Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Vetting of apps? (Score 1) 246

The user should be able to lie and say yes, but actually not grant access,

Want access to my contacts sure, here is my fake contacts.
Want access to my phone calls sure, but it will look like I make none.
Want microphone access sure here is some random noise. ...

The problem with forcing a yes/no answer if you answer no you can't run the app, that means people will generally just say yes.

Comment Re:It means nothing (Score 1) 90

I didn't quite say what you said, what i said is you can legislate (especially against government agencies), but if you are not going to enforce it, what is the point of even more legislature that you are not going to enforce. What I understood you said is you can't legislate at all.

Then again I don't know why you where modded down, it wasn't rude or said just to get a negative reaction. And don't assume people hate you, I definitely don't, I don't even know you. Modding is a little bit random. When things like that happen to me I just blame it on chance, sure people may hate me but thinking that way only leads me to be upset, I have no real evidence either way, so it is best for my sanity to live in blissful ignorance rather than unhappy ignorance.

Comment Re:When you didn't ask to install it. (Score 1) 165

Most software bugs do not result blocking internet access or any virus like behavior, they may crash your game, they may not allow you to do particular thing in your application you are running. They don't generally send out key log information, allow a remote attacker to gain to your computer (sometimes they do but usually not), make your computer part of a DOS attach.

By the original definition

Any software is malware when it does something other than the user intended.

all software bugs are malware, because they probably do what the at least one user doesn't want. In fact, this definition is so broad that, even an application that has no bugs is probably defined as malware, if it has a single feature that the any user doesn't like, no matter how innocuous, e.g. uses a font that the user doesn't like.

Comment Re:When you didn't ask to install it. (Score 2) 165

The users best interest is far to vague, you could say the NSA spying on you is in the users best interest as well because they are trying to protect you. You could say selling your information to advertisers is in the users best interest because it lets you buy product that you want.

There needs to be a list of user rights that should not be violated unless granted explicit opt-in rights. Here is a list of some.

1. Right to privacy, no information should be recorded unless it is apparent to the so. So entering data in a form on a web page is ok, recording keystrokes when using your computer in your text editor is not.
2. Do not use the users computing resources, CPU, memory, bandwidth, for anything other than the stated intent of the applications.

Comment Re:Sounds a lot like systemd. (Score 1) 165

There is a difference between software that tracks, and collects information about you and redirects you to sights in order to gather advertising revenue, and software that implements functionality in a way that you don't agree with. When you implement something you have to choose a way implement it, some people may not agree with that implementation but does make it malware, choices have to be made. Systemd may have been the wrong choice but I don't believe it was a bad choice made out of malice, or a desire to make money of its users.

Comment It allways seemed likely to be the case. (Score 1) 283

Society tends to think that throwing money a problem will somehow improve things. Don't get me wrong up to a point it does, but after that there is very little return for dollar spent. And in most schools, in most first world countries that point has long since been reached especially ones that can afford computers for every student.

Currently computers are no replacement for the two way communication that happens when an actual person is teaching you.

Comment Re:Autonomous "Driving" needs to be truly driverle (Score 1) 247

You are right that a system that says ahhh you are about to crash into an on coming car human driver take control is unfeasible. However a car that says you are about to drive on a gravel road (or from the article road works), I can't handle that, you take control in 2 minutes. The key is that any situation the car cannot handle must allow plenty of warning.

That system may save lots of lives for the situation that it can handle until we can get cars that can handle any situation better than a human.

Comment Re:Ignorance? (Score 2) 237

You are right suggesting the universe is a computer simulation no more scientific than believing there is a god (unless you have a way to prove it). There is nothing wrong with thinking about alternatives. The problem comes when you base your actions that cannot prove or disprove, and force other people to believe your speculation. Or state it as the "gospel truth" when it is just speculation.

It may well be that I am imagining everybody else, but the moment I start killing other people because they are not really real it becomes a problem.

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 1) 244

I am not actually saying that working someone to death is not worse than just killing them. It might well be. I am saying the motive of greed is not as bad intentionally trying to kill someone, because you hate them.

To me a large part what drives how someone should be punished is what drives them to do it, e.g. if someone accidentally kill you then the punishment should be less than if they intentionally do it.

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal