Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Regular users only (Score 1) 96

by thegarbz (#48944607) Attached to: 'Anonymized' Credit Card Data Not So Anonymous, MIT Study Shows

And yet a merchant who doesn't accept cash is liky to have lower costs at the end of the day.

You don't think balancing the till, counting the money, trips to the bank, storing and maintaining a float, and dealing with cash in general were "free" and didn't include a whole boat load of inefficiencies for trading did you?

Its like when I expense things for work I only ever do so on a company credit card because the end of the day I don't need to keep records, I don't need to fill out paperwork, I don't actually need to do anything other than look at a printed statement and click approve.

3% is a small price to pay.

Comment: Re:why does anybody feel safe purchasing from them (Score 1) 79

by thegarbz (#48944461) Attached to: Alibaba Face Off With Chinese Regulator Over Fake Products

No it doesn't. Alibaba does nothing to clamp down on fake reviews, and alibaba's customer protection is a joke compare to ebay/paypal's, and not even a funny joke at that. It's the kind of joke that if a friend told you it would make you cry and question why you are still friends.

Comment: Re:Great! (Score 1) 79

by thegarbz (#48944455) Attached to: Alibaba Face Off With Chinese Regulator Over Fake Products

I don't think so. This is not cheap Chinese products we are talking about. China itself is actively clamping down on fake products with blatent trademark infringement leaving the country. These products also make up a very small portion of what is sold on Alibaba so it's actually unlikely to hurt anyone by stopping the trade. They aren't clamping down on cheap shit that breaks after 2 days, they are clamping down on cheap shit which breaks after two days and has Bose written on it.

Comment: Re:Majority leaders home district (Score 1) 160

At current rates it is thought that there is a 200 year supply at best... more like 100 years (or less) should consumption double (or triple).

At current rates with current known supplies and no further exploration we have a 200 year supply. I take it you believed in peak oil in the 60s as well right?

If you increase demand you may find people actually start looking for the stuff.

Comment: Re:Won't be enough (Score 1) 160

At some point long before half a million years, reprocessing this waste is going to be economical at some point.

Yeah about 20 years ago. The bigger question is that will at some point before half a million years politicians actually make decisions based on sound science instead of NIMBYs and cold war fears of proliferation?

Comment: Re:Why Sell, they should Rent (Score 1) 87

by thegarbz (#48944139) Attached to: US Wireless Spectrum Auction Raises $44.9 Billion

why sell it, instead of rent it?

Same reason people don't renovate leased buildings. Why invest in something when it isn't yours. I certainly would be thinking twice about providing 100% coverage anywhere if there was a risk that in a few years time my investment would be for nothing. The only solution then is really long term leases, but at that point what is the difference between the lease and the sale?

Comment: Re:Didn't they learn the lesson of the PC? (Score 1) 69

by thegarbz (#48944127) Attached to: Reverse Engineering the Nike+ FuelBand's Communications Protocol

the Internet of Things, and manufacturers think these devices are so personal that no security is needed.

And you know what, in many cases I agree with them. Oh and the fuel band can hardly be considered an IoT device. It's just a datalogger. Actually it's a datalogger for some really mundane and boring data about someone.

Comment: Re:Is anybody surprised? (Score 1) 69

by thegarbz (#48944119) Attached to: Reverse Engineering the Nike+ FuelBand's Communications Protocol

Yep I'm totally going to sue Nike because someone can change settings or read how many calories I burn on my fuel band. My privacy is so important.

Look I'm all for privacy, but it gets to a point where I just don't give a shit about someone knowing some details.

I go to the gym three times a week, run about 4km at 6min/km, then row 1km, and cycle 5km. There you are, out for all to see. About the only thing else you'll get from my fuel band is that I actually skipped gym last Thursday.

Now if we were talking about the contents of my harddrive then it would be a different story.

Comment: Re:How will it work? (Score 1) 164

Self correction: Looks like TFA was talking about airports too. Yes that would be a large amount of data.
But memory is cheap, especially when you store simple things. It's not hard to take the simple guts of a flight controller and equip it with 128GB of storage. Though realistically the data would likely fit on more like 128MB

Comment: Re:How will it work? (Score 1) 164

Your simple solution is not as clever as you think it is. The control software for quads knows where it is, where it can't go, and what happens to take it in any given direction. Even in fully automated mode the software I've used from 3 companies allows you to specify which direction a quad is facing and which direction it is flying at the same time. And on my own personal quad the geofence doesn't get easily defeated by flying backwards or flying sideways (my neighbour's 6 year old tried that, though not on purpose).

Also I didn't say anything about the ethics, just the technical details behind why it could work. I personally think the idea is wrong, very wrong.

Also while you're talking about complicated issues around airports, I believe the topic is the far more simple and more dubious case of "national security". There's not very many zones there and it could be defined using a single GPS point and a sphere model which is actually very little data.

The whole idea of blocking flights has another dubious issue. Just because you shouldn't fly in an area doesn't mean you can't ever fly in that area. I've flown within 200m of the airport at height. I would have been very pissed if some software locked me out, especially considering I had approval to do it from the airport operator to film a test of their new firefighting equipment.

Comment: Re:Drones? (Score 1) 164

by thegarbz (#48931193) Attached to: Drone Maker Enforces No-Fly Zone Over DC, Hijacking Malware Demonstrated

They called them quadrocopters before even the cheapest and most basic models got FPV allowing you to fly it way out of sight and at long ranges, autonomous flying, and all the other things we normally would have equated with military reconnaissance gear.

Technically they have always been drones. Now though even the toys start resembling military drones.

There's no future in time travel.

Working...