Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 1) 239

1) They won't lock you in a rubber room, that's s silly idea. People take home amputated body parts all the time. Usually small ones, such as teeth.

2) But they might arrest you for improper disposal of human remains. There is a difference between the government telling what you can and can not do, and a company telling you.

Comment Re:Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 2) 239

It's in the definition of the word SALE.

If I buy something I OWN it. That means I get to do with it what I want, barring government restrictions. The shcmuck that sold it to me does not have the right to say "HEY! You can't DO THAT!"

They gave up that right when they sold it to me.

When I sell you a house, I can't then complain and say "Now wait a second, I may have sold you that house, but it's still mine and I don't like that new garage you are building!"

Comment Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 5, Insightful) 239

If they want to offer a lease (with the right of the customer to return the leased object to the legal owner at no cost to the leasee), that's one thing.

But if you own something, you have all legal rights to not just repair but to modify as well. The most the manufacturers should be able to do is cancel the warranty on modification.

Comment Trust (Score 4, Insightful) 199

We all know we can trust google (owner of Nest) to:

1) Respect our privacy

2) Ignore/Fight NSA warrants to let them use the Nest to look into your home with the light turned off.

3) Write perfect code so that crackers/hackers will never get in and play with it.

On second thought, these things should be sold with camera covers.

Comment Several issues (Score 2) 252

1) The internet is a global phenomena and needs some kind of global policing to stop this. They don't need huge powers - merely being able to cut off internet service and accounts

2) Some of it comes from companies acting really stupidly. The cable, power, Twitter etc. really did a BAD job handling the attacks and should have done a lot more to fix the situation. In particular, the 'services for the deaf' loopholes need to be fixedas this is a common abuse.

3)We need to admit that recently, there are a multitude of ways to steal/borrow people's Identity and we change government laws to account for this. Offer name/ID change services from the government, that require the participants to give DNA, fingerprint, photo, and signature (to avoid criminals abusing it), then issue new names and ID numbers linked to duplicates of the real data with certain key facts removed so it can't be back traced. You lose your old fair-weather friends, but can give you real family/best friends the new bio data, on the condition they give it out to nobody.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 260

Someone in accounting wants a promotion. His job has nothing to do with the sales, all he does is control costs. The better a job he does, the better his bonus. So he tries to cut everything to the bone.

Which means the real problem is his boss. His boss has put saving money above getting the best employees and cares less about retention/hiring costs/PR then he does about his budget.

Comment Re:PASSWORDS (Score 1) 491

The two factor capablility makes it more secure, not less. Short passwords are easier to remember than longer passwords, assuming you are not doing something stupid.

The other factor does not have to be your phone, it can be a token. More importantly, if it is done correctly on your phone, they don't get your phone number - that would be stupid for reasons you mentioned and has NOTHING to do with what I was describing.

For token, think of a small USB device you plug in to your PC that has a very long password.

Comment Re:Worse than clickbait ! (Score 2) 386

1) It is very, very, hard to stop a decentralized terrorist agency.

2) The CIA etc. are very, very good at identifying leadership, money, and top players. That is what their intel does.

3) When they do stop an attack, they do NOT broadcast it. Instead they try to backtrack it the higher ups, taking them out. They can't do this if they tell the news.

4) We are sacrificing many rights for false security. Airline crap is a prime example. Not only does it not work, but it is costly. Similarly, they are unconstitionaly taking way too much information about American citizens and sharing it with other agencies. But that doesn't mean the security agencies are doing nothing. They are more effective than people realize.

I would agree that we have given them too much importance and made too many sacrifices. But when you denigrate their real, effective, efforts, you hurt your own argument.

Comment Wording indicates the problem (Score 4, Insightful) 137

The fact they felt it necessary to put the word lawful in that description is kind of like a mobster using the phrase "legitimate businessman". Real legitimate businessmen call themselves 'businessmen'. They don't need to add the word legitimate, because they are legitimate. You don't add the word 'lawful' unless deep down in your heart, you have questions about it being lawful.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.