Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:not the real question (Score 4, Insightful) 200

It's only bullshit if Chris Roberts was actually lying. And validating it is pretty straightforward: Did the plane yaw, as was claimed? Can Chris' software cause it to happen again?

It's a pretty simple test. And as far as Chris' treatment, if he's been trying to tell people about this vulnerability and getting the cold shoulder, he's as innocent as they get and should be compensated for time served.

Comment: Re:Battery life non-issue (Score 1) 113

I would expect that for most apps, it won't reduce power consumption.

Why would you expect that? What apps will be able to do will be extremely curtailed - e.g. they will probably follow the original iPhone model of halting the process whenever the user isn't using it. Aside from the display, the radio is probably the biggest power draw on the system, plus there won't be any length negotiation with the phone, so having non-background applications run directly on the device will probably help battery life, not harm it.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 0) 267

by mcrbids (#49621961) Attached to: Is It Worth Learning a Little-Known Programming Language?

But... you'd be surprised how often it happens that I've learned a new tool, technique, or technology, only to be presented with an opportunity to use that new technology shortly thereafter.

You miss many opportunities simply because you don't see them as such because you lack the context, understanding, or tools to recognize them as such. Broadening your horizons helps you see the solutions and opportunities for what they are.

Comment: Re:Battery life non-issue (Score 3, Insightful) 113

For a watch where a regular watches battery lasts years, a watch with a battery life of a single day at best is hilariously bad.

But nobody needs a watch battery to last years though - the comparison is meaningless. People don't use their watches while they sleep - charging every night in exchange for the extra functionality is a good deal for most people.

Comment: Re:Battery life non-issue (Score 1) 113

If a brand new one has only 30% at the end of the day, a year from now (or an OS update, whichever happens first) you'd better get used to charging your watch at lunch.

You're being ridiculous. No OS update or battery degradation over a year is going to reduce the capacity to less than half. The battery itself is is rated to retain 80% capacity for a thousand cycles and battery tech is pretty predictable.

Comment: Why are you so surprised? (Score 3, Insightful) 113

why would Apple keep such a thing quiet

Because it's a sealed diagnostic port for a non-end-user serviceable product, not a feature. They aren't wishing anything up, it's just not something they have a reason to publicise.

when the Apple Watch's battery-life isn't what most people would consider impressive?

Actually, people's opinions on this are very mixed. Some people are reporting great battery life and improved battery life on their iPhone as well as they switch the screen on less. Some people report the opposite. Chances are, people who have just got a new gadget are playing with it all day, which obviously isn't representative of normal usage patterns or battery life.

Apple's lack of transparency here doesn't much matter, though

Why are you describing lack of publicity about a sealed diagnostic port for non-end-user serviceable goods as a "lack of transparency"? That is bizarre. You wouldn't expect that for any other company, let alone Apple.

Comment: How about sane warnings? (Score 1) 324

by mcrbids (#49598809) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

As it is now, you are not notified of security issues when you have no security whatsoever. HTTP sites should be given a dire, red warning because they represent the least secure position online. An SSL site with an expired certificate is far more desirable than an HTTP website.

Green should represent proper SSL certificates, as it does now.

But there's one more problem with SSL/HTTPS sites that nobody talks about: the fake SSL certificate. Your browser *probably* trust a multitude of SSL certificate vendors, and *any* of them can issue a certificate for *any* domain.

So there are literally hundreds of SSL certificate vendors that could issue a cert for google.com or whatever, and you wouldn't know. If the NSA offered a bit of $$ to a commonly trusted (but otherwise unheard of) certificate vendor to issue a few certificates to be used discreetly....

See the problem?

If I go to Thawte or RapidSSL to get a cert, I should have the ability to publish my vendor of choice, and nobody else's certificates should be considered trustworthy. Similarly, I should be able to publish revoked certificates the same way.

Why hasn't this already been done?

+ - UMG v Grooveshark settled, no money judgment against individuals

Submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: UMG's case against Grooveshark, which was scheduled to go to trial Monday, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement (PDF), (a) a $50 million judgment is being entered against Grooveshark, (b) the company is shutting down operations, and (c) no money judgment at all is being entered against the individual defendants.

Comment: Re:Or maybe support an Open Source option? (Score 1) 35

by mcrbids (#49574451) Attached to: RealTek SDK Introduces Vulnerability In Some Routers

By spec, wireless N, up to 300 Mbit.

In practice, I've gone through 4 different routers, and so far, this one has come out on top. It has two decent antennas which may be some of that difference, to be fair.

My house was (over)built in the 1970s with 3/4" sheet rock, making each room almost like a Faraday cage - getting wifi signal *at all* from two rooms over is spotty at best. In my bedroom (2 doors away from the hotspot) I see about 15-20 Mbits, but in the same room I see up to ~ 40 Mbits for torrents. (50 Mbit connection, shared)

Oh, and it being open source, I'm gonna bank on its code quality being a bit better...

Comment: Or maybe support an Open Source option? (Score 2) 35

by mcrbids (#49573799) Attached to: RealTek SDK Introduces Vulnerability In Some Routers

You could do that, or you could buy a router pre-configured with OSS from the factory. It's not even expensive at ~ $50.

I bought a similar model about a year ago, and its large antennas and decent range/speed make it the best router I've yet had. If it's not even more expensive, why not support a vendor that supports (more) secure, Open Source solutions?

I have no relationship with this vendor other than being a happy customer

Comment: Re:Pinto (Score 1) 247

by mcrbids (#49566571) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

Nope. Poor breaking behaviour doesn't cause crashes, people not keeping a safe distance causes crashes.

Nope. What causes crashes is hunks of metal ramming into other hunks of metal. It would be complicated except that it's not. We choose to ascribe "cause" to other events that precede the ramming behavior, but it's really arbitrary.

For example, it's widely understood that driving cars is *dangerous* and yet we don't ascribe standard risk factors for *driving at all*.

Skiing is inherently dangerous. In order to use a ski slope, I have to acknowledge this risk. Why aren't car manufacturers covered with a similar legal conract?

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.

Working...