Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Yes, that's why they bought Hull Trading. (Score 1) 185

I believe you got something wrong about panic. Doing nothing when volatility exceed limits is not panic. Volatility exceeding limits means no course of action can be extracted or determined. If you believe someone should be forced to actually act on such condition, the action is absolutely useless. No one knows the outcome. So, this is actually panic. Acting irrationally.

Comment Re:They want to be a welfare state? (Score 2) 237

Totally false. Only a small fraction of the population is wealthy on this planet, the rest is struggling everyday to eat, get some clothes and sleep under a roof. Once this will be done for everyone, you will have a lot of people struggling to get something else and improve their own conditions. That's why we are competing. Another side effect of removing competition by making everyone wealthy is you will then need to control tightly the population to not exhaust resources. At this point, you will be the exact opposite of an utopian State. Competition is what introduce a balance. Right, I agree it is not fair for everyone, but there isn't any fair for everyone solution anyway.

Comment Japanese workforce is growing old (Score 2) 370

Japan needs to automate as much as it can and robotize to survive with a workforce growing old. Japan is facing this reality as well as many countries where labor isn't replaced at a sufficient rate to keep up with the needs. Older people will need care some countries just cannot deliver or afford.

Comment Re:No even NO, but HELL NO! (Score 4, Insightful) 449

IT landscape is pain in the ass if you are seeking for a motivating programming job. Usually, large companies buy products to do almost everything. What is left is customization to your particular business or enterprise. In this arena, the software vendors are making huge efforts to make the interface as boring as they can since "easy to customize" is a major selling point. They want to tell your boss your work can be done by a monkey, so they make it that way. Some are having graphical interfaces which at the end of the day happen to be more time consuming than an standard API in any language a good programmer can take advantage of.

A fool with a tool is still a fool. So, they hire monkeys to play with the graphical programming interface and they produce shitty code because it is so easy to add layers and layers of shit over shit. Then they wonder why that beast they paid many hundred thousand dollars is working so slow and so bad.

All the fun is at home.

Comment Re:Make updating easier (Score 2) 181

This is not restricted to IoT devices and firmware updates. I have seen enterprise software with security holes and outdated components the manufacturer just refuses to make current and is asking us to pay for him to update these OSS components its software is relying upon. Even in cases where the OSS components in question are not longer supported by the community for a few years. There is a lot of lazy people out there with this mentality, if it ain't broken don't fix it. When in fact it is broken, it's just it hasn't been reported yet and it is insecure because it doesn't accept new encryption algorithms and still accept unsecure protocols and encryption. Then you pay many hundred thousand dollars yearly licenses to these lazy bastards plus 15% maintenance fee.

Comment Re:Main reasons. (Score 2) 181

Well, if advertising auto-security updates is not a selling point. Being hacked worldwide once is surely a not buying point for a customer. You don't always need to advertise everything to sell a gizmo. Just make it secure and reliable without giving all the details the customer didn't ask for on how you keep it secure.

Comment Re:Smart Devices (Score 1) 181

I guess some people here will advocate contrary just like it is evil for Microsoft to force customers to update Windows to keep it secure and current. Just like this bunch of people who refuses to upgrade from Windows 7, 8, 8.1 for no other reason they don't want to be spied on by Microsoft.

Comment How collecting metadata can be more dangerous? (Score 1) 157

For some, surveillance that just collects metadata might seem less alarming, but in Snowden's view, "That metadata is in many cases much more dangerous and much more intrusive, because it can be understood at scale." He added that we currently face unprecedented perils because of all the data that's now available -- in the past, there was no way for the government to get a list of all the magazines you'd read, or every book you'd checked out from the library. "[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you," Snowden said. "Increasingly, these things belong to companies, and these companies can share them however they want, without a lot of oversight." He wasn't arguing that companies shouldn't collect user data at all, but rather that "the people who need to be in control of that are the users." "This is the central problem of the future, is how do we return control of our identities to the people themselves?" Snowden said.

How collecting metadata can be more dangerous than collecting data that lead to metadata in first place? Snowden speaks nonesense here. Then all the examples he is giving are related to data collection and not metadata collection. Your beliefs, your future, your hopes and your dreams are not lying in the metadata.

Frankly, Snowden is overrated on these topics. I am a bit tired he is given the microphone by fucking journalists which have no clue about what they intend to talk about.

Comment Re: Obvious from the beginning (Score 1) 26

Who? The Federal Reserve? It's not its money. The transfer order was legit. The Federal Reserve cannot refuse to transfer funds it is not actually owning. The Bangladesh bank can transfer it where ever it wants. It is not the Federal Reserve business to refuse or set any other conditions. They have no authority to rollback anything. In fact, a Swift transaction cannot be rolled back. You make another transaction to transfer funds from to original destination back to the original source if it is still at the destination. There was many destinations btw. They probably transferred multiple times the money from many accounts until the bank has no more authority to get it back or it becomes too hairy giving some time to people to actually withdraw in cash the money.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354