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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:/system/lib/libstagefright* (Score 1) 194 194

Or you could just install the older "Messaging" application and switch the default messaging app. I bought a new phone last week and it asked me when initializing to confirm Hangouts as the default messaging app. I didn't really know much about Hangouts - I tried it, it was terrible, so I quickly got the older "Messaging" app from the play store and updated the settings. Very easy to do. I assume you can still be attacked by getting a Hangout message, but I assume that requires more knowledge about your target than just their phone number.

Comment Re:What's their endgame really? (Score 1) 246 246

+1. But they don't want to end Google. The internet is too open and some other start up would take their place. More likely they want control, via established legal mechanisms they can use to modify Google search results, which in some areas they are already achieving (DMCA, right to be forgotten, think of the children, etc).

Comment Re:a gross perversion, no doubt. (Score 5, Insightful) 217 217

Lotteries are a tax on stupidity.

People paying for fancy cars is a tax on stupidity because I personally can't see the value of it. People paying to see a play is a tax on stupidity because I wouldn't enjoy it myself. Paying any money at all for a coffee is a tax on stupidity because I hate coffee. Everything you do for enjoyment that I wouldn't personally enjoy doing is a tax on stupidity.

If you don't get any enjoyment from it, don't do it. Other people enjoy it, which is obvious, so why be a prick about it? Very, very few people buy lottery tickets as a financial strategy, so the actual odds are irrelevant as long as it's run honestly and someone shows up in the news with a win occasionally. Personally I spend about $10 per month on lotto tickets. I enjoy it, it's fun for me, so fuck off with your judgmental generalization.

Comment Re:Algorithm (Score 1) 233 233

but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.

As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.

While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowed to be gender-biased due to societal concerns, such restrictions by themselves would not make these statistics even.

Comment Re:e-waste (Score 1) 371 371

Sure, but even if industry supported devices 3 times as long as today, most likely they would still become unsupported prior to the product being physically unusable. If a company produces an internet-capable piece of hardware, are they on the hook to support it against all future attack vectors until the hardware rots?

buy the new phone, or stop using phones altogether.

Option b seems perfectly reasonable from a waste management perspective, especially when we are talking about personal phones (we want them, we certainly don't need them) - and to be fair I did miss the AC saying they wouldn't participate any longer, and I assume that means not buying newer phones. I certainly would be unwilling commit to that, which means I too am part of the problem.

Comment Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap (Score 2) 371 371

This might've been insightful if you'd removed "Americans". I'm in a canadian middle-income neighbourhood, and even here we have households who never put out a recycle bin. We have 3 programs here: rigid plastics & metal, paper & cardboard, and compost. It is paid for by taxes, and if it wasn't then many more would opt out. Even the bins are given out for free by the city. Thankfully most people realize that when our city's current dump fills up, it will cost far more to start shipping to the next available site, so diversion is a high priority.

The only non-recycling person I've ever spoken to about it said that she doesn't bother because sorting is too complex - so in my experience the kind of people who don't recycle are mainly just stupid, or have zero sense of community. And I only spoke to her because she had left a TV sitting on her curb for a month, it boggled her mind that such things can't be thrown out in the trash anymore.

Comment Re:URLs (Score 2) 272 272

If I accessed a non-youtube URL and it redirected me to youtube, I would never use the original URL again because it is most likely some click-counting intermediary. YouTube is a well known and trusted video streaming site, while mylamedomain.com/youtubevideos is questionable unless you've already visited it.

YouTube was offering people branding by giving them simple URLs with their account name at the end, now they are taking away their offering from one individual and giving it to a company because money. It's scummy, it's selling out, and YouTube should know better than to treat their users this way.

Comment Re:Strategically speaking... (Score 1) 312 312

If this war were just Irrelevant Faction A versus Irrelevant Faction B, I'm sure the government would not put much effort into it, and you'd be right - let them cull the herd. But letting ISIS ranks swell is very likely to increase losses to foreign allies which is bad for the US - especially when you eventually get US citizens decapitating people in jihadist videos.

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper