Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How many minutes until this is mandatory? (Score 1) 287

by sublayer (#49333415) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

I think Ford should invest in getting everyone a moving map GPS

... displays will be in all new cars starting in 2018, because backup cameras will be mandatory. So sticking in a GPS is a minimal cost. For many current cars, the backup camera and GPS are part of the same package. ....

That's all very well, but I don't usually have a problem navigating when I'm reversing - I want the GPS to work when I going forwards!

Comment: Re:Problem of a tech illiterate population (Score 1) 130

by sublayer (#49092809) Attached to: Gadgets That Spy On Us: Way More Than TVs

... Much like we have a national do-not-call registry, we need a national do-not-track registry that covers the individual and any information source they choose to register.

Wrong. We need a DO-call registry and a DO-track register. Privacy should be the default state. I should have to opt IN to being called by tele-marketers, spammed, tracked etc, not opt out.

Comment: Re: 66 percent of all point-of-sale transactions (Score 1) 753

by sublayer (#47446605) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

100 percent of all point-of-sale transactions are done with plastic... at least they are in Australia where we replaced paper notes with plastic ones back in 1988. Australia's $1 notes were also replaced with coins back in 1984 (go figure).

Wrong. Some transactions use coins, which are made of metal, not plastic. Last I checked, not every transaction was in multiples of $5 (the lowest denomination Australian note/bill).

Comment: Re:would have been awesome had this happened -- (Score 1) 56

by sublayer (#44837639) Attached to: Twitter Seeking To Go Public

TV Shows now include Twitter names and hashtags quite regularly as watermark bugs ... It's quite telling they put them up as bugs during the actual show ...

I've stopped watching some TV programs because the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has started displaying hashtags during the programs. The ABC is supposed to be non-commercial, and I refuse to watch anything that includes these advertisements. (For what it's worth, I also wrote to them and told them I was switching off. Now if only a few million other people would do likewise...)

Comment: Re:Note that it's against the rules (Score 1) 164

by sublayer (#44771977) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can Creating New Online Accounts Reduce Privacy Risks?

Only in theory. In practice, they'll reverse your edits if you're anonymous.

"They" will revert vandalism and other inappropriate edits regardless of whether you are logged in or not. Likewise "they" often keep good edits from editors who are not logged in. Feel free to provide links here to reasonable edits (as diffs) that were reverted just because you were "anonymous", and I'll probably be able to tell you exactly why they were reverted. (Disclosure: I am a frequent editor of Wikipedia - registered with a different name there to what I use here.)

Comment: Retroactive law (Score 1) 622

by sublayer (#43992375) Attached to: Keeping Your Data Private From the NSA (And Everyone Else)

I'll presume that you're a troll but you drag out the age old "If you've got nothing to hide... argument" Here are a couple of issues with this argument. 1. Retroactive violation of new laws: Let's imagine that you're a smoker and that you smoke in your house. The government could pass a law saying "Smoking is not allowed inside any building. Anyone caught must pay a $500 fine." They can now either go back and look at their surveillance data and retroactively charge you for smoking in your house in the past

The problem there is not the surveillance, it's the retroactive law. It's fundamentally wrong that I can do something legal today, and then tomorrow the law might change retroactively so that I can be prosecuted for doing something that was legal at the time that I did it. It's irrelevant whether the evidence is from surveillance (covert or otherwise) or from witnesses who saw me (in public or in private), or by my own admission. If I can't travel back in time to change my behaviour, nobody should be able to change the legality of my past behaviour.

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.