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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: BETRAYAL (Score 2) 353

I am no supporter of Obama, although I did vote for him over McCain for his promise of less war, and am glad we didn't have McCain, but he didn't fulfill many of his promises, so I didn't vote for him over Romney. But he did OK better than you show..

spending didn't double under Obama, Bush hid $2.7 Trillion of his spending, that Obama didn't.

> The number on health care did go up. But since you had no choice any more it had to go up.

Went up at a slowed rate. People payed their bills, thus taking many of the costs from the States/Hospitals and shifting them to the people (and to the federal government.) while decreasing bankruptcy due to healthcare expenses. ACA was a improvement, but is not enough. The extreme rate increases in AZ last yeare are exaggerated as they only went up in the marketplace by that amount, most people with insurance didn't have much of a rate increase here. Congress ended much of the enforcement and budgeting for the ACA, this allowed the insurance companies to fold the plans with high risk people, and keep the plans with low risk, putting more high risk people into the marketplace.

>As for the economy as a whole obama saw the greatest increase of 2.9%. Which is lower than Jimmy Carters 5.6% and Bush Primes of 3.8%

He also took over during the start of a huge depression started before him. It is hard to predict what if's, but even as a fiscal conservative, racking up a deficit during bad times is OK. Regan/Bush,etc racking them up during good times was much worse. I didn't agree with Obamas methods, but for the limitations put on him when a bunch of do nothing republicans entered the picture, he did OK considering.

>The number of unemployment did go down but the number not in the labor force actually went up by 13.5%.

Actually 3.1% according to your sources, and that was due to boomers reaching retirement age, and retiring.

Comment Re:The government won't enforce this new law eithe (Score 1) 128

I didn't do a good explanation of the exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... does it better. Basically what I was trying to say (copied from the wikipedia article)

"the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border"

This is part of the justification for why a warrent is not required and that the probable cause standard is lowered.
I do see some need for this, but applying this to electric records... A) I really don't agree B) it is still legally contested.
Also the distinction that only american citizens have full constitutional protections at the boarder is also not right in my opinion. Especially when applied in that 100 mile boarder zone, IE until a person shows their papers they are not constitutionally protected.

Comment Re:The government won't enforce this new law eithe (Score 2) 128

> the current precedent is that the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border.

It applies to US citizens at the boarder. EFF is a bit tongue in cheek when they call it a constitution free zone. The current ruling (as I understand) is that crossing the boarder is probable cause and because it is needed to perform the governments constitutional right to secure our boarders inspecting possessions is allowed.

That they extended that to searching records, held in devices. And that they can hold even citizens for a couple days and impose a fine if they do not unlock devices when they cross... is a big stretch to the rules in my opinion.

Comment Re:Nothing useful in standard system directories (Score 1) 151

You cannot assume the system was shutdown before the attack occurs. You would still want to protect the integrity of the entire file system. The goal of this encryption would be so that any part of the system that doesn't have the encryption key cannot get to the encrypted data. So if I can attack at the bios of the HD, or HD controller, I could re-write /usr/bin/passwd... if those were not encrypted, to then allow the running system to give up encrypted data once that program is accessed by any process running with the keys. If encrypted data is written through a compromised data path, all the compromised component could do is corrupt the file, it would not be able to make precise changes.

Comment Re:Not about winning a bet (Score 1) 274

> But of course you won't do one full cycle a day.

The price thrown around appears to be around $250 / kwhr for this system with batteries. If you want them to add only $.05 /kwhr (current price of electric generation from fossil.) then they need 5000 cycles to get down to that price. That would be 15 years of life if cycled to capacity only once a day. Granted it may be 4 cycles of 1/4 capacity per day... Although the batteries will probably be less than 1/2 the cost of the system to replace (especially in 15 years) if they are the only part that fails, but you want some capital return on your investment as well.

> I'd expect a 20 year warranty though.

Yeah, and if it was my money paying for it and not the taxpayers, I would need that guarantee to be from Musk's personal money as well. I think it might be a 50:50 chance for Tesla to not declare bankruptcy at least once in the next 20 years.

Comment Re: Not surprising (Score 1) 47

Your correct and the driver wasn't asking for your sympathy. That doesn't change that Uber screwed drivers over who took a big risk with Uber then had them change the rules such that they lost the income they counted on. Then the CEO starts a conversation trying to get the driver to agree these changes were good for drivers, when it clearly harmed them.

It is not dumb to take calculated risks to increase income, and when those risks don't pan out, we don't condemn them as stupid. I also don't feel sorry for the driver, he gambled and lost. I am still impressed with his work effort and gumption and have nothing but best wishes for others in his position.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 47

> because of the money Uber siphons from his work

From everything I see, that is not what happens, and not what I got from the driver either. Uber's spend is on investors backs, they are pretty much subsidizing the drivers as well to get market share from their investors. The driver is mad that he signed with the Uber lease for his car while passenger rates were higher, then Uber cut those rates such that he could no longer afford his lease, in order to get more Uber market share. Uber is spending more on advertisements, and subsidy programs like the Uber lease than they get from drivers. Without investor money, even without the Autonomous driving development Uber's model (at current rates) is not sustainable.

Comment Re:It's a trap! (Score 1) 163

This is just trolling by someone who clearly knows little or nothing about car systems. Their is currently not a single production vehicle with OBD-III, it is a proposed standard and only details emissions today. His car has OBD-II, which has nothing to do with wireless. It would be akin to saying your home PC has wired Ethernet, so your neighbors have access to it via wireless, their may, or may not be a aftermarket wireless adapter connected to OBD-II, but OBD-II spells out the physical interface, protocol, and minimum standard, and that standard requires it to be 100% wired. No Police cars have a direct wireless link to any civilian vehicles on board data, and his 2008 car is not going to have any more than a few seconds of historical data stored, let alone be available to the police.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 250

I personally would assume we always assign primary responsibility to the owner/operator. It is their responsibility when buying/operating to do their due diligence on is it safe/legal... If the manufacture sells the vehicle under false pretenses then the person/company with the business contact should settle with the injured party, then seek compensation as needed. Of course if the owner cannot cover the damages, then sure bring the manufacture in directly.

I still think the most difficult part is going to be on expected minimal reactions. Very few auto accidents have a single contributing factor, so when a road isn't properly maintained, sun is interrupting optical sensors, a truck stops in a intersection, and autopilot drives into the side of the semi without trying to avoid the accident. The primary responsibility will still be the truck driver, as they started the chain reaction with a illegal move.

Of course the manufacture will be expected to take corrective actions, or risk direct action against them to force it. Regulations will need to evolve to apply this pressure, to keep a constantly improving minimum standard of safety.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2) 250

The manufacture is going to call it a limitation, and the manufacture is going to have all of the data in a format that no one else can interpret without their help.

Like the Tesla crash, the engineers cannot cover every situation with the optimal solution in a finite amount of time. And even if they could, their would still be accidents that those who don't understand the technology will think is a obvious fault. If it is much safer overall than a human driver, it would be wrong to not release the software, even if it has obvious limitations that will eventually result in a accident.

Comment Re:constitutional protections don't apply (Score 1) 514

FYI, when ACLU called this a constitution free zone, it was fully tongue in cheek. As I understand it as more of a reasonable grounds to extra search vs a citizens right to be secure in their possessions trade off. Those in the country not being infringed with a insecure border, over the rights of those traveling to not be bothered. They have already pushed the bounds further by having a $2k fine for not fully cooperating with TSA; likely claiming it is a civil action not covered by right to council... But laws like you describe would still violate the Constitution, at least as of the rulings before today.

Comment constitutional protections don't apply (Score 2) 514

> You have very few rights there

This does apply to them searching your phone, you have no choice. But it doesn't really apply to US citizens on giving up your password, if you have some time to spare that is. They cannot deny a citizen entry without cause, they can deny them their possessions or hold them for a "reasonable time." So eventually they have to allow citizens out of the constitution free zone, and into the US. Although they may be able to force you to give a fingerprint.

Of course this only applies to US citizens and US customs. Other countries are under no such consideration. But I am not sure many have any protections from search anywhere.

Comment Re: Yay! Cruelty-free bacon! (Score 1) 126

Your right, the worst of the meat is likely worse than the worst of the vegetables for impact. But, trying to say their should be no chicken, fish, or pork just because a very small portion of the beef is grown in CA and it shouldn't be grown in that one place, just is not a good argument. The majority of winter vegetables are grown in these places that are not sustainable, that should be minimized. The worst of the meat should be minimized as well. But Bison has grazed the plains of Wyoming long before people farmed. To say we cannot sustain-ably make that part of the national diet would be folly IMHO.

Comment Re: Yay! Cruelty-free bacon! (Score 1) 126

> they can digest a lot of plant matter that we can't.

Also a lot of the reason we eat meat is also that it winters well and stores well. Fresh fruit and vegetables in NY in February is being grown on mostly naturally arid land in Arizona and California watered from unsustainable water sources... and then shipped across the country using tons of fuel. Where as meat stores and ships per calorie, per nutrient much cheaper as it is more dense. Granted canning and freezing of some fruits and veges works well also. But it seams we need more GMO improvements and sustainable veggie growth for a vegan diet to be as sustainable as a sensible meat diet (preferably not beef in most areas though.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?

Working...