quite.

Uber is not a taxi, it's a limo service. Limos are regulated in some (all?) states, but differently than taxis. You can't hail a limo on the street (or airport lane), you have to call them (phone or app) to specifically come to you. Limos don't have "medallions" and are not a limited quantity. The requirements for special driver's license, insurance, and so on, are different than taxis.

Uber provides significant insurance to it's drivers, and it's not "illegal" (at least not in the USA). And they do pay out on claims. Other tort arguments seem unlikely. HOWEVER: When you drive for Uber, your own PERSONAL insurance policy is probably void (most carriers). In fact, if you have EVER used your vehicle for Uber, your insurance is voided -- even if your claim had nothing to do with any Uber trip. If you get hit on the way to the grocery store or injure someone on your way to your day job, your nasty surprise is that you had no valid insurance at that time. Because you once on another occasion used your vehicle for a purpose that totally voids your insurance.

When you call up an insurance company these days to report an accident, the very first words out of their mouth are: "Have you ever used your vehicle for Uber, Lyft, or anything like that?" Because if they find out (and, being insurance investigators, they WILL find out) that the answer is "Yes", then they will inform you that at that time, you voided all your insurance. You Are Fucked.

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the five year period will begin.