Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:The IoT of now and the future. (Score 1) 35

This just goes to show you that even with a security-centric product like an alarm system, even basic security features cannot seem to be prioritized over cost or first to market.

You know, looking at their company history, I'd say they're a video-centric product, which some ass in marketing decided to start selling as a security-centric product.

"The RSI Videofied system has a level of security that is worthless," concluded the Cybergibbons team. "It looks like they tried something and used a common algorithm - AES - but messed it up so badly that they may as well have stuck with plaintext."

Sorry, that's not security. That's pretending you have a product that has any business being used in security.

Epic incompetence. Be that at the management or technical levels, it really doesn't matter.

Comment Re:Is this really as typical as it seems? (Score 1) 35

My guess would be that they were told to implement it in a certain way. They may have had objections but were overruled by managment.

To the consumer, incompetence by managerial decree is impossible to differentiate from incompetence technical design.

The product's security is shit. Why it's shit is irrelevant.

So, sure, blame whoever you want. The key thing is here that as many people as possible should be told the product is so terribly insecure as to defeat its entire purpose.

Unless, of course, actual security isn't the purpose. In which case it's doubly important to tell people not to use it.

Comment WTF??? (Score 2) 35

today we hear about an IoT smart home alarm system that works over IP. Made by RSI Videofied, the W Panel features no encryption, no integrity protection, no sequence numbers for packets, and a predictable authentication system. Security researchers who investigated the devices say, "The RSI Videofied system has a level of security that is worthless.

So, the makers of the "W Panel" are lazy, incompetent people who have no business making a security system? Or they're greedy, cheap people who have no business making a security system?

Blah blah blah Insecurity of Things written by people who are either incompetent or indifferent to security, yet another product which is more marketing than substance, and yet another product which sounds like it's utterly useless.

Tell you what, can we assume all IoT shit is broken, defective, and insecure ... and then only have the stories when someone builds one which isn't?

Yet another product created purely by the marketing and sales people, and stunningly incompetently done at the tech level.

They make know something about video. But apparently they don't know a damned thing about security. This is worse than vaporware ... this is a product which is so utterly unfit for the purposes it's being sold for as to be dangerous.

Comment Re:What about the children!?!?! (Score 0) 99

> At what point do people need to take responsibility for their actions or words?

The point at which they actually do real harm.

A bunch of butthurt SJWs getting upset enough to form a lynch mob is not sufficient justification.

The irony here is that it's the SJWs that are out to do something resembling a real crime here.

Comment Huh? (Score 4, Insightful) 106

learning the basics of programming, despite having no access to the vast educational resources on the internet

Bah, when I learned programming there weren't "vast educational resources on the internet".

It's been done.

Since when the hell have we reached the point of "zomg, someone learned something without teh intertubes"??

Because if other people haven't learned to basics of coding over the last few decades without the use of the internet, I'd be completely shocked. The internet is not a pre-requisite to learning, as much as people seem to think it is.

Comment Re:OK, so I can use it anyway I choose? (Score 1) 175

If they make it part of Unicode, they should lose all ability to tell me what I can do with that character.

If they wish to have "an emoji clause", then they should be getting told to piss off and go away now.

As I said ... either it's just a character, and they have no right to ever say anything about how that character is used ... or it's a trademark they wish to restrict, and it has no business being in unicode.

But letting corporations stake out parts of the unicode standard AND continue to tell us how we use those unicode characters simply cannot be made to work, because they're incompatible things.

Comment OK, so I can use it anyway I choose? (Score 1) 175

So if KitKat and Durex get their own emojis, then I can use those emojis any way I choose and without licensing or trademark considerations?

Because that's what happens when you put it into the standard code pages.

So I can put (KitKat)(Condoms)(Donkey)(TacoBell)(IceCream)(PartyHat)(Cigarette) ... and KitKat and Taco Bell have NO legal right to say anything about how I use that image, right?

That will be awesome, and I'm sure the marketing clowns will love what happens when they make their trademark part of a standard code set. Because if you make it part of my standard character set, you turn your trademark into something which anybody can use.

What you can't do is turn your trademark into a standard part of what is in Unicode and then demand I have restrictions on how I use that trademark.

So either they are idiots who plan on diluting their trademark. Or they are idiots who think they can put their trademark into a standard character set and have no control over how it is used.

We should NOT be putting corporate defined images into Unicode unless there is an understanding that what people then DO with those things is no longer under any control by the people who asked for it to be there.

Comment Re:Nothing New - not very smart (Score 1) 171

> The concept of the Sharing economy is stupid at its core.
You're begging the question.

Co-operation is not stupid; it is an _optimization._ Pooling resources so that those in need have access that they might not normally have. But I guess you would rather be a selfish asshole. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

> Every sharing economy is based upon an outside requirement
Nonsense. Counter proof: The Amish.

Just because most men are to stupid to value the spiritual truth of "You receive what you give", and "Treat others how you want to be treated" in spite of man's obsessive path of destruction, this in no way negates man's potential to live a harmonious and in unity with all things.

At some point war will seem as archaic as slavery, along with money. The whole definition of wealth is based upon a false premise: There is never enough.

~2022: The greatest discovery: We are not alone
~2024: The greatest tragedy: World War 3

Comment Re:Moving jobs is often the only way to get a payr (Score 1) 171

The same holds true in the game dev industry too. Switching jobs roughly about every ~2 years is the most effective way to get a pay raise.

If companies want to stop complaining about lack of "retention" then they need to realize they are part of the problem with people gaming the system.

Comment Re: At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 1) 171

> What has socialism done to give it such a horrible name?

Robbing from Paul to pay Peter.

The problem in America is that there is a _perception_ of socialism == communism which is anathema to (free market) capitalism.

Ironically the US _is_ communist; it is just never _labeled_ as such, but the facts, sadly, speak for themselves:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

For more details see:
* http://laissez-fairerepublic.c...

Comment Re:thats strange (Score 2) 144

But those worse figures wouldn't be what VW advertised, they would be advertising the better 'regular' numbers.

And then you would demonstrate you don't know the law around those numbers.

Car makers have ZERO option except to publish the EPA approved numbers. They MUST publish the EPA numbers. The problem is the official EPA numbers are meaningless, derived from a fairly old process, and not indicative at all of actual mileage figures.

So, using those EPA numbers, hybrid owners have been really annoyed to find they're not getting anywhere NEAR the mpg they've been told -- because the hybrids were measured using the old and not-very-useful formula. Similarly, 15+ years ago, I knew people with diesel VWs. Those cars regularly got more mpg than they could advertise, because for those cars the formula was fairly useless in the real world as well.

The important thing here is that, right or wrong, high or low ... car makers can only legally give their mpg numbers based on an EPA formula which is, effectively, an estimate based on a calculation. If they tried to use other numbers they would get into trouble.

VW would advertise based on the only number they're allowed to. They can't cherry pick the ones they like; which means you could get significantly worse or better than the EPA figure. Even if the EPA figure is pretty much known to be meaningless and out of date.

Comment Re: At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 5, Informative) 171

You ended up in the gulag right along with the rightists you helped to put there.

Last June, I was in Sweden and Finland. I looked for gulags and couldn't find any. Maybe they hide them under all the hospitals and universities that are free for everyone.

In the good old USA, on the other hand...

Comment Re:Missing the point a bit? (Score 1) 120

I'm not really in the target audience; but I know that sage, at least, can optionally use sage as a frontend to mathematica. I don't know how the feature sets compare; but if you are using the sage web interface it is pretty painless to interact with a copy of mathematica installed on the sage server; instead of, or in addition to, the OSS tools that it works with.

It may just be added complexity, there may be something that mathematica handles particularly brilliantly that the parent poster has in mind; but it shouldn't be terribly unpleasant done over the network unless your problem is computationally expensive enough that it would crush the rPi whether done locally or remotely.

Comment Re:The treaty says no such thing. (Score 1) 200

I'm not really sure how much staking-out of high ground is even possible until one gets closer to economic realization. Even if some treaty said that "Any touching of the asteroids is forbidden forever, with utter seriousness", one could safely enough do the R&D necessary to make grabbing them and chopping them up more practical; basically all the capabilities you'd need for asteroid mining can also be used for satellite launch, automation/robotics, improved astronomy and telescopes, and similar warm and fuzzy applications. The astronomy stuff would mostly fall under 'pure science', unless you can convince somebody that it will help detect ICBMs; but launch capabilities and improved robotics and remotely automated process research have a variety of plausible commercial applications even if the asteroids are off the table.

On the other side of the coin, highflown expressions of legal principle are usually given a great deal of latitude until they actually conflict with the interests of the nations that you need to sign and obey them. So long as the prospect is sufficiently science-fiction, anyone willing to spend a lot of time hounding UN delegates is more or less free to write whatever they want. Were somebody to step up to the table with a vaguely plausible plan, however, it's hard to imagine that they'd have much trouble finding a country large enough to be able to ignore the consequences and more than willing to do so in exchange for a cut of the take.

It seems to me that team lawyer wins more or less by default so long as the implementation isn't worked out(both because it won't actually be happening; and because there will be relatively little resistance to opining against it); but team mining will win more or less by default if they can actually make it cost effective; since laws national and international are bent, broken, or rewritten all the time for markedly less profitable(and much more ghastly) ventures.

Until that time, the posturing is symbolic(either banning the practice or laying claim to rocks you aren't already on course to intercept). If the law says nobody can do it; that will change once somebody concludes that they can turn a profit by doing it; and if I get myself crowned God Emperor of the Kupier belt now; I'll still have to get my tech up and running before somebody else does, or the claim will do me little good.

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill