Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:No more OJ car chases (Score 1) 103

by hawguy (#49199371) Attached to: Laser Takes Out Truck Engine From a Mile Away

Affix one of these to a police helicopter and that will be the end of police chases. Pinpointing the hood of fleeing vehicle for take out will be trivial.

Put one of these in the hands of criminals, and it'll be the end of police helicopters -- it's got to be easier to take down a lightweight fiberglass clad helicopter than a car.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 329

That type of logic is flawed. It basically comes down to "this is worse than that so why bother with that?". It is used in many instances such as comparing murders with traffic violations; Why is that cop pulling me over when he should be out catching murderers? Different departments have different priorities. In this case Border Services has nothing to do with internet traffic but they do have responsibility for who and what come physically across the border. The fact that everything on the internet is not searched has nothing to do with the investigation techniques at the border.

I thought it was more of a case "That is allowed, so why not this?" If the government required that all internet communications into the country were decrypted for inspection, then sure, it would be logical to require that personal storage devices be decrypted as well.

But I don't see why data is subject to inspection when you're carrying it, but not when you're sending it electronically. Why is it fine to send a private email to your drug dealer while you're standing in line at customs, but as soon as you reach the agent, you have to decrypt the storage you're holding in your hand?

Comment: Re:Simple solution... (Score 1) 94

by hawguy (#49178753) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Wireless Microphone For Stand-up Meetings?

Two hours for a one-way commute? That doesn't sound like a very good life balance. I think if that was our teams that we'd end up doing a mixed online/f2f meeting as if some of the team were remote.

That's why we have flex-hours and most people work from home most of the week. Right now, we don't even have enough desk space for everyone if they come to work at the same time.

In this area, it's not just work-life balance, but housing-work balance -- the farther you drive, the cheaper your house, which can make the difference between being able to afford living in the area or not. Even if you can afford the mortgage on a $750K starter house, not everyone can cover the downpayment, and when making offers they are competing against people paying cash.

Comment: Re:Require cameras (Score 1) 656

by hawguy (#49176355) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

If he "requires" that and consents, the trial will be held behind closed doors without the promised cameras

Then he's just proven to the world that the USA is not to be trusted.

If he can safely stay in Russia, he'd be well-advised to do so. If not, it would still be better to try to disappear to some other place. Going to the US, no matter the promises, is suicidal.

If it were me, that's what I'd do, but I'd lay low and stay out of the news.

Comment: Re:Simple solution... (Score 1) 94

by hawguy (#49176175) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Wireless Microphone For Stand-up Meetings?

How about just tell them to be in the room when you do the standup? This solution is simple and costs absolutely nothing.

Unless your employees live in the same building as your office, there's a non-zero cost to having everyone in the office for meetings. At my office, even though employees are all "local", depending on traffic it can take up to 2 hours for some of them to get to the office.

Comment: Re:The corporate solution (Score 2) 94

by hawguy (#49176067) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Wireless Microphone For Stand-up Meetings?

Pretty much every company ever has already solved this problem with polycom (or similar) conferencing phones(ranging from a few hundred dollars on up)

http://www.polycom.com/product...

Also conference phone numbers like Webex at all so lots of people can call in, if you need that sort of thing.

This is not a new or unsolvable problem, this is "standard office gear" since the 1990s.

Exactly, we have a 30 seat conference room with a polycom and 2 extension mikes. For company meetings, remote employees dial-in to the conference bridge, and the phone works surprisingly well, everyone in the room can be heard. (it does get confused though when more than one person speaks at once -- it doesn't know which microphone to use, so the two voices fade in and out)

No need to ditch working solutions just because they are "old school" -- most of our remote users use some VOIP solution to reach the conference bridge (google hangouts, skype, etc)

Comment: Re:"require"? pffft (Score 1) 656

by hawguy (#49175865) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Snowden has no bargaining power. Nobody can trust any agreement he offers to make - the crime he committed was breaching an oath. Plus, he has repeatedly said that he no longer has the information he stole in his possession.

Once he's in custody, it's physically impossible for him to refuse to accept the results of a "fair trial".

Comment: Require cameras (Score 5, Interesting) 656

by hawguy (#49174593) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

As part of his re-patriation agreement, he should require cameras to be rolling throughout the entire trial with a live uncensored feed available to any organization that wants it (News organizations, EFF, ACLU, etc). If the government shuts down the cameras for any reason, then the agreement is null and void and the USA guarantees his return to Russia.

Then the american people can decide if the trial is "fair" -- if the government tries to redact all of the evidence due to national security reasons, then it's hard to see how the trial can be called "fair".

I realize that the USA will likely ignore the agreement once he's on american soil, but at least it demonstrates that the USA government can't be trusted to abide by its own agreements and it validates Snowden's reason for fleeing to Russia.

Comment: Why trust users to do it? (Score 2) 562

by hawguy (#49173485) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions

Why trust users to know what file extensions are "safe" and which are not? Surely the same computer that shows "ImportantFile.doc" to the user when it's really "ImportantFile.doc.exe" can be smart enough to pop up a message when someone clicks on it: "Hey, this filename *looks* like a document, but it's really an executable so instead of opening a document, I'm going to run it. It's probably a terrible idea to run it, so I'm not going to do it, you'll have to rename it to something less ambiguous if you really want to run it. But you should't do that. Really. I'm not kidding."

Comment: Re:I never understood why (Score 1) 562

by hawguy (#49173451) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions

I never understood why Windows hides file extensions by default. Doing so makes Windows much more difficult to use. Changing that setting is literally the first thing I do with Windows. Hiding file extensions was one of the worst decisions made for Windows.

The people that find visible file extensions to be useful are the same people that know how to change the default setting to show them -- for the rest of the world, file extensions are meaningless, they'd rather see the MS Excel icon on Excel Docs than have to remember what file extensions will open into an Excel doc.

Comment: Re:1.2 what? (Score 4, Funny) 199

1.2 pedobytes.

According to the article, they seized more than 4 times more child porn than the Library of Congress has.

But unlike past investigations into the distribution of child porn, which typically involve targeting suspects individually, police have instead seized over 1.2 petabytes of data—more than four times the amount of data in the US Library of Congress

I'm kind of surprised that all congress could only manage to accumulate 300TB of child porn.

Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously. -- Booth Tarkington

Working...