Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Two Choices (Score 2) 172

We'll be safer against the COMMON bad actor that just finds a simple bug that STANDARD REVIEW would detect.
And less safe against bad actors that have highly-advanced specialized technical knowledge to find subtle bugs that everyone else is going to miss (Although these highly-advanced technical actors with a lot of money to spend could likely be able to reverse-engineer the entire product in their search for potential bugs).

Comment Re:Renter's Economy (Score 1) 175

You nor I will be allowed to use our autonomous cars for taxi services, due to the EULA.

Sure we will be allowed to: So long as we don't Opt-Out of our vehicle manufacturer's sponsored Ride-Sharing program where the vehicle manufacturer gets to keep 98% of the profits and then reimburses the vehicle owner for the cost of electricity or fuel, plus a small token profit.

Comment Re:Renter's Economy (Score 1) 175

What's going to stop Autonomous Car Owner A from charging a bit less than Autonomous Car Owner B, in order to get more customers?

The "no commercial use" in individual auto insurance policies (that costs extra), AND
the EULA Clause in the autonomous vehicle makers' click-through agreement that says No commercial Resale or Ride-sharing of the autonomous vehicle's driving service.

Comment Re:Kaspersky may well be innocent (Score 5, Informative) 155

Russian government has many more instruments at their disposal to convince businesses and individuals to "cooperate"

While that might be true; I doubt they would risk it.

Probably you are at a MUCH higher risk if you replace Kaspersky software with McAfee LiveSafe, just because the McAfee offering is crap.

Also, the risk of VULNERABILITIES in your AV product is at a much higher risk than an intentional backdoor existing (IMO).

Personally; I use neither antivirus product favoring WebRoot instead, but I have some respect for Kaspersky, and nobody's shown any evidence specific to Kaspersky that they could not be trusted.

Comment Re:because it was not in Alfred Nobel's will (Score 1) 148

Call on line 1. From the vatican or something.

The Vatican? As if they're ones to talk. That's one of those oddball cities in Italy that is administered by cult leaders and still maintains the frivolous claim of being their own sovereign nation embedded inside another country, but they have no military so at the end of the day, their compound is at the mercy of the local authorities.

Comment Re:because it was not in Alfred Nobel's will (Score 1) 148

the Nobel Prizes are conducted in accordance with instructions in his will. that's how it is.

Should he be allowed to maintain those instructions forever, though? I think not. He has been dead LONG since he wrote that will, and a dead person can't hold perpetual interest in things. After perhaps 100 years or so following their death, the public ought to say his authority to direct use of the funds has expired, and they will be used in whatever manner is in the best public interest, Or if he created an organization or gave the funds to a non-profit, the organization's trustees will direct the funds and alter the nature of the organization however they desire in a manner approved by the local government.

Comment Re:Technology? (Score 1) 148

One of the previous winners is for the invention of the Blue LED. Wouldn't that be considered technology?

Maybe.... The real category that's missing is fundamental advancements in computation that are Shared with mankind; not patented for exclusive use or kept secret.

There's a fundamental difference between scientists who make discoveries and publish their work VS businesses who invent things or do things based on their own science kept secret and marketed for maximum personal profits.

Comment "Privacy" concerns? Feh. (Score 1) 131

Given the privacy concerns, lawmakers are worried that the always-on device could build an "in-depth profile of children and their family."

Why is it an issue if a solution internally builds an in-depth profile of children and their family? please explain the perceived damage. Is this more about what the advancement makes people THINK a product that looks like this may be capable of, due to cultural reasons, than what it actually does?

I mean: Practically speaking, privacy is something children don't have in the first place --- parents and teachers can literally see ANYTHING the child does and exercise almost absolute control of their activities, should they so wish, and the product is doing nothing more than becoming an extension of the parents.... So why should this be any more a privacy `risk' to the kid, than the general risk of having a parent?

It's not like they're doing anything TRULY risky like putting the child's Social Security Number in a massive database with all their financial+housing information, and then being negligent in securing their database, *cough* *Equifax* *cough*

Comment Re:Which sites use noarchive w/o conditional acces (Score 1) 97

I use "noarchive" to prevent the caching of pages that change frequently

That is absolutely not what noarchive is for -- there are are other directives to control caching.
Noarchive is for asserting that projects and tools such as archive.org shall not save and make available historic versions of
a web page allowing users who explicitly want to see old versions to see them.

The page creator has that right legally to say nobody should redistribute archived versions of their page, which
is what that tag is for --- but as far as I'm concerned anyone setting Noarchive is being Evil / anti-internet by
making their site part of the disease that is information that can be lost -- in most cases trying to squeeze their idea of maximum Profit, which is
not what the world wide web is for, and not the kind of content I want my Google searches to bring me to, unless there's no other option.

Comment Re:Noarchive is flagged (Score 1) 97

That's a good indicator.... now if Google would please modify search so that NOARCHIVE documents are listed in search results with No snippet, AND the Search result will only be returned based on keywords in the Title, NOT a document search against content made visible only to Google.

Comment This should be criminal (Score 2) 42

The designer and their managers who allowed a critical emergency service to be dependent on an internet domain registration should be jailed for gross negligence.

When failure of a service would mean lives are at risk DO NOT make that service dependent upon resources from 3rd parties that can be terminated at will or that are subject to natural disruptions with no consequences for the 3rd parties (Or agreement with them that the services are used for functions critical to life).

A DNS domain registration can be terminated or suspended at will at the decision of a domain registrar or registry for any number of potential reasons
  (although it is rare; a domain can even be terminated by mistake or hijacked by a malicious adversary in some cases), or DNS servers connected to the internet can be nuked by evil folks in a DDoS attack, or temporarily suspended by various service providers for network maintenance; Or various situations on the internet under 3rd party control and no SLA can cause temporary outages of access to the DNS.

Slashdot Top Deals

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...