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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Not lives, insurance company profits (Score 1, Informative) 186

by doas777 (#47334121) Attached to: Larry Page: Healthcare Data Mining Could Save 100,000 Lives a Year
In the end, this data will only be used to restrict care by algorithm, saving insurance company profits, at the expense of those lives which were statistically 'inconvenient'. Only with a single payer system could this achieve the ends Mr Page cites. My guess is far more than 100K lives will be lost in persuit of this new profit.

Comment: Re:This is NOT a net neutrality issue (Score 1) 337

by doas777 (#47211787) Attached to: Cisco Opposes Net Neutrality

Thats not really true. one of the principal of NN is protocol neutrality, and QOS based on assumptions about protocol usage is one of the major items a neutral network cannot allow.

For instance, Comcast and several other ISPs got warnings and fines from the FCC over bittorrent management policies that were downright discriminatory.

If we can't choose our own protocols, or develop new ones without buyin from the ISPs, then their management practices can have a chilling affect on consumer choice, protocol development, and will raise the barrier for entry to new services that implement their own protocols as they see fit.

Comment: WRONG (Score 1) 188

by doas777 (#46787197) Attached to: Heartbleed Sparks 'Responsible' Disclosure Debate

If this hadn't been publicly disclosed, it would have just gone into the 0-day libraries which Intelligence agencies around the globe have been amassing. We'd never learn we were vulnerable, and their ability to impersonate and eavsdrop would have increased beyond any reasonably-articulatable expectation.

Responsible disclosure to sufficient parties to address the issue would also expose it to potential attackers, and there will always be players with need-to-know who won't be identified for notification.

Comment: Re:actors across series (Score 1) 276

by doas777 (#46535797) Attached to: Interviews: Ask J. Michael Straczynski What You Will
The farscape/SG crossovers always had the feel of "throwing a dog a bone" after the dog's show was canceled/completed, and I blame that entirely on SyFy. They were unashamedly trying to use the stars existing clout to gain mind-share.

One example I can think of in B5 is Bestor (Walter Koenig aka Chekov), but he stands on his own, as did McGuyver in SG1. Chriton and Erin did not hold up nearly so well in alternate roles. I'm primarily thinking of people who played small, one-time parts (so perhaps Katsulas was not so great an example). Patricia Tallman for instance played many background roles in Startrek, but either did not speak, or was an alien.

Comment: actors across series (Score 5, Interesting) 276

by doas777 (#46535191) Attached to: Interviews: Ask J. Michael Straczynski What You Will

I've often noticed that if an actor played a speaking character in one scifi series, while looking mostly humanish, any other series they are in they have a pretty concealing costume. For Instance Mr Katsulas played a rather humanish Tomalok on Startrek, whereas his G'Kar had a pretty intense costume.

Is this done intentionally, or just coincidence?

Comment: Re:Keyword; simulated (Score 2) 68

by doas777 (#46345081) Attached to: Scientists Demonstrate Virus That Spreads Across Wi-Fi Access Points
Good distinctions, but a point of clarification. Worms are self contained and target Systems (OSs, embedded devices of particular make, etc). They contain all the code necessary to spread from system to system using whatever media they are designed for. Viruses target applications with communciations capabilities. A spam virus for instance generally targets an email client for instance. the virus requires the vulnerable application to transmit itself from vulnerable system to vulnerable system however; that code is not contained in the virus. Viruses do not require human interaction as a rule (some do, some don't). Automatic application updates and hardened code on the few types of applications capable of supporting a virus, have largely made them extinct. Trojans DO require human intervention, but are the most flexible. Worms and Viruses are peer-to-peer only, whereas Trojans are client-server. For instance Drive By Download attacks from malicious web sites are now the infection-vector of choice these days, because it requires as little human interaction as possible. The malware described here, would be a worm, because it is spreading of its own accord, and does not target a specific communications application.

Comment: resume 2005 levels (Score 1) 564

by doas777 (#45921233) Attached to: PC Shipments In 2013 See the Worst Yearly Decline In History
in 2004, most people didn't need a PC, and one unit would service 5 or more people. then there came facebook and services like it, and with it, PC sales soared. people only used them to consume content however, so for the most part, a general purpose PC was more machine than they needed.

Now that we have Smartphones, and tablets, and internet connected TVs, and all manner of other cheap devices for consumption, only the content creators need full PCs.

The desktop isn't going away, but the inflated market must shrink back to its previous levels before the sales numbers will stop falling.

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker

Working...