Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Well of course ... (Score 1) 113

"You can't have it both ways. And you don't get to whine if people stop buying your products because they can't trust you anymore." No but we get to call you stupid if you think that any of the competing products is not just as, if not more compromised. A) The US has the reach to compromise ANY manufacturer in the world. and B) You add the any local nations government to the list. But American you get snooped on the US, buy Chinese you get snooped on by the US and the Chinese, buy EU get snooped on by the US, Chinese, and the EU. Which do you prefer?

Comment Re:Good on them (Score 2) 113

"Spying is not about having backdoors in hardware you produce in your own country. It's about getting those into foreign countries, foreign hardware, and about defeating encryptions that you're NOT already in control of." And you think they are not doing that as well? lol. They are doing their job and hitting every nail. Even the American made ones.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 514

No. No one is hiding anything. Assume EVERYTHING you eat that is not labled GMO-Free is GMO in some way shape or form. If you want to be paranoid that's your own purview. If you want food that is organic look for the organic label. If you want kosher look for the kosher label, If you want GMO-Free look for the GMO-Free label. The government is not in the business of enforcing your religious standards.

Comment Re:Fragmentation (Score 1) 236

No its still bundling. Just smaller bundling. If I want GOT and Hannibal and I can have two services. One provides GOT and The Black List while the other provides Hannibal and The Black List I still have a imperfect bundle situation. "a la carte" is if I had one services that provides all three but I can pick which ones I pay for.

Comment Re:They don't set their rates (Score 1) 385

The United States Supreme Court has offered the following guidelines to distinguish employees from independent contractors:

1. The extent to which services are integral to the employer's business. Greater integration favors an employee-employer relationship.

2. The permanence of the relationship. More established relationships favor employee status.

3. The amount of investment in equipment. More investment suggests an independent contractor relationship.

4. The degree of control by the principal. More control favors employee-employer status.

5. The amount of financial risk. More opportunity for profit or loss favors an independent contractor relationship.

6. The amount of initiative, judgment or foresight in open-market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. Entrepreneurial and distinctive work favors an independent contractor relationship.

Hitting ONE out of 6 is very unlikely to qualify uber drivers as employees (#1). Particularly in the face of very strong counter bullets (#2 , #3, #4)

this is something for the courts to decide. I am very pro employee and contractor protection, but the legal distinction is not arbitrary. Your instance that YOU absolutely know for sure shows great hubris.

Comment Re:Slashdot? (Score 1) 822

I am semi neutral on the gun control issue but your argument is exceptionally weak. The reason why you don’t see major political issues on those other areas is because society as a whole welcomed common sense laws on those issues many many years ago. lead paint? Check. Cross walks for kids? Check. Removal of many exceptionally toxic chemicals from every day cleaners ? check. Mandatory locks on guns etc? No check.

Comment Re:No need for code to detect an emissions test (Score 1) 618

There is no need to write special code to detect an emissions test.

Just because you are not creative enough to think of a valid reason does not mean the rest of the world is unable to.

not-a-secret decision to not install a urea injection system. they don't work by themselves and never talk to others

These are teams they talk mostly internally. The drive mode switching team could very plausibly have no idea what a urea injection system is, let alone being aware of a design decision.

Plus there appears to be evidence that the engineers were WELL aware of the problem because when it first came up they engaged in all sorts of delaying tactics.

I have no idea if they did or did not. Nor do I care. I am just pointing out that it is in fact VERY easy to hide critical actions like this in large organizations with very specialized teams.

Comment Re:The people who did this weren't idiots (Score 2) 618

No “they” didn’t. One team wrote code to detect an emissions test. One team wrote code for a new emissions heavy efficiency high mode. One team wrote code to switch between emissions tests. One dude with a beard added if( TRUE === emissionsTest ) { mode = MODE_X43_Y ;} Thats all it took.

Comment Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score 1) 529

Woordward was famous for the precise reason you are full of shit. He was one of the few who did get access to some level of secret information. The RARITY is why it was a BIG DEAL. As you've jumped the boat on name calling. Clearly you are not a security professional nor do you even interact with them. Child you are talking about things you just do not understand.

Comment Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score 1) 529

Just because you walk onto the field in the all star MLB game does not mean you actually are competent enough to truly be there. .

At best when this situation arises the news agencies are children playing in a professional league of a game they do not even understand or know that is going on.

If anyone gives confidential, secret, top secret etc they are personally responsible for that information being COMPLETELY breached.

Doing so could still be considered a worthwhile whistle blow, but you go into the situation knowing that you are personally, morally and legally responsible for exposing the whole worth to the information. Denying this a child's lie.

" My main point was this: if the press deals with top secret information all the time (and very definitely get away with it), why are THEY not facing charges and prison time, along with the Washington insiders who leak to them?"

No they dont. and No they dont. Above I let you pretend that News agencies get exposed to top secret information often. That is simply not true (luckily) The average reporter in their lifetime will never get access top secret information. A more valid estimate would be something like maybe 2 or 3 a decade. They do get ahold of information which is considered secret and confidential a bit more than that.

Also when the authorities do find about this heads do, and should roll. Some do unfortunately get away with it, but it is not, nor should that be the standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Sentencing

Comment Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score 1) 529

I have news for you. They get given leaks at a somewhat frequent rate. But to use your own term.. They are NOT HANDLED. Just because there is not a damn media shit storm about the data, does not mean that our adversaries did not get ahold of the information. Shit I could wave hello to the security professionals that run the operations at the Times, AP and several other organizations, and they simple are not qualified to setup such an environment which could handle that kind of information. They would gladly tell you themselves that their operations are not hardened to handle it.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...