Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Don't even need to board it ... (Score 1) 400

I'm a frequent flier, and the extended search happens regardless of watchlists. I get it randomly about every 30 flights - 2-3 times a year. It's a bit annoying as it takes me out of the priority line, but the extra search is not really that extensive - a palm check for chemicals and a few extra questions.

Granted, frequent fliers know how to expedite these things: look bored, tired, and very slightly annoyed. Have everything exactly in order. Fly carry-on. Have your FF badge visible and be part of TSA-pre or whatever you can find.

Comment Re:Why is this news? (Score 1) 284

This is not minor news. This was a major news item when the long-form was made optional, and it's been a plank of the Liberal platform to reinstate it.

Statistics Canada is a point of pride in Canada, albeit minor. That organization has been referenced internationally as an example of how to collect and provide information for detailed governance. When the long-form was made optional, the Harper government came out and said that an optional long-form would be nearly statistically identical in results, yet provide privacy to those who wish it. The head of statscan resigned over this.


So yeah, bringing it back is pretty recognized here.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 4, Interesting) 706

This is a bit like saying you're going to send someone to jail for getting rear-ended waiting at a traffic light.

I totally agree, data security is a big deal - but I think "gross negligence" probably covers the fact that someone did not put proper security in place. Beyond that, it's an arms race. You can't hold someone responsible for being hacked, unless they've demonstrated that they didn't even try to avoid it. Reasonable preventative measures.

The same reason you can't claim insurance when you don't have any locks on your house. But if they really want to, that moat and electric fence won't stop someone from breaking into your house.

Comment Re:Thanks to reader sleepypsycho for the poll idea (Score 2) 169

Timothy - this poll is interesting because it speaks to people's perception of themselves.

Slashdot actually has these statistics. It'd be really interesting to go back and run the numbers, and see if the polling is inline with reality. We don't often have a way to verify the accuracy of any poll - but in this case, we do.

Comment Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 5, Interesting) 84

I have yet to hear a coherent architectural justification for QUIC that makes sense... The reason Google pushes it is entirely *POLITICAL* this is the path of least resistance granting them full access to the TCP stack and congestion algorithms without having to work to build consensus with any other stakeholder.

Many years ago, in an earlier life, I tried to make changes through the IETF to an existing protocol. I was responsible for one of the major IRC servers, and still am though IRC is effectively in maintenance only. IRC is a shit protocol - really, embarrassingly bad. So I set up a conversation - grabbed the developers of all of the major clients and servers, and got us all on a mailing list to try to do something about it. We ALL knew it was bad, and we all knew it needed serious overhaul - if not a complete scrapping. We'd even fantasized about a non-tcp multipathing protocol that would be more appropriate for IRC. But like hell that was gonna happen.

This was a group of people that, for the most part, didn't make money from IRC. It was a hobby. We had no corporate agendas, no major impacts to our livelihoods, and the only constraint to implementation was our own time. In the six months we spent, we managed to publish one draft to the IETF. It expired and we effectively gave up. Building consensus is hard, time consuming, and quite honestly not worth the effort when you're talking about this kind of thing.

Google is in a position to just do it, and honestly, I'm fine with that. Otherwise everyone would pop up with an opinion, and nobody would get anywhere. That's why we haven't seen anything come up to rival TCP, even though TCP is pretty bad for a lot of applications.

The only point at which I'd have a problem is if their QUIC protocol isn't completely open and free, and totally unencumbered by intellectual property constraints (patents, etc). Otherwise, go for it - and give me a protocol api/sdk in C so I can give it a shot.

Comment Re:Fake, not practical (Score 1) 40

Actually, I can believe it. It's a demo, probably very carefully planned - but I can believe the tech.

First, the practical applications of the interface are not the primary concern. Granted, waving your arms around isn't a good interface - but that's not the point. The point is the overlay - positionally aligning 3D objects in the field of view. Having a way to interact with them is also useful, but not in a day to day sense. Keyboards and mice will still win for the standard type of interactions.

Example: if you're walking in the airport on the way to your flight, with handy personalized directions floating in three dimensions guiding you along the way and you get a phone call and choose to ignore it? A quick wave in front of your face to clear the notification is nonintrusive and simple - and you don't look like a putz doing it.

Think about what Oculus is capable of. Then add in infrared mapping a la kinect or a similar technology. And make the overlay transparent, rather than a straight LCD.

Also, that gun was sitting on the desk the entire time. It's a prop, and the system recognizes it. I'd bet it's also an input method, with a trigger if not other inputs.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Interesting) 221

Yup. Here's the key part of the comments:

Secret Service is not protecting the White House with adequate agents and uniformed officers and is not keeping up to date with the latest devices for detecting intruders and weapons of mass destruction

In other words, buy more stuff for more security theater. This is probably the same guy who thinks the TSA actually provides security.

Comment Re:Anthropometrics (Score 4, Informative) 819

The problem is twofold. I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window). The only thing that saves me from spending 10+ hours a week in huge amounts of discomfort due to the amount of space is my frequent flier status.. Those extra 5" of legroom are luxury when you travel as much as I do.

Comment Education does not qualified make... (Score 5, Interesting) 491

There's no conspiracy to push down wages - these are real complaints. The same problem exists in many fields - there's a difference between good people and qualified people. As a hiring manager, when I complain about finding qualified people, I mean people that can show, in an interview, that they're open to and reasonably good at learning. I've hired highschool dropouts (and am one myself) and PhD grads.

We need people that are in STEM because they WANT to be in STEM. Trying to get more people educated in a field by saying "we need more people with STEM degrees!" is like saying I need more people who know how to run. I don't want someone who knows how to run, I want someone who loves running.

Comment Re:Shockingly? (Score 4, Insightful) 185

I work in the technology space, where we're heavily investing in R&D. And we don't own a thing - it's all open source, apache software.

Fundamentally I think people are realizing that owning IP is a short-term strategy for many businesses. If the value you provide is entirely locked up in your IP - and not in your customer service and skills, eventually someone is going to come along with a cheaper or free version of your IP. Then your only advantage is the lock-in you already have.

In the long term, companies have to function based on their ability to support their customers - not just throw IP at them. This is especially true in software.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa