Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 1) 412

by dAzED1 (#49179793) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?
there are no "white" pixels on your screen. There's a backlight, sure, but that's applied to the entire screen, to adjust brightness. Color saturation at extremely high levels is black. At extremely low levels, it's white. That there is blue, is immaterial - give it extreme low color saturation with even just blue, it becomes white. There is an extreme difference between seeing something in person, and seeing something on a computer monitor where two degrees of artificial filtration are occurring due to technological limitations. And for the record, I saw blue and the brown/orange color used in the old cammo. I didn't see white :P

Comment: Re:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 1) 412

by dAzED1 (#49153471) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?
given that a color sensor on a digital camera is only sensing RGB (sometimes 1 or 2 more...) and that most monitors are only doing the same....just what would you expect white or grey to be, in the end? How would it be "captured" as an image if not by a sensor which can only detect R, G, or B?

Comment: Re:Is that really a lot? (Score 1) 280

by dAzED1 (#49147895) Attached to: Drones Cost $28,000 Per Arrest, On Average
police aren't crime prevention, that's silly. We're not in minority report yet. Police catch people who have already committed a crime and, in some cases, are still in the act of a crime. If police do a single thing to a person who hasn't yet committed a crime, the police are doing something wrong (and are potentially themselves committing a crime). Boarder patrol, on the other hand, has as their entire purpose...patrolling the boarder. If someone is in Mexico still, then boarder patrol can (and should) do nothing to them. If they have crossed, then only then is being apprehended an option. Since there are currently lots of people crossing the boarder, we're not in a situation where boarder crossings are eliminated and the agents are just there to continue preventing new crossings. What you're saying doesn't make any sense, and your examples are just making it worse.

Comment: Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... (Score 1) 53

by dAzED1 (#49142207) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies
I can tell you as someone who has a hosts file with all the various facebook host names I can come up with, that a whole bunch of the internet has those farking buttons. So yeah, "people used by facebook" - not "people who use facebook" - going to a website that has facebook content forced onto it isn't "using" facebook

Comment: 1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month... (Score 1) 53

by dAzED1 (#49141047) Attached to: Facebook's Colonies
Facebook might have intercepted traffic from a goodly number of people via the stupid content that they inject at so many places, but 1.39B people didn't "use" Facebook...that many might have been used by Facebook, but that's a different thing. I also highly doubt a quarter of the population of the planet was on Facebook last month. How can they imagine to justify such metrics? Is making such ridiculous claims the only reason Facebook is able to stay in business? Since when do bots, people using multiple accounts, people who don't have accounts and who have multiple computers (thus multiple footprints in their snooping-people-who-don't-have-accounts nonsense) all count as individual people? Why is what a "person" means such a complicated issue these days? Is there a word which still means what that word meant a decade ago? (end rant)

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 449

by dAzED1 (#49087635) Attached to: Credit Card Fraud Could Peak In 2015 As the US Moves To EMV
I'm not overestimating it - the only usefulness they'd have, is if they could do that, and that's the hollywood version of it. If I have to take my card out of my wallet and tap it individually, why the hell not just do it more securely as a contact card, since you've made me go through the trouble at that point? Contactless cards have already been demonstrated to be hackable. You can keep calling it "snake oil" all you want, but having to call and contest it is a hassle, as is losing $50 for some people. If you want to blow off proven hacks, just for a moment consider the possibility that you're the one not looking at the security issue the right way.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 2) 449

by dAzED1 (#49084109) Attached to: Credit Card Fraud Could Peak In 2015 As the US Moves To EMV
except for the fact that many of the current (and EMV compliant) cards still offer the magstrip fallback info FROM THE RFID ITSELF, because...stupid (see the many hacking demonstrations of such cards). And as others have pointed out, most of the RFID systems don't require a pin. And I also don't want to deal with letting a machine pick which of the 6 cards in my "wallet" I want to use to pay with, since a contactless tap won't tell the difference. Yes, I have 3 different Visas, 2 AMEXs, and a MC. And that's not at all unusual. I really really hate, on a security and convenience level, that the RFID "contactless" stuff is being pushed so hard on unwilling people.

Comment: Re:Thought process (Score 1) 227

Google also says "we may access, and collect technical information from or about, televisions, set-top boxes, computer and network hardware and software, modems, or other systems or devices used in connection with Fiber" and "We may also obtain and use information about our Fiber users from outside sources for marketing purposes (such as commercially available demographic, geographic, or interest information)" - just what I need, the people who send me junk mail into my mailbox, having an inroad to targeted advertising during my web browsing experience. I know, I know, then don't use google fiber. That's not the question. The question is why is AT&T getting harshed for it? Because they have bad customer service? Have you never had a technical issue with your gmail account, and tried to get help? It doesn't happen.

Comment: Re:Thought process (Score 1) 227

*sigh* That's easy enough to stop...but not if they're my ISP, and not if as a term for being my ISP I have to have a google account, and not if they trace all the devices which get plugged into the router (as their statement describes). Now, despite my best intents to block all sorts of traffic, not allow third party cookies, clear everything every time the browser is closed, route all garbage traffic to 0.0.0.0, etc - they'll have my home address, and real info. "Then don't get google fiber" you say - that's not the question. The question is, why you think - given they're stating they'll collect this info - that what AT&T is doing, is any different. Why harsh AT&T, but not google? I know, I know, "we trust google more" - not after uber, I don't. Not after several of the other shiaty things they've done recently, showing true evil and corruption. I mean really, uber bragged about using burner phones to set up false pickups for Lyft drivers, and said it was just good "capitalism" and "competition" - and you trust them?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...