Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:The Canadian arm of the business is stil operat (Score 1) 294

by v1 (#48997035) Attached to: Radioshack Declares Bankruptcy

Their angle was "in stock and in HAND today". They lost sight of that, their most valuable resource. instant availability. I dropped $300 on dx.com last month in a single order. That gets you a crapton of small electronics. But you have to wait for it. I'm still waiting on one of the packages to get here. Ignoring the fact that 80% of that stuff RS doesn't carry, if they did, it would have cost well over a grand.

I remember them putting out an open invitation for surveys last year, and I tried to explain that to them. But they were asking questions like "do you want more DIY stuff and kits". Those were radio shack's bread and butter earlier that they got rid of over time recently, but those actually needed to go away. I can get arduino clone boards for $16 that cost $65 at the shack. No one in their right mind plans to buy that locally. It costs way too much, and you don't need it today.

The classic view of modern Radio Shack being a battery store is actually quite keen. Batteries are the perfect example of something you need now. If they were to survive, they were going to need to identify and focus on items like that. Small items that they can sell at a modest markup that people need TODAY. Anyone that can wait for something will order it from China. But instead they listened to the people that were reminiscing about how they used to shop at Radio Shack, and though that returning to a 20 yr old business model that they'd left behind was a good idea.

It was not.

Comment: Re:Now all we need to do (Score 5, Insightful) 316

by v1 (#48835297) Attached to: Eric Holder Severely Limits Civil Forfeiture

The problem wasn't that they weren't following the laws. The problem was what they were doing wasn't illegal in the first place.

It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law. But it's often impossible to get them to "do the right thing".

So this is definitely a good step in the right direction. Don't complain just because we've gone from "impossible" to merely "difficult". Sometimes these things take awhile to straighten out. Be thankful we made some significant progress today.

Comment: Re:No evidence (Score 2) 263

by v1 (#48835241) Attached to: Google Releases More Windows Bugs

Microsoft says there's no evidence these flaws have been successfully exploited.

"...so we're going to wait until the bot herders have sucked in a few million more machines before bothering to patch it."

WHAT is WRONG with you, ms?? If I'm reading that right, google is doing precisely what is necessary to light a fire under MS's ass to get the bugs fixed. It isn't really even that. They're basically telling us they don't consider it to be a big deal until it starts getting exploited. By making that comment, they completely justify (and encourage) Google's actions.

Comment: Re:Wait a minute (Score 1) 248

by v1 (#48835195) Attached to: SpaceX Landing Attempt Video Released

but that means you have to carry more fluid. Unless there's very little fluid normally needed, I don't see how ditching the pumps and motors saved enough weight to put enough additional fluid in the reservoir to matter. I see two lines on a weight graph, a horizontal one for the closed-loop, and a curved line representing the open-loop. At some point these lines cross, and the open-loop becomes a worse option. I'm just surprised that point isn't way earlier for them.

Comment: Re:Carriers (Score 1) 312

by v1 (#48711327) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Should We Do About the DDoS Problem?

I think we're all in agreement that something needs to be done, but the ethics of disrupting a business's capacity for staying in business is shaky ground.

Imagine... a large car rental place in your city rents out cars on the cheap. They're all identical, impossible to tell apart visually. They have very lax security on them, a basic door lock that's easily broken into without damage, no car alarm.

A criminal gang in the city has started targeting these cars, they're being stolen frequently, used as getaway cars for store robberies and even an occasional bank heist. Security foortage is worthless because all the cars look alike. The thieves apparently have realized if they just dump the cars off where they stole them after they're done without really damaging them, nobody cares. Not the rental place, not the customers. The criminals are impossible to identify or prossicute.

The mayer however is getting pissed off that the rental company is refusing to take any action. The rental co simply does not care, because it's not hurting them or upsetting their customers. Why should they spend money to fix someone else's problem?

What does the mayer do about it? What can he do about it?

This is the botnet problem. So, approach it from that perspective.

The rental co already has a few policies in place. They have monitoring software in the car that is used exclusively to watch for road-rage or dangerous driving. If a customer is driving recklessly and risks damaging the car, they may get a warning from the rental co, or even have their rental remotely disabled for a few days. (copyright DMCA letter anyone?)

So.... since they already have this monitoring system in place, and should already be able to tell when a car is stolen and being used in a robbery.... the mayer forces the rental company to use this information to help curb the problem of their cars being used for public harm.

This is how it would work in any other arena. So why does no one take action against the botnets? Does the rental company's right to run their business like they want to outweigh the serious problem they are facillitating? Of course not.

Comment: Re:Carriers (Score 2) 312

by v1 (#48709437) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Should We Do About the DDoS Problem?

It's trivial to cut off service, yes, but if an ISP and upstream providers to cut off all offending networks from access, the internet would pretty much go silent.

I think that's exactly why it's necessary. Most ISPs take very little notice of an obviously infected customer's machine, unless of course it's trying to pour its spam through their SMTP server. Then they immediately get their panties in a twist and pull your plug until you clean up your machine.

The difference here of course being who is the victim. You or me? Not gonna bother. US? Red Alert Ban Hammer Time!

So, your upstream pulling (or threatening to pull) your plug is precisely what's needed to motivate those ISPs. Some are lazy. Most are just too cheap to invest in fixing the problem and would rather bank the dollars than spend them to fix "someone else's problem". Make it their problem. Light a fire under their seat and watch them redirect a processes they already have in place, to fix the problem.

Comment: stealth (Score 4, Insightful) 279

by v1 (#48679813) Attached to: Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets'

Those "sensor pods" are shaped like external fuel tanks. They've got that rounded and curved shape, to make them aerodynamic. Which is horrible for stealth. The F35 has to pack all its baggage inside the fuselage, with minimal openings.

A huge part of this question then becomes a tradeoff between stealth and features. You have to gve up some stuff if you want to be stealthy. So far, on the F35, most of those drawbacks have been "bought out" by spending a crapton on working around them. Stealt VTOL for example was a major PITA.

Considering the already absurd cost of the avionics electronics developed for the F35, tacaking on a completely new ground sensor package (and finding a place to PUT it inside the airframe) would have raised the cost quite a bit. Those sensor pods have been a work in progres for the last 15 years, the R&D is already mostly done. You can't compare that to a completely new package. (and you thought the rest of the new F35 had bugs and glitches?)

Comment: video demo? (Score 2) 71

by v1 (#48630031) Attached to: Ars Reviews Skype Translator

how can you possibly not link to an a/v demo or review of this, in the thread OR in the review???

I went looking on youtube and found a metric crapton of copies of the MS demo. I don't want to watch the publisher's demo, of course it's going to be flawless. (and quite possibly rigged) They've successfully flooded the actual honest review demos into oblivion on youtube. Anyone got a link to a review with A/V test?

Comment: Re:42 years old here.. (Score 1) 376

by v1 (#48561235) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: IT Career Path After 35?

That's knowing the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is what you know that's directly relevent. Wisdom is a combination of what other things you know, plus your skill at adapting them into something useful to help solve a new problem.

In IT, knowledge is fleeting. Like most certs, it expires given time. It ages fast and requires continuous refreshing. Wisdom on the other hand ages like a fine wine. The background experience can age but does so slowly. The skill of application however, transcends time.

Knowledge is good. Wisdom is better. Knowledge with Wisdom is golden

Comment: Re:42 years old here.. (Score 1) 376

by v1 (#48561211) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: IT Career Path After 35?

every time I've left a company the old collegues always told me that they have had a hard time to fill the hole of the missing knowledge and workforce that I was giving to the team...but this, sadly, happens only after I've left.

THAT is extremely important to keep in mind. In the end, it doesn't matter how stupid they'd have to be to get rid of you... it's how LIKELY they are to be that stupid that ends up determining you fate.

That's why it's important to go out of your way to make sure "the powers that be" understand your value. It doesn't help you if YOU know how valuable you are, it frequently doesn't matter if your coworkers know how valuable you are, and it rarely will do you any good if they figure it out after you've left. Management needs to know, before they start swinging the axe around.

There's always a little bit of a "consolation prize" if they figure out what a bad decision they made and turn around and hire you back for a bit to pull them out of the fire they started, but depending on who they feel like blaming for the mistake, it can look either very good on a resume or very bad on a background check. Its usually a bad risk, worth avoiding if possible.

Comment: Re:kinda makes you wonder (Score 1) 129

by v1 (#48560615) Attached to: Stealthy Linux Trojan May Have Infected Victims For Years

The NSA doesn't run botnets... well, not many, anyways.

From TFA:

The unknown attackers--who are probably backed by a nation-state, according to Symantec

Even Symantec thinks it's a government operation. We're just starting to see them, but I think there's a lot more government-run botnets out there that haven't been outed yet. These sophisticated, highly targeted malware like Stuxnet are all government-run botnets.

They either made them, or as you suggested, took them over for their own use. (that's actually a good idea, and I'd bet the more common option outside of say china or NK... those two I could really see rolling their own botnet) It's not like anyone's going to put up any resistance. You don't call the cops when someone steals your cocaine.

Comment: Re:Security? (Score 4, Interesting) 89

by v1 (#48518877) Attached to: Fraudulent Apps Found In Apple's Store

not prevented, just greatly reduced.

Though even just looking at raw numbers isn't even fair. Apppl's store inventory dwarfs all of the others, and still numerically has fewer scams. It ought to work the other way around unless the wall is performing very effectively.

But bottom line here is some reviewers just got fired, and those that remain were harshly threatened. Reminds me of the recent peer reviewed journals that got caught with some lazy reviewers rubber stamping to boost their productivity numbers.

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke

Working...