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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Democracy restored (Score 1) 1476

The key phrase from your link "The European Commission remains the sole initiator of legislation," The European Parliament cannot pass any legislation which is not first presented to it by the European Commission. The European Council can "provide impetus to guide legislative policy", which I interpret to mean that the European Council can cause enough of a PR problem for the European Commission that they give the European Parliament legislation to address an issue (although, from my reading, and my experience, that legislation will not actually reflect the will of the people). Ultimately, the problem with the EU was that it was DESIGNED to not be responsive to the will of the people. Its founders and architects (even those who came in later and "redesigned" it) all believed that the wars of Europe were the result of unfettered Democracy (when, in fact, those wars were the result of governments run EXACTLY the way they designed the EU to work).

Comment Re:Apple is being weird and annoying (Score 1) 763

What's wrong with the standard 3.5mm jack?

After which you immediately gave the answer " It works, it's universal(and I believe unencumbered by patents) and the peripherals are everywhere." Which of course is why Apple wants to replace it with a jack that is not universal and IS encumbered by patents.

Comment Re:problems (Score 1) 239

It often takes much longer to confirm that a bad check is a bad check. I am not sure why. However, I read somewhere that some bad checks need to be physically inspected by the "issuing" bank to determine that they are forgeries. My understanding of that situation is that the check is written against an account which does have money in it to cover the amount of the check, but the check is not actually written by a person with authority to disperse money from that account.

I am not sure on this because all of the articles I found on the subject merely stated that it sometimes takes weeks to confirm that a check is good or bad. None of them discussed why that is the case.

Comment Re:Fuck ALL those assholes! (Score 1) 654

Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have both held up Australia's gun laws as an example the U.S. should follow. The Australian gun law they are referring to was a mandatory government buyback of guns (which is where they confiscate your guns, but give you money when they do it).

Comment Re:Why not a reverse auction instead? (Score 1) 212

Are you saying that there were not more people who wanted to see Game 7 of the NBA championships (to use a recent example of very high priced scalped tickets) than there were seats at the game?

I do think the idea of a reverse auction would work very well to eliminate scalpers. It would probably in the long run lower the prices of tickets for many of these events.

The fact of the matter is that event planners LIKE these bots purchasing tickets. They like "selling out" minutes(or seconds) after the tickets go on sale. It creates greater hype for their shows.

Comment Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... (Score 2) 317

The problem with someone like Bill Gates offering to "build infrastructure" in Bolivia is that most of the money will end up in the pockets of the politically powerful in Bolivia, and very little infrastructure will get built.
You might want to re-read the summary. These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries. Having worked with a different charity that works with the poorest of the poor in third world countries I can tell you that a small investment in the lives of the very poor can have big results. Projects which invest a small amount of money making a difference for the very poor are much more effective at improving the situation than projects which invest a large amount of money in a "big" change.

Comment Claiming the "cloud" is more secure than paper? (Score 1) 262

Any company which claims that a paper medical record is less secure than a medical record stored on the cloud clearly does not understand security (or is willing to lie about it) and none of their claims about keeping your information secure is to be trusted. Any method of gaining access to the contents of paper medical records other than having to go to the office where they are stored and physically handle them can be used to gain access to electronic forms of those same records (including electronic records on the cloud). In addition, there are many ways of gaining access to electronic records stored on the cloud which will not work for paper records.

Comment Re:Few now what iMessage is (Score 1) 156

Thank you for the reminder. I have an iphone because that is what my company standard is(I actually have the option of choosing a non-standard phone, but since I need to support users with company phones...and only IT gets to choose a nonstandard phone...I decided I better have what everyone else has. I may change to an Android when I get to replace this one). I meant to disable imessage a while back and forgot to do so. I just took care of that.

Comment Re:No expectation of privacy in public? (Score 1) 224

You make a good point. The thing about this that I am trying to wrap my head around is the logic involved:
It is OK for the FBI to have these cameras, because people do not have an expectation of privacy in the locations where these cameras are recording.
However, the FBI cannot reveal the specific locations of these cameras because the majority of people would then consider them an invasion of privacy.

If people would consider these to be an invasion of privacy, then they have an expectation of privacy in the places these cameras record.

Comment Re:This isn't a big deal, it's fucking huge. (Score 1) 86

Cloud providers, for instance, will usually be quite happy to enter contracts promising that they'll protect your data from illegal release,

The key word here being "illegal release" and what the definition of "illegal" is. "Oh, that wasn't an illegal release, a government agency provided us with a official letter telling us to release that information to them. How were we supposed to know that wasn't legal?"

This study shows what should have been obvious to everyone: if you put your data on someone else's server (the cloud), you are putting your data in their control. It is then your data only so long as it is in their best interests for you to have it.

I am confident that if someone else controls the hypervisor there will be a way for that someone else to access the data stored on any virtual machines running on that hypervisor. You say that the cloud is not any more inherently insecure than hosting your own servers. However, that is clearly not true, because if I host my own servers, I can determine exactly who has access to them (the fact that many IT departments do not keep their servers any more secure than if they were on the "cloud" does not mean that it is not possible). Further, you argue against something I never said. I never said that there was not a valid use for the "cloud", all I said was that it is inherently insecure. If you need a place to store data that does not need security, the "cloud" is perfectly acceptable.

Comment Re:This isn't a big deal, it's fucking huge. (Score 4, Interesting) 86

Yes, it is a big deal. But the key thing here is that the summary implies that this only works from the hypervisor to unwind encryption on a virtual machine which it is hosting. What this means is that the "cloud" is inherently insecure and that it cannot be secured. Something I have suspected since the "cloud" first became a thing.

Comment Re:Please NOTE (Score 1) 383

Yes, the system is broken, but that does not mean that this lawsuit should be dismissed. It is clear to me from the information presented that there is a basis for a lawsuit. Now, there may be other reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out, but the one presented by the website's lawyers in this case is not one of them. The Dow-Corning silicon implant issue was a result of bad science and is a reason for us to be skeptical of "consensus" science (at the time of those lawsuits, the consensus was that when silicon breast implants burst it led to health problems).

Slashdot Top Deals

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...