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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO... (Score 1) 71

Imagine what would happen if there were no protections from people attaching equipment to their phone lines.... one person could sabatoge every landline telephone on his entire block.

If it's connecting to something made by a third party, it shouldn't matter if it is using a "standard" jack or not.... protection mechanisms should exist to ensure that noncompliant devices don't damage it.

Doing otherwise is the hardware equivalent of allowing a stack overflow bug based on unexpected user input.

Comment Cables not the only thing non-compliant, IMO.... (Score 1, Interesting) 71

If you plug in a non-compliant usb-c cable into a device's usb port, a compliant device should be able to recognize it as such and simply refuse to operate. It should categorically *NOT* cause the device to cease to operate.

The fact that this guy apparently shorted a $1000 computer because of a badly made $10 cable IMO shows just as much of a flaw in the computer as it does in the cable.

All that the computer needed to have on the port was a breaker that would trip if or when the expected limits were exceeded and it would have been fine.

Comment Re:This is why (Score 1) 223

Obviously they were not previously doing any lossy transcoding or else this would not have worked at all. However, if they are going to continue to offer the unlimited photos service for free, they will have to do something to that effect to prevent future abuse, and explicitly warn users that picture quality may be slightly degraded, and to not use the service where any requirement for pixel-perfect fidelity exists

Comment Re: This is why (Score 1) 223

Except he was not talking advantage of the service as advertised, he was taking advantage of the fact that binary data can be encoded into something that looks like a photo to software, and using a service that was supposed to only be used for photos to host arbitrary data.

Now if they had offered unlimited storage for any data, you'd be right

Comment Re:This is why (Score 2) 223

They can't forbid me from uploading images.

One way that immediately comes to mind is that they could limit the service to jpgs only, and only respect jpgs that use at least some lossy compression, which would be useless for storing any binary data with fidelity.

Also, they could discontinue the service as a free one entirely.

The options they have for forbidding you from uploading are far greater than the options you have for trying to get around them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.