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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:will be seen as a dig against science (air quot (Score 1) 100

by zentigger (#48573393) Attached to: A Paper By Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel Was Accepted By Two Journals

Unfortunately, this will just get used by anti-science folks to point out how full of shit "science" is.

Yes, but those idiots aren't actually capable of forming rational arguments. They only know how to recite dogma, and their faith doesn't require proof. Just stating something and believing make it true.

The reality is that this exposes the strength of science: Anyone can publish a pile of rubbish and call it fact, but the scientific community will quickly call it out, discuss it, and dismiss the rubbish as such.

Comment: Re:Buzzwords (Score 1) 346

No.

Buzzwords were invented by admen to sell products by abusing language to add empty syllables and obfuscate the true worth(lessness) of a product. The words were as empty of meaning as the products were of worth.

A successful editor is a wordsmith, using words to craft deeper meaning filled with subtlety and nuance.

There is nothing more offensive to a master craftsman than the flagrant abuse of his tools.

Comment: Re: ... Everything? (Score 1) 528

by zentigger (#48536971) Attached to: The Sony Pictures Hack Was Even Worse Than Everyone Thought

Security is not ever easy.

Even if you know it well.

There is a constant balancing act between accessibility and security and the two are most often mutually exclusive: one comes at the expense of the other. And even if you have everything locked down tight, it only takes a minute for it to all fall apart due to some exploitable code that is beyond the ken of all but a very few people on the planet.

Comment: Re:If they're going literal.... (Score 1) 251

by zentigger (#48326229) Attached to: Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act.'

It's not vague. It's not inclusive. It's actually quite the opposite: It is very EXCLUSIVE. It is meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTING INVESTIGATIONS.

The DFO is trying to have some fishermen charged with accounting fraud for destroying fish. It is completely absurd, and the lawyers that are pushing this should be disbarred, and thrown in jail for contempt of court, or better yet, they should be put into the stocks for people to throw rotten fruit and stones, as they are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the US legal system.

Comment: Re:A working automated vehicle (Score 1) 320

by zentigger (#48301463) Attached to: What Will It Take To Make Automated Vehicles Legal In the US?

... one that can turn into a lane of busy traffic that currently requires you to make eye contact with another driver to get them to slow down and let you in.

Well, if all the cars were automated, the oncoming traffic could be signalled much farther than eye-contact distance, and provide space automatically, such that a traffic merging pattern could be initiated and sufficient space made available for you. You also wouldn't get stuck behind the idiot that is too scared of traffic to merge unless there is at least ten times the required distance.

As a starting point, however, I suspect a gradual introduction of automated cars, say a special lane on the highway, much like a commuter lane or bus lane.

Comment: Re:Time Shifting? (Score 1) 317

by zentigger (#47568601) Attached to: Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

. . . [t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.

That should pretty much shut the whole thing down right there. The purpose of the in-vehicle entertainment system is to allow the consumer to make digital recordings of (non)copyrighted music for THEIR PRIVATE, NONCOMMERCIAL USE.

AARC are in the same class of bottom-feeding scumbags as SOCAN. I was personally threatened with legal action by SOCAN because we had not licensed out hold music for our phone system, despite the fact that our music was carefully selected to be recordings from the public domain.

These lawyers should be disbarred, jailed and have all their assets seized for distribution amongst the artists whose interests they claim to represent.

Comment: Android Security (Score 1) 100

Why doesn't Android have a permissions structure that allows the user to explicitly manage the permissions for each app?

  If I want to disable access to the contacts for any given app, I should be able to do that. If it breaks functionality of the app, then that is MY problem, but in most cases, it wouldn't cripple the app; I don't need my shopping list to be able to read my contacts and send premium text messages on my behalf.

Comment: There are no deep discounts (Score 1) 482

by zentigger (#46901153) Attached to: Really, Why Are Smartphones Still Tied To Contracts?

The idea that cell phones are sold at a deep discount is a total fallacy.

Cell phone providers set an arbitrarily absurd price that is two to three times the price that equivalent devices sell for in open markets so that they can make you think you are getting a really good deal, and so they can justify the price gouging for their services ("See Mr. Regulator, I need to charge these fees and maintain these contracts to cover the cost of the device!")

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson

Working...