Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Not kill the messenger ... (Score 1) 54 54

If the researcher is not being arrested its not "kill the messenger". Impounding his equipment, the "evidence", is just a very rude way of getting his data on vulnerabilities and attacks. They could have asked. Then again perhaps they feared the "evidence" being tampered with, confidential sources and all that sort of thing. Again, rude, but a plausible path if such concerns were warranted.

In the U.S., they can take all of your stuff if they arrest. Well, technically they can't, because that would be unconstitutional and illegal, but they DO. So how much worse is it when they can take all of your stuff without even arresting you?

Comment: Re:Are you fucking kidding me? (Score 2) 73 73

It's almost as if I don't understand what the phrase "the system will check for blinking" means. So does it check to make sure the selfie IS blinking or IS NOT blinking? I fail to come up with any situation in which the last line of the summary makes any sense or bolsters the lack of security in this process. The article goes no further in any attempt to explain it.
How does Mastercard get any original photo of my face in the first place? What if I don't want them to have one? What if I don't want to spend megabytes of my data plan every time I make a purchase instead of putting the onus on the merchant to put 300 bytes of information across the network in a traditional swipe transaction. What if the long line of customers behind me beats my face to a bloody pulp for spending 5 minutes trying to do a transaction instead of just doing a card swipe and entering a password?
Giant leap backward from every angle I look at it. 1000 times increase in bandwidth. 1000 times increase in time. Decrease in security. Decrease in convenience. Can't think of any positives at all.

Comment: Re:The internet-of-things is here to stay. (Score 1) 76 76

The internet-of-things is here to stay.

To the contrary, in my experience most things that have a catchy name before they are implemented go nowhere. Multicasting, Named Data Networking, Internet of Things, OLP, Web Ontology, Neural Networks, etc. The project is more focused in sounding trending than in finding reasons why things want to access the internet (presumably so that your toaster can watch youtube videos while you are away?)

Successful projects usually start from the other end. People first create a small iteration of the thing that proves the concept, it starts to catch up (fancy name might be created here but this is entirely optional) and one day you turn around and its taken over the world.

On the other hand, if IoT does take off, then about 3 to 5 years after that I'm going to start a new company and sell products with the exciting label of "Not Internet Connected!", and I'll make billions.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 815 815

It - like the military itself - is kind of a Federal jobs program. If you keep your existing jets and don't build new ones, then you lose the employees with the skills and experience needed to do the job. (Kind of like we may not be able to build new nuclear weapons if we wanted them because we haven't made them for so long and everyone with any experience has retired.)

I find it interesting that we have to have the latest and greatest fighters out there, while our AWACS are 50 years old and our bombers are 60 years old. Neither system has been replaced, at least not with anything that lasted more than two decades and then got replaced or shelved.
Heck, the F-16 itself is still in use 40 years later having seen newer fighters come and go. Apparently, the F-16 can hold it's own against an F-35. Imagine what 3 1/2 of them could do against one F-35.

Comment: Re:If we're stuck with polls, how 'bout tech polls (Score 1) 142 142

I live in a subdivision with relatively spacious yards, but the fireworks are illegal around here. In fact, they are illegal even in the smaller towns. The only place they aren't illegal is in unincorporated areas which can be found here and there, usually with several large fireworks stands on them. Unfortunately, it is also illegal to transport fireworks through town, so you can't take them from the unincorporated place you bought them to the unincorporated place you live in. Police can and sometimes do just watch people buy them from the booth and then pull them over as soon as they cross the line into town.
Some of the fireworks stands have huge fields behind them so you can light them off there, but they are not open at night, so you don't get the full effect, and they are definitely not open at night on July 4th.
Effectively, you just can't legally fire off fireworks here on the 4th of July night. You had to have done something illegal, unless you happen to live in the same unincorporated area as the fireworks stands. In general, nobody lives in the unincorporated areas around here. They are just trees and fireworks stands.

Comment: Re:New Hampshire (Score 1) 142 142

It's your civic duty as a citizen of New Hampshire to purchase and light my own fireworks which were made in China, hence removing cash value from your own country and send it to China.

Well, since fireworks came from China in the first place, it's not like it is a big loss. Not like IT jobs, cars, electronics, etc.

Comment: Re:I'm not American so why would I care? (Score 1) 142 142

woooooh murkins coz thats the whole world and the entire slashdot audience

oh and the entire independence thing is an illegal act any way

It was an illegal act at the time. However, after lots of people died, the U.K. accepted and legitimized the independence of the United States.

Comment: Re:GOOD. (Score 1) 227 227

I thought our national health insurance system was supposed to have solved all problems of this nature by now.

Why the fuck, in 2015, are Americans still relying on private insurance companies for health care? So much sigh.

Because insurance is not healthcare. All Obamacare did is require everybody to pay money to the insurance company. It didn't do anythign at all about healthcare. If anything, healthcare will suffer because now people who previously could at least afford to go to the doctor now have to pay for insurance instead and can't also afford to go to the doctor.

Comment: Re:Next time you complain about "lobbyists"... (Score 1) 227 227

... just remember: sometimes you need lobbyists to protect yourself from government.

This is an example of it: a social app's userbase is trying to protect themselves from the rent-seeking taxi cartels.

They have more lobbyists than Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart obeys the law. Uber is operating illegally and so they must use lobbyists to try to get the laws changed so that Uber will be legal.
They are trying to protect themselves from the government, but only because they started out being on the wrong side of the law. I don't see any social justice here.
Why refer to taxi companies as cartels? It wasn't their idea to institute medallions. It was the governments, due to overpopulation of taxis. The only thing that the taxi companies are trying to protect is that they had to pay cash up front and operate within the law in order to provide services, but Uber is getting away with operating illegally and not paying for the proper authority needed for them to operate.

Comment: Helping out google's algorithm (Score 3, Funny) 70 70

Here is a helpful hint for google's algorithm to determine if the click was accidental:
If I clicked it, it was accidental.
If I did not click it, that was intentional.
The only time I ever click on an ad is when I got suckered in by a deceitful company trying to appear to be a legitimate news article. For example, I got suckered in by "New Law has Insurance Customers Fuming" headline...once. A company that has to fool people into clicking on it's links does not deserve to be in business and should have their IP blacklisted so that no one else will ever accidentally visit their site.

Comment: Re:Uber != car sharing (Score 2) 177 177

Taxi companies don't want to compete with Uber though, they just want to outlaw them and go back to their monopoly.

They don't want or need to outlaw Uber. Uber is already illegal. All the taxis want is for the competition to have obey the same laws, which legally they do. In practice, Uber chooses not to obey the law.

Comment: Re:In time (Score 1) 591 591

I hope the next president does away with this BS act! Tax people that don't have health care, and charge the rest an insane amount to have health care. 0.o This act needs to go.

They are not taxing people who don't have healthcare. They are taxing people who don't have insurance. There is a difference. Making people pay for insurance does not guarantee healthcare. It guarantees that the insurance company gets paid. After paying for insurance, people may not be able to afford to go to the doctor.

Comment: Re:Opportunity Lost (Score 1) 591 591

Only 16 out of 50 states chose to create state health exchanges, even though the law stated that by not doing the citizens of the remaining 34 states would not get federal subsidies (the whole point of the Supreme Court case).

Well, that explains why I am not getting any assistance with Healthcare. I keep seeing commercials touting how "Most people receive assistance with their premium", lies fed to us by the Federal government. When I lost my job, I was expecting that I might get some subsidy to help with my healthcare payments, but no, they healthcare portal said I do not qualify for anything, not even tax credit. I still have to pay my full healthcare premium, plus pay my taxes so that other people can enjoy not having to pay their premiums.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...