Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Not impressed (Score 1) 35

I saw the first episode and while I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I've watched every episode from all the series and most of them multiple times, I couldn't watch more than about 20 minutes of this. I'm not particularly picky (e.g., I liked Voyager and even the first two seasons of TNG and all of Enterprise) but this was unbearable. And I thought my threshold for science fiction movies in general is rather high. I'm still willing to give it a try if someone thinks otherwise.

Comment Re:Koran 9:29 (Score 1) 253

So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government.

The same can be said for the Mafia fighting people who don't pay protection money. I'm astonished that you think this is a defense of Islam.

I'm astonished that you think I'm defending Islam. Being the nerd that I am, only pointing at the inaccuracy of the parent's post.

Comment Re:Koran 9:29 (Score 1) 253

Koran 9:29 is one of the last non-abrogated verses of the Koran and states:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

This aya replaces pretty much everything else in Islam. It is amazing that so many Slashdotters have so many opinions on Islam without understanding some of the fundamental doctrines of Islam (which Islamists try to keep hidden from you).

The context of this scripture can be deduced from the last part, "until they give the jizyah". Jazyah is tax from non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (Muslims are supposed to give a different type of tax to the state). So it in fact doesn't imply fight against all non-believers, only those who do not pay the "non-Muslim" tax to a Muslim government. But, please don't let facts or logic guide you. They are just minor inconveniences.

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

>> When Does Software Start Becoming Malware?

When I didn't ask to install it. Toolbars (like this), automatic update services (that are silently added) and anything else that impacts my resources or distributes my information in a way I didn't choose is malware, IMHO.

Looking at you, Windows 10...

I'm a bit curious. Would you include Chrome in this classification? Just about every other free download from most sites has Google Chrome with the check-box already checked.

Comment Re:WiFi is STILL a bad idea for a POS system (Score 4, Interesting) 75

It's amusing that 25 years later, you would be crazy to set up a POS system with just a WiFi network connection.

Even if you're not worried about wireless reliability, security, and interference issues (and you should be!), it will still never process credit card transactions as fast as a Gigabit wired connection.

That is a very uninformed comment.

POS terminals don't stream high definition videos. They transmit small financial transactions that are hardly a few kilo bytes, even with the EMV chip cards of today. Until the recent past with magnetic stripe transactions, the data used to be only a few hundred bytes.

The advantage of a Gigabit wired connection over a 10Mbps wireless network is primarily of bandwidth. The wired network might offer a little less latency, but nothing that would make a measurable difference in transaction processing speed in this target environment.

Furthermore, the POS terminals would only use the wireless network within the store to send transactions to a local server. From there on, the transactions are sent to the issuer bank over a variety of inter-connected networks and servers, generally speaking. So the local wireless network is only involved in fraction of the overall lifecycle of a financial transactions.

Comment Re:whoopie (Score 1) 556

There's is no false dichotomy here. God, as in a "supreme, all knowing being", MUST have control and knowledge over how his/her commands will be interpreted.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves either the second point or else that God does not have control and hence is not a "supreme being".

If the "translation was wrong" and god was a supreme being, then that is what god's intent was in the first place.

If God was a supreme being and he/she meant it to be interpreted in the "best possible way" then this IS the way God meant it to be interpreted.

Just as us mortal beings, God can't have his/her cake and eat it too!

Comment Re:Well.. (Score 1) 292

And how do you know Google hasn't exploited anything?

And should I now actively prevent any RF signals leaking out of my monitor as well? I guess it is common knowledge that these can be detected from the street. It is a simple thing to surround my house with an RF cage. If I don't do this, that means it was my choice to "stand naked in a room with open windows" and Google would be well within their rights if they choose to record my screen images, passwords, emails, etc.

Comment Re:Well.. (Score 1) 292

Well isn't that the point? That people who have a wireless network at home have the same expectation of privacy? Just because they are not tech savvy doesn't mean that it is their intent to broadcast their internet browsing, email, chats, etc.

They absolutely do not think they are standing naked in a room with open windows. Google KNOWS that they don't know what they are doing and just goes ahead and exploits the situation.

Comment Re:Well.. (Score 1) 292

So if Google can use directional microphones to listen in to my private conversations, I'm at fault since I didn't "sound-proof" my home. Or if Google can use thermal imaging to take pictures inside my closed doors, I'm at fault since I'm the one broadcasting all information on the IR band!

You really believe that?

Comment Re:Well.. (Score 1) 292

So if I'm stupid enough or ignorant enough to not lock my doors, it is my problem and not that of Google should they decide to come in and have a look-see? Or if I didn't cover my windows with blinds or drapes, it is my problem that google peeks inside and takes high resolution images? Or if my electricity and gas meters are visible from the street, it is my fault that Google should take readings of my energy consumption every hour?

Substitute Google with something else to your liking (voyeur, peeping tom, pedophile, etc.) and see if this makes any difference.

Comment Re:Well.. (Score 1, Flamebait) 292

Google IS at fault. Google has to know that most people using computers and wireless routers don't have a clue what exposure they are risking. Google has to know that if the same people understood the implications and if actually presented with a choice and a means to do so, they would clamp down their network.

At the very least, Google is guilty of exploiting the ignorance of an overwhelming majority of the population.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.