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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Seems reasonable (Score 1) 81

I agree with your post. I'll just add that a big problem with IT security is that companies cannot rely on the same level of protection from governments in preventing intrusion.

I am in IT, but not in Security. However, I don't need to know security to know that a large part of the problem is that money fixes problems, and nobody wants to spend the money needed to fix the problems. Further, problems are pushed down to the people least able to fix them (consumers) more often than not.

These security breaches are going to be even more prevalent and no amount of security will ever resolve them completely. The real fix, IMHO, is to assume that all this info is publicly traded, even when it shouldn't be, and work the problem from there. IF the systems were in place that made assumptions such as this, the problem is much easier to define, and fix.

Comment: Re:Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 131

by cayenne8 (#49782549) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

I get what you're saying, but this IS the problem with defining an artist these days. Money is THE priority. When that happens, the ability to express yourself beyond a mathematically calculated attention span becomes impossible.

I agree. A true artist makes their art for themselves FIRST and enjoys the fact that others like it too second.

Of course with rock music, it also plays to helping ugly guys get laid too, but that's another thread.

But in most cases, trying to pander to the money or follow it over art is in the not very long term a failure.

Take Led Zeppelin. Sure they made a LOT of money, but that didn't seem the reason for their musical choices. It was what THEY wanted to explore and convey. It happened to be of such quality that they sold a lot of it, and continue to do so after all these years.

They also went out and gave the people what they wanted in the form of live performances. In those days, your ticket got you usually nearly a 3 hour concert, and it wasn't lip synched....no auto tune, and often it was improvised on the spot. Sure you would get some flub notes....especially with Jimmy trying to squeeze 50M notes into two bars at times, but hey...they gave you all they could. You don't see that much anymore.

But if you are good, you will get the money....but your art should be for YOU first, and if it is worthy the crowd will follow and pay you for it.

Comment: Re:Well there's the problem... (Score 1) 191

by cayenne8 (#49782449) Attached to: Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy

"Otherwise public transportation doesn't fit into my lifestyle". See, the problem is that you are doing it backwards. If you want to be "eco-friendly" and "green" and all that other crap, you have to fit your lifestyle into "the good things."

While I have nothing against being green I'm not really willing to go out of my way to be green. If it is convenient, sure. But I've lived my life to this point enjoying certain things and a certain lifestyle and with life being so short, I'm not willing to put myself out for some benefit I'll never see.

Comment: Re:Trolls serve a purpose. (Score 1) 61

by anagama (#49782365) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Patent Troll

I wouldn't be so sure that IP will evaporate -- the US Fed. government is still economically powerful, but having decided to allow offshoring of most work, there isn't much left for America aside from focusing on a patent-troll/RIAA-ish economy. I'm guessing it will use its economic and military power (both the local military called police, and the foreign military branches) to push IP rights along for decades to come, because that is what the people who finance elections want.

Comment: Context (Score 2) 35

by Bruce Perens (#49782349) Attached to: SpaceX Cleared For US Military Launches

This ends a situation in which two companies that would otherwise have been competitive bidders decided that it would cost them less to be a monopoly, and created their own cartel. Since they were a sole provider, they persuaded the government to pay them a Billion dollars a year simply so that they would retain the capability to manufacture rockets to government requirements.

Yes, there will be at least that Billion in savings and SpaceX so far seems more than competitive with the prices United Launch Alliance was charging. There will be other bidders eventually, as well.

Comment: Re:Already has (Score 1) 131

by drinkypoo (#49782261) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

What about in a live setting if the singer is tired or sick and needs help delivering a 'usual' performance as opposed to trying to record a performance that just isn't there? Isn't that what they were made for initially?

Yes. That's the idea. Still true, though. Vocal range can change from day to day.

Comment: Seems like bad PR handling... (Score 1) 268

While the people in this video are utter morons(even if you have actually verified the existence of a safety cut-off on a dangerous piece of hardware; Why would you test it on yourself?); Volvo's response seems...tactically unwise.

There may be good reasons for the 'pedestrian detection' feature to be an extra purchase(more sensors, more DSP, recouped development costs, etc.) or it may just be a single bit in the firmware waiting to be flipped in a magic screwdriver upgrade; but either way, "Yeah, we have a feature that would have prevented that accident; but it didn't because we prefer to charge more for it." seems like the sort of statement that is likely to attract the wrong sort of scrutiny.

If you admit to having the mature capability; how long before failing to include it is negligence? Will you be able to keep it as an add-on, rather than a standard feature like antilock braking? Are you absolutely sure that your sales people didn't misrepresent the capabilities of what they sold? and so on.

It seems as though they'd be much better off just issuing a flat 'don't do stupid irresponsible things' and quietly dropped the matter.

Comment: One possible way forward... (Score 1) 81

In thinking about it, and how much of a clusterfuck this is likely to be; it struck me that there might actually be a way to restructure the incentives to provide some kind of hope:

Historically, 'retail' insurance, for individuals and little stuff, was mostly statistical with a side of adversarial: Aside from a few token offers of a free fitbit or whatever, the insurer basically calculates your expected cost as best they can based on your demographics and history and charges you accordingly, and tries to weasel out of anything too unexpectedly expensive.

However, for larger endeavors, (the ones I'm most familiar with are utility and public works projects, there may well be others), sometimes a more collaborative model reigned: the insurer would agree to pay out in the event of accidents, jobsite deaths, and so on, as usual, and the client would pay them for that; but the insurer would also provide guidance to the project, best practices, risk management, specialist expertise on how to minimize the number of expensive fuckups on a given type of project, expertise that the customer might not have, or have at the same level. This was mutually beneficial, since the customer didn't want accidents, the insurer didn't want to pay for accidents, and everyone was happiest if the project went smoothly.

In a case like this; the incentives might align better if the contractor were were delivering both the security and the breach insurance: this would immediately resolve the argument over whether the policyholder was negligent or the insurer needs to pay up: if the IT contractor got the systems hacked through neligence, that's their fault; and if they secured the systems; but a hack was still pulled off, that's where the insurance policy comes in.

This scheme would run the risk of encouraging the vendor to attempt to hide breaches small enough to sweep under the rug; but it would otherwise align incentives reasonably neatly: an IT management/insurance hybrid entity would internalize the cost of the level of security it manages to provide(more secure presumably means greater expenditures on good IT people; but more secure also means lower effective cost of providing insurance, since you can expect fewer, smaller, breaches; and fewer, smaller, claims). If the equilibrium turns out to be 'slack off, pay the claims', that suggests that the fines for shoddy data protection need to be larger; but the arrangement would induce the vendor to keep investing in security until the marginal cost of extra work on IT was higher than the marginal gain from lower expected costs in claims; so the knob to turn to get better security is relatively accessible.

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin

Working...