Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What privacy concern? (Score 1) 248

by jeffmeden (#47773767) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

but privacy, as you note, is pretty close to the bottom since your car location is most certainly other people's business as soon as you take it on a public road.

This is absolutely false. People can look at your car, yes, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in and outside your car isn't private. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety, and you'd think everyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would agree with me. I don't want the government having control over my vehicle, and all software on the vehicle should be 100% open source, and all hardware should be open as well. No black boxes, and no proprietary garbage. There's just too much room for abuse, and in a free country, that's all it should take to oppose it.

First, it's pretty obvious that jeffmeden was talking about privacy in terms of the car's location, not "everything that happens in and outside your car". Your comment doesn't show that his point is "absolutely false" unless you completely misread what he said.

Second, everything you do involves a tradeoff of privacy, safety, freedom and a dozen other things. If you go outside you lose some privacy; if you get in a car and drive in public you lose some privacy and some safety. The idea that you can be some sort of privacy and freedom absolutist who never trades either of them for anything is just nonsense.

He's obviously just trolling. People (red blooded Americans, no less) are gobbling up cars with OnStar and similar systems that have clearly advertised features of vehicle tracking AND remote control, with no clear precedent that government meddling isn't taking place, and yet the world continues to spin on its axis and bald eagles even continue to soar above the trees. If the only meaningful way someone can think to express freedom is having an untrackable car, then I take pity on them.

Comment: Re:Honest question from a non-USian (Score 2) 93

Why does the FBI get involved? is it because the events span multiple states, or because the banks have so much clout? If this had happened to google or microsoft, for example, would the FBI get involved?

Simply put, the FBI is the investigator of last resort. Local law enforcement (even in large cities like NYC where JPMC is based) are woefully ill-equipped to investigate this sort of thing.

Comment: Re:What privacy concern? (Score 2) 248

by jeffmeden (#47768771) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

"The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns"

Hardly a secret is it? It's the chuffing big bit of metal about to slam into your vehicle. Look out the windows and there it is.

But presently, it becomes a secret again after the impact (a secret that can only be coaxed out of the skidmarks and dents) that apparently 33,000 people a year are worth dying to keep... There are many concerns with this (like how to keep it secure and reliable) but privacy, as you note, is pretty close to the bottom since your car location is most certainly other people's business as soon as you take it on a public road.

Comment: Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (Score 2) 248

by jeffmeden (#47768709) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

This conclusion you have is because you're paranoid.

Modern cars already have wireless communication attached to their security systems. Government mandated backdoors wouldn't require a wide-ranging communications network to work.

Actually you probably mean backdoors wouldn't require a *new* wide-ranging communications network to work... The OnStar system (and others like it) already have their own nationwide communication system (the cellular phone network) to allow law enforcement access to vehicle data, AND the ability to disable the vehicle remotely. And you know what? It's because people *want* that feature:

"Stolen Vehicle Slowdown is a prime example of a safety service that our customers rely on us to provide,” said George Baker, emergency services outreach manager, OnStar. “We have a strong relationship with law enforcement that has allowed us to refine our processes, promote teamwork and more quickly recover stolen vehicles for our subscribers.”

Comment: Re:The memo you are about to see (Score 2) 160

by jeffmeden (#47720379) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills

Why would that be better?

Bahahaha. Satire much?

But seriously, lots of large companies don't think employees need mobile devices in the first place but employees who feel pressured to be high value contributors will do it anyway because they feel it gives them a leg up on the other employees. Paying 1,000 more phone bills isn't a tempting proposition for most large orgs, so there will be fallout from this.

Comment: Re:The memo you are about to see (Score -1, Flamebait) 160

by jeffmeden (#47720271) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills

I can't remember the last time I saw a payphone in the wild.

The ghetto. Seriously, you know when you are in a bad neighborhood when you see a payphone. Probably explains why so many people say things like "gee all the payphones are gone!" thanks to their relatively privileged existence. I'm not judging, but that's how the class system in the USA works.

Comment: Re:That's it? (Score 1) 609

by jeffmeden (#47720215) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Even worse, how is the money distributed? Who determines the "worth" of a web site or other online resource, and then allocates them their cut?

The current free-market system with sites supported by ads isn't perfect, but it's like democracy - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

One can imagine (but probably not implement) a system where an ISP would maintain a "client access system" that signaled to compatible web sites that the user was willing to pay for content services. The signal would provide how much the user is willing to pay (to allow for ISPs to maintain different tiers) and the web site would, in return, defer ads and other annoyances for users who were willing to pay enough. Leave it up to the sites to say how much that threshold is, and leave it up to the ISPs to set the tiers and track the usage (like they dont do these two things already?) and lastly, divvy up the money. The free market still has a say in what sites are visited and what users are willing to pay.

But then the problems roll in: malware that forces site usage in the background. Sites that take your money but don't give a higher quality of service... And last but probably not least: users who have no idea how a system this convoluted works at all, and make very poor spending decisions with their capital.

Comment: The memo you are about to see (Score 5, Funny) 160

by jeffmeden (#47719563) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills

"From now on you are NOT to use your personal cellphones or other mobile devices for any work purposes. You will not be reimbursed. Use a payphone instead, and present all receipts to accounting for prompt reimbursement. Thank you for your help as we prioritize our cost metrics and structure our teamgroups toward innovative human-centered investment"

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 1) 123

by jeffmeden (#47695965) Attached to: No, a Huge Asteroid Is Not "Set To Wipe Out Life On Earth In 2880"

If a doctor recommended surgery, and the mortality rate was 1 in 4000, I'd make damn sure the benefits outweighed the risk. And I'd update my will.

Boy are you in for a rude shock. Even a common place apendectomy has a mortality rate of about 2% last time I checked.

Have fun never having surgery for anything!!

You think the odds of surviving the appendectomy are low? Try surviving without one...

Comment: Re:$200MM (Score 3) 107

My balls it is. The only place I've ever seen it as such is on slashdot, and here twice.

Want to see it in action? Look no further than the home page of the world's sixth largest bank:

Hover over "Business" and "Commercial" and you will note that their definition of those two classes relies on the MM suffix. I don't blame you for never having even imagined a context where millions of dollars was relevant, but you will find that it's a big world out there.

Comment: Re:Let developers respond to a review ... (Score 1) 249

Moderation would work better if you could hear both sides. Let developers respond to a review like on Google Play.

Many people seem to use reviews as an alternative to contacting customer support. For legit problems there is some fairness in doing so. However there are times when a user is confused and the develop has no way to contact that user. It would also be useful for developers to respond indicating when a real problem is fixed.

Letting the developers worry about it seems like the only fair solution. Should there really be a market for apps that recreate other apps just a tiny bit better/shinier? If an app is really noteworthy, some venue outside the app store (blogs, tech news outlets, etc) will take notice and promote it.

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 457

by jeffmeden (#47677069) Attached to: Web Trolls Winning As Incivility Increases

Its not worse now than it's ever been in the past. Get the fuck over it

Everyone is waiting for this to be "Solved" just like 13 years ago, they were waiting for spam to be "solved" as the ratio of junk email to desirable email kept going up and up and up. Well, put everyone (just about) on the same email platform and presto, you have no more spam! A solution like that for trolling is perhaps forthcoming, but still a ways off. That doesn't stop people from sitting on their hands and wishing for it, though.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 218

by jeffmeden (#47672687) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier

Reading comprehension is such a lost art these days. It was the H1N1 virus that caused the pandemic, which the Chinese scientists used in their research; not the results of the Chinese research that caused the pandemic.

From the cited article:

a team of Chinese scientists to create a hybrid viral strain between the H5N1 avian influenza virus and the H1N1 human flu virus that triggered a pandemic in 2009 and claimed several thousand lives.

For those challenged individuals, this sentence fragment should be parsed as:

(a team of Chinese scientists) ... (create a hybrid viral strain) (BETWEEN) (the H5N1 avian influenza virus) AND (the H1N1 human flu virus that triggered a pandemic in 2009 and claimed several thousand lives).

There aren't enough modpoints, they should just let you edit TFS. Good thing the Slashdot moderators fact checked that juicy little detail. Apparently "Lasrick (2629253)" is beyond reproach.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon