Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Illegal phone running (Score 1) 137

It is actually more (and older) than that. It is a war over who owns the device. This is a continuance of the war over who controls the operating system of the devices. Even in the current state, they can ship me the device in whatever state THEY want it in (they being either the gub'ment or the carrier or the device manufacturer) but the shit is still mine. Stop trying to control what I put on my own fucking devices. This is absolutely the wrong battle that is being fought. Separate the damn code from hardware in law and be done with it.

Comment Users? (Score 2) 539

Where are the users when adblockers and advertisers duke it out? The adblockers only exist because we have a fundamental right to receive at our computers exactly what we ask for exactly where we ask for it from. I don't trust who CNN, slashdot or any company decides to trust to supply them with ads. I don't want content being pushed to my system from any server except the exact one I chose to receive info from. I reserve the right to use any program of my choice to make it so, whether it is "in-browser" adblockers, hostname blocking, blocking at the firewall, whitelists etc. Get over yourself advertisers, not a damn thing changed when we went from newspapers to web. You buy advertising at your own risk that people won't look at it.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 1) 432

You don't understand. I'm absolutely sure that Google will make it secure. It is THEM that is the security issue! Also, I DO think I can implement better security than Google. In my home solution I have a security footprint small enough that it is well within my grasp to control one port and one user account very very VERY securely. With Google, they have to worry about outside breaches and THOUSANDS of internal breaches either directo or indirect such as misuse of information that they shouldn't have about me or my home and my usage patterns in the first place.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 1) 432

When I control the software and am responsible for punching the hole through my firewall, I have choices available that meet my security needs and my predilection for risk. The real estate agent is a very fair comparison. When I buy equipment that the creator or seller of the equipment retains control over, but yet insists that I authenticate to their servers and ask their servers to change something in my home, I'd say the analogy is dead on.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 1) 432

Your logic is severely flawed. In all of the cases that we are talking about there is absolutely zero difference in functionality and features that could be provided by devices and services completely under the owners control versus things NOT under our control. In fact, if you bring open source into the matter, it is the exact opposite. People could customize to meet their exact need, where corporate run software will be one size fits all. I think in every sense of the word, the local option is superior from the consumers point of view.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 2) 432

You completely misunderstand. Connected is not the issue. Control is. The owner should be the ONLY person in control of the device, regardless of the owner is. Hotel owns it? Fine! They should have complete and utter control of their device without HAVING to authenticate to anyone elses servers unless they choose to. Owner can mean, business, individual, anything as long as the owner has the control. That goes for any device in my home. DVR's, smart controllers, anything. It really does come down to the comparison of the real estate agent keeping the keys to your house.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 5, Interesting) 432

Internet of things is not the problem. Connected things that we control directly.. i.e. punch a hole through our own firewall and access our stuff directly from our other stuff could be a great time saver and make things easier. I will NEVER authenticate to other peoples servers to ask permission to access something in my own home. Number 1, I'll control my own access, thank you very much, and the company I bought the equipment from will not be on the list of authorized users. To do otherwise is the equivalent of buying a house and the real estate agent never giving you the keys.. and insisting that he be the one that comes and unlocks the door every time you come home. Oh and he'll periodically repaint your house a color of his choosing. Fuck that. Internet of things = Good. Current tie to cloud implementations = Hell fucking no.

Comment Re:The Cloud: 1, Users: 0 (Score 4, Insightful) 432

Oh there is everything wrong with the cloud for this. Why should anyone have smart devices that are under someone elses control? That is absolutely ludicrous. I would love something like a Nest, but only if I access it DIRECTLY through my firewall and have 100 control of the device and its data flow. Why in the purple fuck would anyone think it is OK to have to authenticate to someone elses servers to control something in your own home? Give us smart connected devices that we don't have to ask permission to use because they are ours. In every sense of the word.

Comment Re:Just build a wall, ok? (Score 5, Insightful) 278

Exactly. The USA has lost. I went to an NFL game and had to have all my shit searched. I protested as an American. Any idiot knows (which means most of America is BElOW idiot status) that it is just security theater. Any terrorist with bad intentions would get more victims detonating in the packed security line than they EVER would detonating inside the stadium. The stadium spreads everyone out and the traffic jam they create to finger our asses puts us way closer together just asking for it. It is just security theater designed to make the dumb ass public feel warm and fuzzy while we give up our constitutional rights to have our ass fingered. I though America was about doing the right thing not being scared little dumbasses who won't help Syrians in need because some of the are terrorists with bad intentions. Hell some of US are terrorists with bad intentions. Help people, don't give up your freedoms for the illusion of security have a damn spine like a real American. Get a spine and realize there are only 2 choices. Let the government be worse than the terrorists EVER could be or accept that not giving up your freedoms means we have to accept that an occasional terrorist is going to get through. It cannot be stopped 100% with ANY amount of loss of freedom so why give up any that our family lines fought and died to protect. Our government uses terror more than the terrorist do... just to a different end, and that is to control the sheeple who want warm fuzzies.

Comment Re:Too much hype about driverless cars (Score -1) 211

I'll never buy into the driverless car thing. #1 when the system reaches a tipping point, it will be a target for malware or just low tech systems/sensor spoofing by troublemakers. #2 an automated car will never be able to do all the things I do with a car/truck (off road driving, work needs that don't exactly fit into a programmers view of what a car should be doing) #3 I refuse to be second guessed by automation.. i.e. I do things that aren't exactly road legal and will continue to do so, such as occasionally crossing over medians or speeding to get somewhere I need to be, its my choice to do and I'm fully willing to pay an occasional ticket when I get caught doing it. Its the price of doing "business". I also choose my own level of risk tolerance. I refuse to mandated to me. i.e. I can choose to ride a motorcycle, but yet the damn nanny state gub'ment doesn't think I'm adult enough to make a decision to wear a seatbelt or not in an enclosed vehicle.

I would love to have an autonomous capable vehicle, but the only way I'll ever own one is if it can be COMPLETELY blinded/turned off (hard sensor disconnect, no "soft off" can be accepted) when I want it to be off.

Comment Re:Ban the side effects (Score 4, Insightful) 305

I'm a conservative libertarian but this is still ridiculous. Why allow drug companies to spend millions (and pass that on to consumers) advertising something that consumers cannot get directly.

There are alot of things that need to change about our healthcare system but this is one. The only case where consumers should be allowed to override their doctors concerns about drugs and treatments is in cases where there is substantial loss of quality of life involved. When doctors invoke the "do no harm" clause to keep someone from accessing experimental treatments or drugs when that person is terminal or in severely degraded quality of life, its ridiculous. The doctor should be required to pass on knowledge of the risk involved, but should not be allowed to deny access.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 220

Wrong question. Which one has many more failure points and more potential admins to go rogue. Inside jobs account many more security issues than outside hacks. With my stuff in my rack I can use open source and be relatively sure that it isn't pre-compromised from the day I install it like most hosted platforms and most big name software. I can encrypt using the encryption of my choice BEFORE it leaves my premises or touches any corporate client software that claims to encrypt it for me but still allows them to see it.

Comment Re:"TV series" (Score 2) 438

Yes, this. As much as I love Star Trek, I'll be forced to either pirate or unintentionally boycott. I don't live in an area with fast enough internet to stream and I also use linux, not Windows or Mac. So all the "controlled and approved" streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu etc that don't give you a "download in advance and watch in the app of your choice" option will never be able to get my business. Nevermind, I'll just download the torrent.

Comment because ebonics (Score 2) 281

Not mine, copied from a forum...

sup
{
    gimme fibo bitch
    a be 1 bitch
    b be 1 bitch
    putou a bitch
    putou b bitch
    fibo be fibo widout 2 bitch
    slongas (fibo bepimpin 0)
        c be a an b bitch
        a be b bitch
        b be c bitch
        putou b bitch
        dissin fibo bitch
    nomo
}

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Working...