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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Does not match TFA (Score 1) 42

The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.

That's fine and good in principle. The public health equivalent would be that "anything in public is vaccinated, and if it's not vaccinated it should not be out in public."

Until you get the anti-vaxx blowback, the hysterical screaming, authorities caving in.. and then the next sweeping pandemic.

The internet is becoming the next public forum, and inevitably public hygiene debates will begin to apply to it.

Frankly, I miss the old internet the way that ranchers missed the unfenced range back in the mid-late 19th Century, before the coming of all the farmers and farm towns. The lack of "civilization" wasn't so bad when it was so sparse, and everyone had to know what they were doing to just get by. And yet, we still had the occasional pandemic.

Your Rights Online

Analysis Reveals Almost No Real Women On Ashley Madison 409

gurps_npc writes: Ashley Madison claimed to have about 31 million men and 5.5 million woman enrolled. Those odds are not good for the men, 6:1. But unfortunately, most of those 'women' were fake. This researcher analyzed the data and found only 12,000 actual, real women using Ashley Madison. That means for every 7750 men, there were 3 women. There are reports that Ashley Madison paid people to create fake female profiles. Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."' The article itself is well written, including a description of the analysis. A charitable person would say that Ashley Madison was selling a fantasy, not reality. But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

Comment Re:Bureaucracy (Score 1) 271

That's why you need to employ a competent IT person who can say "I can buy a hard drive from Amazon that's exactly the same as the one you'll get from HP, but we'll pay a lot less".

And then the supply-chain bureaucrats say "you won't be installing anything in City-owned IT assets unless it was bought through the supply chain organization, and you'll be terminated with cause if you try."

What, do you really think the bureaucrats would actually allow you to circumvent them? The essence of being the middleman is making the man in the middle indispensable, by force if necessary.

Comment Re:I can almost imagine the conversation (Score 1) 157

I dunno, I think the engineer should be proud.

The design accommodates all use cases, including an idiot doing an idiotic thing to accomplish idiotic results.

Mission accomplished! The ultimate in usability: our design doesn't stop you from doing ANYTHING you want to do!

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 1) 345

What fantasy world do you live in? Here in Reality World, Slashdot editors do nothing more ambitious than parrotting TFA, unless they go to the extra trouble of making the summary worse than TFA (misleading, more clickbaity, etc.)

More to the point, tell me how to get to that fantasy world. It sounds a lot better than this one. :(

Comment Re:Time for shoe-on-the-other-foot tactics. (Score 3, Insightful) 258

The difference between just and unjust is the difference between easy and feasible.

A lawful search is every bit as feasible as an unlawful one; the difference is the miniscule administrative impediment of securing a search warrant.

Surveillance, even in a nominally public setting, is unjust without cause. Pervasive surveillance is unjust specifically because it's done so without cause or suspicion (other than the despot's constant suspicion of everyone).

Comment Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score 5, Funny) 378

Your edit makes the market-bot's statement more objectively true, but from the company's perspective, the customer's number one problem is that they haven't given the company enough money yet.

They're just helping their unfortunate customers with their money-infestation problem.

"We'll just take that nasty revenue off your hands."


Mice Brainpower Boosted With Alteration of a Single Gene 105

Zothecula writes: By altering a single gene to inhibit the activity of an enzyme called phosphodiesterase (PDE4B), researchers have given mice the opportunity to see what an increase in intelligence is like. "They tended to learn faster, remember events longer and solve complex exercises better than ordinary mice. For example, the “brainy mice” showed a better ability than ordinary mice to recognize another mouse that they had been introduced to the day before (abstract). They were also quicker at learning the location of a hidden escape platform in a test called the Morris water maze. However, the PDE4B-inhibited mice also showed less recall of a fearful event after several days than ordinary mice." While many people would welcome such a treatment, the scientists say their research could lead to new treatments for those with cognitive disorders and age-related cognitive decline.

US No-Fly List Uses 'Predictive Judgement' Instead of Hard Evidence 263

HughPickens.com writes: The Guardian reports that in a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping U.S. and other citizens from traveling on airplanes is a matter of "predictive assessments about potential threats." "By its very nature, identifying individuals who 'may be a threat to civil aviation or national security' is a predictive judgment intended to prevent future acts of terrorism in an uncertain context," Justice Department officials Benjamin C Mizer and Anthony J Coppolino told the court. It is believed to be the government's most direct acknowledgment to date that people are not allowed to fly because of what the government believes they might do and not what they have already done. The ACLU has asked Judge Anna Brown to conduct her own review of the error rate in the government's predictions modeling – a process the ACLU likens to the "pre-crime" of Philip K Dick's science fiction. "It has been nearly five years since plaintiffs on the no-fly list filed this case seeking a fair process by which to clear their names and regain a right that most other Americans take for granted," say ACLU lawyers.

The Obama administration is seeking to block the release of further information about how the predictions are made, as damaging to national security. "If the Government were required to provide full notice of its reasons for placing an individual on the No Fly List and to turn over all evidence (both incriminating and exculpatory) supporting the No Fly determination, the No Fly redress process would place highly sensitive national security information directly in the hands of terrorist organizations and other adversaries," says the assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, Michael Steinbach.

Comment Re:Hopefully, they'll be able to bypass the carrie (Score 1) 126

However, if I were to buy a Samsung directly from the manufacturer and then use it with a carrier, I'm not beholden to the carrier for updates, right? Since it's not a carrier-branded phone, I can just get updates over any valid internet connection, right?

I did forget about the possibility of BYOD, but as far as I know the big carriers get really passive-aggressive about putting your device on their network. I guess if you contract with an MVNO, or sign up for their poorly-publicized BYOD programs, they may not be as bad. And then, possibly, the manufacturer can update without interference from the carrier.

But I suspect that BYOD phones on wireless networks is a vanishingly small minority compared to the far more typical "go to carrier, buy contract and (locked-in) phone at the same time" scenario.

Comment Re:Hopefully, they'll be able to bypass the carrie (Score 2) 126

Came here to say this.

The problem has never really been Android's willingness to correct and publish security-related patches; the problem is that the carriers control OTA and therefore limit OTA update support for phones that are fairly new. According to the carrier, if you want a secure phone, you'll just have to buy a new one from them.

The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!