Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Couldn't read (Score 1, Interesting) 167

The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative. Its like saying that I'll always believe that the theories of Issac Newton for life are absolutely true, regardless of what experiments show. You should always be willing to recalibrate your theories in light of new information. I suspect there is something else behind the conservativisim that is his real goal in life, politics, economics,etc that is unspoken. That is what the focus should be rather than the generic conversation stopper of "conservativisim".

Comment Re:Filter outbound email? (Score 1) 128

Yeah, you don't quite understand what I'm suggesting. I don't really want to specify it any further. But basically I was imagining something less comprehensive. The goal of Oxford was to raise awareness. My suggestion still has that in mind, raise awareness about phishing, but punish fewer people.

Comment Re:Filter outbound email? (Score 1) 128

My solution sucks as a long term solution, but as a short term solution its better and more effective than what oxford did. Ban or warn users after one suspicious email. Turn that on for one day out of every month to get people's attention. IT will become the enemy, such that people that don't *have* to use university email, won't. Which will keep out the rifraff who are most likely to get their accounts compromised. Which will reduce the odds of being labeled as a spam domain. Which will improve the quality for users that are responsible. That is, if you don't get fired by administration first for banning all the social science professors.

Actually, I do know a system admin at a local university. I'll ask him the feasibility of it is. If it will work for his college, it should work for any college (given their minuscule budget and high enrollment)

Comment Re:Filter outbound email? (Score 1) 128

I can't tell if you misunderstood me, or are just wrong. They are harvesting email addresses from students, profs, etc. There is a limited resource of available addresses. They wouldn't be able to send many emails if they used a different account for each one. Even if they did, the filter should just usie ranking system like spam assasin to red flag outgoing emails likely to be spam. One bad email sent, block that message, send notice to user. five sent, block account. Even if there are a lot of false positives, you would only punish those doing something kind of wrong (sending out messages that look like spam) , rather than punishing everyone by blocking Google docs. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Comment Re:Like... (Score 2) 268

I can't believe that Microsoft didn't improve their mobile platform because they were afraid of hurting their own success. It was never a market leader. The market shrank rather than grew for a while. Blackberry, Symbian, even Sun ate their lunch long before Apple showed up. They just didn't care enough about the segment, and were too distracted by the longhorn/vista failure to pay much attention. And when they did react, they decided to purchase an inovative company (danger) who's creative genius had already moved on to the next big thing ( Andy Rubin creator of Android) used Sun's platform and forced them to create something ( the kin) on the terrible windows mobile platform.

You give them way too much credit. They didn't think it was worth investing in. They were more interested in trying to create an ipod knockoff ( zune) than think about phones.

Comment Re:Google has done this already. (Score 5, Interesting) 95

No. Just making it non human is already an advantage in some respects. I would gladly replace myself with a self-driving car if it was as good as myself. I might even be willing to pay double for a car with that feature. I mean leather seats, climate control, wood paneling interior, crazy powerful engines, are features I wouldn't pay an extra dime for. Luxury for luxury's sake is stupid, imho. As is speed for speed's sake. But give me a car that drives itself, I 'll buy one right now for twice the price that my existing car is.

Comment Re:Where's the lie? (Score 1) 513

I laughed when I read that. Its linked to in the bottom right hand corner of

Basically it says...

Uses of Information
Additional Details
        We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising.

Comment Re:Yeah, right (Score 1) 245

No, that's not a funny thing. It documents everything. The privacy settings control the flow of information from you to other people, it doesn't control what facebook sees, collects, and uses*.

Theoreticaly some settings do specifically address what Facebook does with your info, but I don't trust them to not do it. Plus, there isn't a way to tell facebook to not use your information in a way they haven't created a privacy setting for. There really good at asking for forgiveness, rather than permission to do new things to you.

Comment Re:Yeah, right (Score 4, Informative) 245

Yeah, as much info I have in there is fake, I can't convince my friends who grew up with facebook in college to fake everything. They know things, I show up in pictures, I get invited to events, ect. The fake stuff makes it more difficult, but not impossible. Its like a single DES encryption. Just really there to deter those with out the motivation to crack.

Slashdot Top Deals

What hath Bob wrought?