Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 2) 81

Here's a quote from an article about Samsung's washing machines exploding.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, references similar reports collected by local news and filed online with regulators. It also claims Samsung "has moved aggressively to collect and destroy all evidence of the defective machines" after they exploded.

Given that this is a company that's trying to silence news of this sort, it isn't fishy in the least to hang onto the only evidence you have so that you can either hand it over to the police or use it in a lawsuit against them. That's called common sense.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 81

Exactly. The only time I hand over equipment to the manufacturer is when they've already agreed to set things right in writing. Typically that's via an RMA or warranty replacement, but if I had been burnt as a result of a device exploding, there's no contract between me and anyone else saying that they're going to cover my medical bills and replace other equipment that was damaged, so why the hell would I hand a potential adversary my best piece of evidence against them?

Maybe if the friendly Samsung rep shows up with a generous settlement offer...

Comment Re:Siri on Mac (Score 5, Informative) 61

In the case of Siri on the Mac, however, the information is kept on-device, as I recall. In contrast, the situation discussed in the summary involved information that was never being kept strictly on-device and that Apple never claimed was private information that they weren't capable of accessing (which makes the "despite what Apple claims" seem a bit odd). Anyone who had ever glanced through Apple's (quite easily readable) white papers on their security measures would know that they had never made those claims.

According to Apple, iMessage conversation follows roughly this pattern (it's been at least six months since I brushed up on the specifics, so I'll definitely be glossing over quite a few details):
0) At some point in the past, Alice and Bob established Apple IDs, turned on iMessage, provided one or more pieces of contact info by which they could be identified by others via iMessage (e.g. e-mail, phone number), and then linked devices to those Apple IDs. During the process that links a device to an Apple ID, the device generated a fresh private-public key pair and provided the public key to Apple.

1) Alice creates an iMessage intended for Bob and presses send.

2) Alice's device opens an encrypted connection to Apple and indicates to Apple that it wishes to send an iMessage to the Apple ID associated with a provided piece of Bob's contact info.

3) Apple looks up the Apple ID associated with that contact info and returns the set of public keys associated with Bob's Apple ID, one per active device he owns.

4) Alice's device encrypts the iMessage once for each of Bob's devices (using the keys from step 3 so that only Bob's devices can decrypt them), then sends them to Apple. Metadata is included to help Apple route the correct messages to the correct devices.

5) Apple receives the encrypted iMessages and pushes them down to each of Bob's devices.

6) Apple keeps a log of recent messages so that they are able to perform various operations, such as syncing the Read status between Bob's devices after he reads the iMessage on one of them.

All of which is to say, Apple never claimed that they didn't know who you were talking with and when it was happening. Rather, they claimed the exact opposite, since that information is necessary for the operation of iMessage. The fact that they keep a log of information that was always available to them is both unsurprising and something that they had already disclosed. What they actually claimed was that your communication with that other person was end-to-end encrypted such that they couldn't get access to the content of the messages, and that remains true, so far as we know.

Comment Re:No authority (Score 1) 66

Just because the Senate hasn't enacted a law yet doesn't mean that individual Senators can't express their opinion that the current state of things is unacceptable. This is the first step towards them making a more serious push into establishing a national law, rather than leaving it up to the states to hodge-podge the laws together, as has been the case up to this point.

Plus, some of those Senators are from states that have security breach notification laws on the books, so they may have a more personal interest in why Yahoo failed to abide by the laws of their states, since they have constituents calling up and asking them to put pressure on Yahoo. Even if the Senators may not be able to take direct action, they likely can take indirect action to affect change. After all, most of them are pretty good at navigating politics to their advantage.

Comment Re:politifact says: mostly true (Score 5, Insightful) 106

It's easy to twist perception when you provide a statistic without the context necessary to understand it.

For instance, saying that 26 reports are hoaxes makes it sounds like the issue is being massively overblown in the media. But we know from other reporting that Samsung has received at least 92 reports in the US alone . And according to the summary, only 9 of those 26 "hoax" reports originated in the US, so if we just take the numbers at face value, it would suggest that at least 90% of the reports are NOT hoaxes.

To say the least, putting it in that context paints a very different picture.

And that's before you even start to look at what they've deemed to be a "hoax". If you do so, you'll realize pretty quickly that what they've actually done is identify 26 cases that may be hoaxes. A more accurate way labeling of their numbers would suggest that 12 of the 26 worldwide reports were verifiably not the phone's fault, but that the remaining 14 were unverifiable one way or the other. Beyond that and you're starting to ascribe intent, rather than sticking to the facts.

If we want to get a better sense of what's actually going on, it makes sense to exclusively limit ourselves to verifiable reports. If we start by assuming that 12 of 26 is a representative approximation for how many reports are verifiable out of the ones Samsung labeled as "hoaxes", then it would suggest that roughly 4 of the 9 "hoax" reports from the US are verifiable and 5 are unverifiable. That leaves us with 87 reports (i.e. 92 - 5) that should be verifiable one way or the other, of which 83 (i.e. 87 - 4) would be verifiably accurate. Given that 1M units were sold in the US, we can say that the verifiable failure rate to date is 83 out of every 1M, with that number likely rising over time as more verifiable reports come in.

Unfortunately for Samsung, that number is WELL beyond the 24 out of every 1M estimation that they publicly stated a few weeks back, so it should come as no surprise that they'd be trying to put a positive spin on things.

And, of course, an easy way to put a positive spin on things is to throw out some big numbers in a vacuum and hope people don't ask too many questions. Which is what they seem to be doing here.

Comment Re:Let me see if I understand (Score 1) 83

If I offered you a bribe in exchange for providing me with info that your NDA says you can't share, I may not be a party to your NDA, but I can still be sued for inciting you to breach it. The same applies here...sort of. The interesting wrinkle in this case is that the contract itself was likely illegal from the beginning due to the terms in contained, meaning that it was never enforceable to begin with.

Comment Re:The obvious next step (Score 1) 139

I'd suggest that the obvious next step is to produce a device and corresponding software that will allow a user to see through frosted glass or the wavy glass blocks that are frequently used in the bathrooms of homes. Both are intended to let natural light in while providing privacy by breaking up/diffusing the image in ways that make it impossible for the human brain to reconstruct, but there's no reason (I can see) that a computer shouldn't eventually be able to reconstruct the original image, allowing someone to effectively look through privacy glass as if it was perfectly clear.

The applications in law enforcement and voyeurism are obvious.

Comment Re:Wonder what the RNC is doing about now? (Score 1) 333

most reporters are well-educated.

[citation needed]

I'd wager that the most well-known reporters are well-educated, but most in general? I very much so doubt that. Just think of how many ditzes and idiots you've seen reporting the news over the years, if not live, then in blooper reels and the like. They're way more common than the smart ones.

Comment Re:Irish blessings (Score 1) 579

It's worth noting that their agreement with Ireland actually increased their IRS tax bill. The IRS demands X amount for any profits you make, but allows you to write off the amount that you paid in taxes to local governments elsewhere for profits generated there, meaning that your final IRS bill is X - local taxes you paid (we'll call it Y). By reducing their tax burden in Europe, they reduced the amount they could claim as a tax write-off, meaning that the Y value was actually larger than it would have been otherwise.

To get around that fact, they've been taking advantage of a loops that under certain circumstances allows them to defer paying IRS taxes if they keep the money outside of the US (i.e. don't repatriate it). They've been keeping the money overseas for years now in the hope that the US will have a tax holiday that would allow them to bring it back without paying the full amount, but now that the jig is up in Europe, there's no reason to keep the money over there, so they're going to go ahead and repatriate a large chunk of it, by the sound of things. It's just been sitting there doing nothing since it's been earmarked for coming back to the US, so it's no skin off their nose, but it is an interesting wrinkle in this whole fracas.

Comment Re:So what was the prior feature? (Score 1) 160

You don't need Tesla Autopilot to live (drive the car) compared to an dialysis machine.

If you are going to die unless technology intervenes, then, yes, the technology is needed for your survival. Period. It makes no difference when or even if you recognize your need. The need exists, regardless of your perception. A Tesla driver suffering from Imminent Fatal Crash Syndrome who could have been saved by Autopilot needs Autopilot in exactly the same way that a patient suffering from kidney failure who could have been saved by dialysis treatment needs dialysis treatment.

The reason your statement appears to hold water is because you're comparing the general population on one side against the small group of people whose need we recognize on the other side, rather than comparing like with like. What you should have been comparing was the people on each side whose lives would actually be saved by the relevant technologies.

More or less, you're getting hung up on your perception of the situation. You knew about the dialysis patient's need in advance, so you think that they have a need where Tesla driver's don't, but the fact is, most people will never have to face either situation, so your logic that says Tesla drivers "don't need" Autopilot would also tell us that most people "don't need" dialysis. In both cases, however, there are people who will die unless the technology intervenes. They both need the technology to survive.

What you're defending [...]

You do realize that people can scroll up just a hair to read the last line of my previous post and see that I said nothing of the sort, right? I actually said the opposite of what you claim I did. The only thing I was defending was the application of logic and critical thinking in our discourse, regardless of which side you take.

[...] half-baked technology that can kill multiple people being marketed as fully baked

Pretend for a moment that Autopilot was replacing a previous automated system that was exactly as safe as human drivers are today (i.e. 30,000 fatalities per year in the US). If we could say that Autopilot was 5% safer than the earlier system, we wouldn't hesitate to replace the earlier system, would we? It'd mean saving 1500 lives each year in the US alone, while still allowing 28,500 deaths. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd still be a large improvement over the status quo, so we'd consider it well worth it, right?

But because Autopilot is taking control from humans, rather than from an automated system, we (myself included, I'll admit) won't consider it fully-baked until it is SIGNIFICANTLY beyond a 5% improvement. Even though Tesla is claiming that it's already nearly twice as safe as the average human driver, we still won't trust it. We each like to think that we're above-average drivers (even though half of us statistically aren't) and we fear ceding our lives to systems outside of our control, even if they're demonstrably safer than keeping control to ourselves. It's a matter of perception for us, rather than fact. Our perception tells us that the handful of deaths attributable to Autopilot are a huge cause for concern, regardless of the fact that they may have come at the benefit of many more lives saved.

Again, as I already said, I don't think that Autopilot is ready for primetime just yet, and I'm not saying that I buy into Tesla's line that Autopilot is already safer than humans (to be clear, I absolutely do not buy into that line, based on firsthand accounts I've heard of how it performs), but I also want us to do a better job of separating perception from reality. We got security theater at airports the last time we let perception shape our reality when it comes to the topic of our safety. I don't want to see a repeat.

Comment Re:So what was the prior feature? (Score 5, Insightful) 160

So he admits from his own mouth that the previous technology is a killer?

That's faulty logic. If a hospital upgrades to some just-released equipment and is able to save more people as a result, that doesn't mean that they killed the people who could have been saved by that equipment, had it been available earlier. The state of the art is constantly getting better. Admitting that the newer stuff is more safe than the older stuff doesn't mean that the older stuff was killing people. Quite the contrary, since in many cases that older stuff saved a number of lives that would have been lost had people relied on the alternatives that were otherwise available at the time. Saying that the newer stuff is even more safe just means that we have something even better now.

Of course, I say all of this to point out the fault in your logic, not to suggest that I think Autopilot is ready for primetime already. Because it's not.

Comment Re:cable is not over the air waves (Score 1) 149

Let me add some emphasis to your question, since it's really two questions in one, both of which are worth addressing...

why does the FCC get to regulate it?

Because Congress transferred the Interstate Commerce Commission's telecommunications authority to the FCC when they abolished the ICC. That's why they're the ones doing the regulating. And while it's true that their original mandate only applied to the airwaves, the ICC was abolished the same year that the FCC was founded--1934--so for all intents and purposes the FCC had the authority to regulate wires right from the start.

why does the FCC get to regulate it?

Because your assertion that a cable company "ought to be able to do whatever they want with [a wire] as it does not interfere with other devices" is woefully misguided. For one, cable companies don't just "put some wires down"; they rely on one of our most precious public resources: access to public property. They oftentimes don't own the easement or utility pole that their line runs through or across, so it's to be expected that their access would be subject to some form of regulation.

Moreover, there are decades of precedent supporting the FCC's authority to impose regulations of exactly this sort. The best and most relevant example would probably be what happened when the Carterfone entered the scene in the late 1960s. At the time, AT&T was requiring that all customers rent their handsets from them and prohibited their customers from connecting devices made by anyone else. The FCC eventually ruled that AT&T was required to permit all lawful devices on its network, which paved the way not just for competing handsets, but also for new classes of devices such as answering machines.

In much the same way that Ma Bell was protecting its monopoly by tying their service to mandatory devices that needn't be mandatory, so too are cable companies doing the same thing today with the local monopolies that they've managed to carve out for themselves. The FCC has already established its authority to regulate in this area, and they have every reason to exercise it here, given the consumer-hostile situation that we currently all find ourselves in. The FCC has had difficulty establishing its authority to attack the root of the problem (i.e. the state laws and exclusivity agreements that lock out competition), but that doesn't mean they can't go after the symptoms that fall under their jurisdiction, which is exactly what they're doing.

Comment Re:No 4K UHDBlu-Ray player? (Score 3, Insightful) 82

While it struck me as baffling too, now that I've thought about it some more, I'm inclined to think that it honestly shouldn't have come as a surprise. 4K blu-rays entered the race late, stumbled out of the gate, and found that they were not only entering a market in rapid decline, they were doing so without the benefit of the factors that allowed their predecessor to enjoy a middling level of success.

The fact that the Xbox S supports 4K blu-rays does nothing to change the situation at large, since it's a mid-cycle console upgrade that flew by the majority of the public without them even realizing it had happened. There's virtually no chance of it changing the situation that drove Sony's decision.

Mind you, this is much to my chagrin, since I'm still in the habit of buying physical media and making high quality rips of it so that I can control where and how I view it, but it's pretty clear that Sony has looked at the sales numbers for 4K discs up to this point, seen that they've failed to turn the tide of declining sales, and have decided that it's not worth the couple of extra bucks per console to support a format that will never manage to gain traction in the market at large.


Just to break things down a bit more, since I realize I said a lot of things without explaining what I meant...

Sales Decline
Even though blu-ray won the format war over HD-DVD, blu-ray sales have been declining for about five years, with the decline hitting double-digit percentages for the last three years straight. It's a format in falling-off-a-cliff levels of decline, despite no physical successor displacing it. DVD sales are down by a similar amount. On the flipside, streaming is up. WAY up. The writing is on the wall for physical media, and has been for some time, whether we like it or not.

Beneficial Factors
This is happening, despite the fact that blu-ray had every opportunity to succeed. Getting people to buy an expensive new TV would typically be a major hurdle, but the falling price of HDTVs around the time that blu-rays launched (coupled with the fact that massive, flatscreen HDTVs were a compelling upgrade over the bulky, small CRTs that everyone had at that point) helped drive an incredible adoption rate that far outpaced the typical upgrade cycle.

4K's Hurdles
In contrast, while 4K blu-rays have to cross that same hurdle of getting people to buy new TVs, we haven't seen 4K TV adoption move anywhere close to the same speed that we saw with HDTVs (i.e. it's on par with the typical replacement cycle). 4K TVs are proving to not be a compelling upgrade for most people over existing HDTVs, presumably because the benefits of UHD over HD are lost on most people.

Late Arrival and Competition
Moreover, YouTube, Netflix, and other streaming services have been providing 4K content (or higher) to the people who wanted it for years at this point, and they did so without requiring big ticket purchases of their users. The first 4K blu-ray discs didn't start shipping until March of this year, so the format was both late to the game and priced higher than its competition, meaning that it's, unsurprisingly, fared quite poorly in the market.

Other Moves
On the other hand, we've seen Sony work on making PlayStation Vue a more compelling service. When the Olympics were ongoing, I saw numerous mentions of it as a viable alternative to cable subscriptions and services like Sling TV. And this is in addition to Sony's ever-expanding, existing library of digitally distributed games and movies available in the PlayStation Store.

All of which is to say, between the market and Sony's other moves, it shouldn't have come as a surprise to us that this would happen, even though we might wish otherwise.

Slashdot Top Deals

Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.