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:woooh technology is out to git ya (Score 1) 197

And he's wrong.

According to Rubalcava, the biggest barrier to carrying out terrorist plans until now has been the risk of getting caught or killed by law enforcement so that only depraved hatred, or religious fervor has been able to motivate someone to take on those risks as part of a plan to harm other people.

No. Because look the times when we have caught the criminal. We cannot stop them from setting off a bomb, but we will catch them after they do so.

So to be a terrorist you have to be willing to die or to spend the rest of your life in prison.

"A burner email account, a prepaid debit card purchased with cash, and an account, tied to that burner email, with an AV car service will get him a long way to being able to place explosives near crowds, without ever being there himself."

But it will not stop him from being found AFTERWARDS.

Because those actions leave traces. And you will be spending the rest of your life in jail.

Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.

No. You're confusing two different scenarios and ASSUMING that the technique that worked in one scenario WOULD BE THE ONLY TECHNIQUE USED in the other scenario.

"That shutdown could stretch from temporary to quasi-permanent with ease, as security professionals grapple with the technical challenge of distinguishing between safe, legitimate payloads and payloads that are intended to harm."

It COULD. But more likely it won't.

Mostly because he's assuming that an autonomous car will be exactly like a current car + driver ... but with a really stupid robot driver that will do anything you tell it to do. Don't assume that.

Comment But it wouldn't work anyway. (Score 5, Insightful) 504

But it wouldn't work anyway.

I don't think he even understands FedEx. FedEx cannot tell you where a package is RIGHT NOW. They can only tell you where it was LAST SCANNED.

The reason this works well for packages is that packages don't move themselves. And even then it has failures. This will completely fail because HUMANS can wander around on their own.

Sounds more like Christie wants to associate his campaign with something that people have a mostly positive opinion of. But I'm pretty sure that FedEx will not want to be associated with a losing candidate OR the concept of tagging and tracking undesirable races/nationalities (shades of Nazi German there).

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 688

The entire populous can be wiped out, so there's no need for significant boots on the ground. Small arms fire erupts? drop a couple tons of explosives in the area and call it good.

Who is attacking whom in that scenario?

Seriously. Who is it?

Because you're postulating an attacker trying to exterminate 350 MILLION people in the USofA without any other country being able to stop them.

That might sound good as a thought experiment but it runs into problems in the real world.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 5, Informative) 688

You're on the wrong point.

But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?

"Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).

But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.

Comment Re:Translations (Score 2) 394

All systems require support.

No one is saying that installing Linux means that you do not have to pay for any of the standard costs associated with a system.

And remember that the opposition NEEDS to find a cause to champion that is contrary to the current system. Otherwise they aren't the opposition.

Whether or not their complaints are valid is irrelevant. That's how politics works.

Comment Re:"Evildoer"? Seriously? (Score 1) 494

I will never vote for someone who uses the word "evildoer".

Yep! Why the fuck does that word keep showing up in political statements? It makes them sound like children.

"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job â" while protecting civil liberties â" to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."

Except that the majority of "evil" done in this country is NOT encrypted. It is publicly displayed and celebrated.

Comment Re:Uh, what's the problem? (Score 3, Insightful) 242

I think that it is more about chasing the flavour-of-the-month.

Is it enough to be on AOL?
No? How about MySpace?
Okay, is LiveJournal acceptable then?
And so forth.

If you're looking for YOUNGER programmers then you look for them where YOUNG people hang out.

But don't demand that OLDER programmers try to socialize the way that younger people do.

Comment Stupid question. (Score 5, Interesting) 242

If you have X years of programming experience, then you should be able to sell yourself based upon that.

Social media and such would be useful to programmers JUST STARTING THEIR CAREERS.

BUT! If you are an older programmer you DO need to keep expanding your knowledge. Learn newer languages / systems.

Comment Mod parent up. (Score 1) 67

From TFA:

"What weâ(TM)re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history." That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says itâ(TM)s not an exaggeration.

Except that it is an exaggeration.

What they didnâ(TM)t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillardâ(TM)s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.

So if someone searched for material on Abbott ... it would show sites for Gillard?

Like if you did a search for how to do something in Linux ... but all you got back were Microsoft pages.

I'd dump that browser. Is that an option? If not, then your "research" is flawed.

Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actually more likely to vote in line with the biased results. "We expect the search engine to be making wise choices," Epstein says. "What theyâ(TM)re saying is, 'Well yes, I see the bias and thatâ(TM)s telling me ⦠the search engine is doing its job.'"

More likely that they didn't care enough to void your "research".

But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls.

So someone who cannot be bothered to do any research on the people who are actually running is 12% more likely to vote the way a computer suggests s/he should?

How about another experiment where something positive is compared to something negative? How would you go about manipulating the search results to that "kick me in the face" is chosen over "give me ice cream"?

Undecided voters are undecided because:
a. there isn't any real difference between politicians.

Give them a reason to care and see if the results are the same.

Comment Some will. Some won't. (Score 3, Insightful) 280

But think about other changes as well.

Autonomous cars can be parked a lot closer than any cars that need to open doors to let people out. So think about a few parking garages advertising "robot rates" and cutting the parking stalls down to car-size+3-inches-on-three-sides. The cars drop off their human passengers and then pack themselves into the robot garages.

Alternatively, if you're worried about someone soiling your pristine car, then charge enough to have it professionally cleaned before you want it back. And insist that the customers pay electronically so that you know EXACTLY who the offender was.

Comment Re:He wasn't able to give it up. (Score 3, Insightful) 466

If you had to remote to another machine for every intensive task, do you think you'd maintain the same volume of intensive tasks?

Yes. AND EVEN MORE! I have machines dedicated to running a single task each and I remote to them.

If I had to run all of those tasks on one computer which was also my daily use computer I would run far fewer tasks.

Byte your tongue.