Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

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:Interdasting... (Score 2) 155

by mcl630 (#49279699) Attached to: White House Proposal Urges All Federal Websites To Adopt HTTPS

While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.

Comment: Re:My LED bulb didn't last! (Score 1) 328

by mcl630 (#49279523) Attached to: New Crop of LED Filament Bulbs Look Almost Exactly Like Incandescents

Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.

I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 1) 367

by mcl630 (#49201957) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

You only answered half of the previous poster's question.

Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?

Comment: Re:The EFF is nuts in this case (Score 1) 90

by mcl630 (#48993571) Attached to: Hundreds Apply For FAA Drone Licenses

Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story. /s

Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer pushes an update that removes feature X, and if you refuse the update, features Y and Z are gimped. If you can in fact disable the no-fly list, this argument is weak in DJI's case, but that doesn't change the fact that manufacturers in general can remove features after purchase.

I'm still at a loss as to why DJI 1) didn't have the White House grounds amongst it's no-fly zones in the first place, and 2) why they decided to use a ridiculous 20 mile radius when they added it.

Comment: Re:The EFF is nuts in this case (Score 1) 90

by mcl630 (#48992631) Attached to: Hundreds Apply For FAA Drone Licenses

It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.

You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.

How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features after purchase via firmware updates. Is DJI giving refunds to people who live within the new no-fly zone and now just own a very expensive paper weight? No.

How can you work when the system's so crowded?