Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Privacy? (Score 1) 776

by sh00z (#49672369) Attached to: Worker Fired For Disabling GPS App That Tracked Her 24 Hours a Day

What? This was a PRIVATE employment agreement between a PRIVATE employer and a PRIVATE employee. If she doesn't like the employers terms she can find a new job. The GOVERNMENT has zero business intruding in a PRIVATE affair!

While I haven't decided which candidate I prefer in the upcoming election, I endorse the remainder of this comment. The employee ignored the devastatingly simple solution to this problem: just leave the phone at work, in your (desk, locker, whatever) when you go home at night! If you have components of your life that you want to keep from your employer, don't being your employer everywhere you go! Duh.

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 395

by sh00z (#49610887) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???

That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:

When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount you sell it for is a capital gain or a capital loss. Generally, an asset's basis is its cost to the owner, but if you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.

You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 1) 301

Then you didn't actually read my post. I wrote " If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism." If the reviewer thought that gender bias could have crept into the paper, THAT is what the reviewer should have commented. Instead, the reviewer said "get a man to co-write this with you, because they're better writers." If you don't see the difference, I sure hope a similar example didn't come up during your defense.

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 0) 301

so again. if these two phds in gender studies doing a study on gender bias received criticism about potential gender biases... Why is it wrong to address that?

Because the reviewer only talked about the potential, and did not find any actual gender bias in the article. I would be willing to bet that the article contains several examples and red flags of gender bias. If the reviewer had FOUND and could name "ideologically biased assumptions" or gender bias in the writing, then the reviewer would have a legitimate criticism of the article. If the reviewer had a counter-example to refute the article, then there would be a legitimate criticism. If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism.

Bottom line, the reviewer criticized the authors, not the article. And the editor should have been smart enough to see it and call BS.

Comment: Re:Waitasecondhere... (Score 1) 403

by sh00z (#49587925) Attached to: Tattoos Found To Interfere With Apple Watch Sensors

Precisely. If I had ink covering my wrist, I would definitely read the watch's promotional material to see what technology is being used in that sensor. And once I determined it was optical, I sure as hell wouldn't buy one without a test-drive. The same for any off-nominal physical condition--it's the responsibility of the individual to see if the equipment functions in the presence of their physical variation. If you were one of the people whose dental work causes them to hear radio signals, would you buy a Bluetooth headset without trying it?

What I *do* have is quite hairy arms, I'm concerned enough about the pulse sensor working that I'm not even thinking about one of these watches until they're common enough to try on without an appointment (that, and since it's Apple, version 2.0 will be 25% cheaper and have 25% more features).


YouTube Going Dark On Older Devices 129

Posted by Soulskill
from the making-your-smart-TV-a-bit-dumber dept.
PC Mag reports on changes to the YouTube API, which have rendered YouTube apps inoperable on older consoles, smart TVs, and other video streaming devices. They're doing this because the old version of the API doesn't support some of YouTube's newer features. Newer devices might be able to upgrade — Apple handhelds that can run iOS 7 or later will have no problem, nor will 3rd-gen Apple TVs and devices running Google TV 3 or 4. But earlier Apple TVs and Google TVs running version 2 or earlier will be out of luck.

Comment: Re:America (Score 1) 120

by sh00z (#49509663) Attached to: Pull-Top Can Tabs, At 50, Reach Historic Archaeological Status

I think you are missing the point. When the pullout tabs were phased out in favor of tabs that stay with the can, I remember thinking that a thousand years from now discarded pullout tabs will be a valuable archeological resource. They are distinctive, ubiquitous, and indestructible, and because they were only used during a short time, they would conclusively date any architectural layer they were found in. ...

Exactly. I'm a contractor at the NASA Johnson Space Center. One day in the 90's, I was walking across a parking lot that had just been graded flat in preparation for a new layer of asphalt. I found myself in a "field" of dozens of pull-tabs embedded in the pavement. It was easy and fun to imagine some Apollo-era astronaut gathering. The Right Stuff, indeed.

(of course, today, just bringing alcohol inside the gate will get you fired)

The Almighty Buck

FAA Allows AIG To Use Drones For Insurance Inspections 53

Posted by samzenpus
from the adjuster-in-the-sky dept.
An anonymous reader writes with news that AIG is the latest insurance company given permission by the FAA to use drones for inspections. "The Federal Aviation Administration has been rather stingy when it comes to giving companies the OK to test, let alone employ, drones. After getting permission this week, AIG joins State Farm and USAA as insurance providers with exemptions that allow them to use the UAVs to perform tasks that are risky to regular folks — things like roof inspections after a major storm. In addition to keeping its inspectors safe, the company says drones will speed up the claims process, which means its customers will, in theory, get paid faster. 'UAVs can help accelerate surveys of disaster areas with high resolution images for faster claims handling, risk assessment, and payments,' the news release explains. 'They can also quickly and safely reach areas that could be dangerous or inaccessible for manual inspection, and they provide richer information about properties, structures, and claim events.'"

Ask Slashdot: Identifying a Stolen Car Using Police Camera Databases? 72

Posted by samzenpus
from the it-happens-sometimes-people-just-explode dept.
Dear Slashdot: First, some background. I have been "between schools" for some time, but have recently entered a training program that could at least potentially turn into a lucrative career. The work involves investigating, torture testing, and sometimes bypassing various automotive sub-systems, primarily car ignition, security and other embedded systems, for clients who are often surprised just how fragile these systems can be. The pay is minimal while I'm something more like an intern than a full-time employee, but that's OK -- I figure these skills will stand me in good stead. Now, my problem, and a question: One of the vehicles which I would very much like to play with is unavailable to me and my coworkers for the simple reason that it was stolen before we'd even taken possession of it. Normally, my employer might just write off the loss, but for various reasons would really like to locate this car in particular -- perhaps mostly a point of pride, but partly because future contracts from the same client might hinge on locating it rather than looking incompetent. I know that Ars Technica recently showed that it was possible to obtain a great deal of information about scanned registration-plate data using FOIA and other legal means; what I want to know is whether anyone can recommend particular tools or methods for locating stolen cars with such data that doesn't rely on going through the police or insurance companies, saving embarrassment and hassle. I know enough that I could probably file a FOIA *request* (most likely, my supervisor already has, actually) but not sure what we will be able to do with the raw data returned, or if there are sources for data other than "$Plate + GeoCoords." Plates obviously can be changed, too; are there publicly available sources for whole-car images that could be efficiently scanned? Best, of course, would be images with at least some rough sorting applied, so things could be sorted both by geography (we'd focus on our own area, Southern Caifornia, so start with, because we have reason to believe it was stolen in this area) and at least by vehicle type or color. And of course, this is probably asking too much, since I imagine it will be a near-impossible task to get this kind of data; we'd also welcome the magic of crowd-sourcing, so if you spot a tan Chevy Maibu with New Mexico plates (K88-283), there's probably some nice incentives in it for you.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer