Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Not really one third ... (Score 1) 338

If you take the time to actually read the article you find that out of ~1,040,000 species previously named, 300,000 are definitely distinct species. ~480,000 are pseudonyms for those, and another ~260,000 are as of yet undetermined as to their status as distinct species. Since those others are undetermined, it cannot be said with any certainty that they are not distinct species. It would be just as (un)truthful and (in)correct to lump those in with the 300,000 known species and call it more than half.

Shoddy work on the part of the reporter.

Comment There is a way to do it even ignoring First Sale (Score 1) 281

The best I can tell from the wording of the exemption to the DMCA for unlocking cell phones to use on a different carrier, is that it must be done by the owner of the phone using software they legally obtained. So, ignoring First Sale, if he had sold these phones along with a legal copy of the unlocking software and a step-by-step instruction manual, that would have been fine (assuming he could legally re-sell the software).

The question comes, in my mind, where the principal of First Sale applies in this case. Since he (presumably) legally obtained the unlocking software, he was legally unlocking the phones. I would think that First Sale would come into play at the point where he purchased the phones and any resale after the fact would be unencumbered. Of course, IANAL and I don't speak legalese.

Any chance an IP lawyer with DMCA knowledge/experience could enlighten us?

Comment It's unclear ... (Score 5, Informative) 325

From the article: It's unclear whether it would lead to an automatic, more intrusive pat down by federal Transportation Security Administration officials.

No, if the image is unclear, the TSA's reaction is not. If you are not sure, check out what Dave Barry went through when the image of his groin was "blurry"

Comment Re:Seems to Be Some Confusion (Score 1) 563

The problem is that by the time a password has passed the threshold for "popularity" it is likely already too late. Any password that is likely to be "popular" is likely to be in a dictionary somewhere (I am talking about cracking dictionaries, not Webster's or OED).

From the article:

"Since no passwords are allowed to become too common, attackers are deprived of the popular passwords they require to compromise a significant faction of accounts using online guessing.

emphasis mine

What comprises a "significant faction?" Is it 10%? 5%? 1%? How about .01%? For a site with "millions of users" (like Hotmail), .01% is tens of thousands of accounts. .001% is still thousands of accounts. For sites like Facebook (as a f'rinstance) even one compromised account can put hundreds more at risk - and with a simple link to malware posted as a status update on one owned account it can spread quickly to infect thousands.

Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of keys (like SSH) that are stored in a USB key and fingerprint protected. Or is that too paranoid for mass consumption? I can see it becoming popular given the right push (in the media, especially), though.

Comment Re:Slight Misfire above.... (Score 1) 476

I happen to be far-sighted. I wear glasses when reading or working on the computer, but not usually when I am using my phone. I can guarantee you that at 8 inches I cannot make out the pixels on my 3GS, much less so for a display with even smaller pixels. Hell, at 8 inches I can't make out the text.

So I guess for me the claim holds up.

Comment Re:Homeowner? His responsibility (Score 1) 574

My neighbor has a tree in her yard. Its branches reach to my house. At point, they touched the house and windy day knocked some of the siding off. I paid to fix it, and paid to have the tree cut back... but my point here is this: should I have to pay yearly to keep her tree from poking my house again? Its her tree, why should I have the expense of making sure it doesn't cross onto my property?

Actually, in that case, you should have recourse to have your neighbor pay for the damages if you have already spoken to her about the encroachment and asked her to rectify it. We have neighbors with plants that over-arch and encroach and we just clear it with the neighbors that when we are working on our yard we will lop off the offending bits. But if we wanted to be whiny about it we could make them do it.

And, not to you, but to all those who are coming up with flawed analogies of broken glass and poisonous gas, and so on: As far as the EM from legal devices she uses legally in her house - that is not encroachment in that the devices are legal and cleared for use in residential properties, the energies that are put out are low (especially by the time you get all the way into the neighbor's house), and the energies are also within the norm for any built-up residential area. This is not like piping poisonous gas onto or blowing a foghorn at the neighbor, this is like planting a non-indigenous tree whose pollen blows around in the wind. (Although where I am the cherry trees are indigenous and the pollen is wreaking havoc with my allergies even now).

Comment Homeowner? His responsibility (Score 5, Insightful) 574

If he is a homeowner, how he protects himself from his surrounding environment is his responsibility. If he really believes he is being made sick by electro-magnetic energies around him maybe he needs to wrap his house in a Faraday cage and shut the hell up.

You can't sue your neighbor when their cherry tree blooms and sets off your allergies. Same thing.

Comment Re:First AGW, Now Homeopathy (Score 1) 507

I find it interesting that chiropractors are all automatically dumped into the bin with the quacks. Sure there are some (too many) quacks out there who say that aligning your spine will cure [insert malady here] but there are also those who are honest about what they do. Those are the ones who will tell you that what they do will only relieve pressure on the spine caused by misalignment and may help to stop the muscle spasms that accompany it. Nothing more, nothing less. Having had good results from a good chiropractor after minor back injuries in the past I am not so quick to dismiss them. Then again, when I saw one of the "quacks and frauds" type (who kept trying to convince me that beyond making my back feel better I would miraculously lose weight and no longer suffer hay-fever - what?) he did nothing to help the current state I was in and ended up making it worse (in 3 visits no less). Following that up with one trip to a good chiropractor had me back on my feet and ready to work again. Chiropractors (the good ones, not the quacks) are also not afraid to recognize more serious issues for what they are and recommend the proper course of action ("No, I can't fix a herniated disc - you need surgery. I'll send the x-rays on to the surgeon." or "You have scoliosis and nothing I do is going to straighten your spine out"). Of course, lumping all chiropractors in with the quacks and frauds is easier. While we're at it let's include physical therapists (much of what they do is similar in scope and aim). It's like saying all car dealers are scam artists because we can point out a few who are without too much trouble.

Comment Re:Define "Conventional" (Score 1) 357

Probably true, but I am in my 40s and have held 15 "regular" jobs (a few were held concurrently, 2 at a time) and have worked as a contractor and ran my own (unsuccessful) business. Considering that this covers a little over 25 years, and several "second" jobs, I would say that admitting to 15 jobs does not make me feel in any way unstable. In fact, the majority of the primary jobs have been steps up, to better positions or better pay.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.