Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Just curious... (Score 1) 220

Columbus re-discovering America is just an example of something that would have inevitably happened anyhow. It was previously "discovered" from the northwest tens of thousands of years earlier, and again by Polynesians sailing east, and by Vikings, and possibly by others as well. Columbus finding the place merely launched the Conquista. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else -- even if they had a more accurate concept of the size of the planet.

Comment Re:Just curious... (Score 1) 220

They found it because there is a whole bunch of Pluto-like objects out there, which is the whole reason it got demoted once this was recognized. Take ten thousand high-albedo objects (Pluto is at least partly high albedo), and say "point there, that's where we think it is" -- even if you really have no data, just a hunch -- and there's a good chance a dedicated observer will find something. They found Pluto not because it was Planet Nine, but because it was Dwarf Planet One of Thousands. While it was unlikely that they'd find that exact one, the chances of finding something substantially similar are much greater.

Comment Re:Doesn't really matter who fired the shot (Score 2) 334

The "must accept" clause simply means that the device needs to deal with such interference without aggravating the problem. Not by emitting more noise of its own to try to shout over it. It doesn't mean it has to remain in perpetual BOHICA mode.

A device isn't allowed to shoot back under Part 15 rules. That doesn't mean it has to be the goatse guy.

Comment Doesn't really matter who fired the shot (Score 5, Insightful) 334

It doesn't really matter who was firing the shot, so much as all those loaded, pwn3d weapons remaining in the wild that can be pressed into service again and again. This is not the first such event, it's at least the third. It won't be the last either, and the only way I can see to stop it is to permanently dismantle the IoT until it can be rebuilt from the ground up with security in mind. If security is too hard for the poor vendors and end users, then don't rebuild it. The health of the network as a whole is far more important than any single purpose for which it is used -- besides which, the devices can't be trusted to do their jobs anyhow once they've been pwn3d.

Make the vendors take them back in a recall -- could be a service recall in which they are made field-upgradable, or if they're hard-coded then they get the Galaxy Note 7 treatment as the hazards they are. Those who won't take them back should be cited under FCC Part 15 rules and have their certifications revoked and fines levied. It is easily provable that the devices are "causing harmful interference". It's time to get them off the network. Like yesterday.

Comment Make someone care, IoT device owners don't! (Score 1) 264

Time to demand recalls of all affected devices as the hazards that they are. Those who wish to keep them become responsible for what they do -- if your IoT "cloud" shits all over the network again, you get switched off.

If the end users don't care (and may not be able to care if they can't patch the devices), then it has to go a step up the food chain. If the manufacturers won't comply, pull their FCC certifications.

Comment Re:There is something to that... (Score 1) 524

A lot of university research labs use a high percentage of Macs. Labs I have personally seen (couple dozen easily) usually have a ~80% (macs) /20% (pc) split. A lot of reasons they use them is the lack of issues PC's bring with them. My wife's lab is 90% macs and the only PC machines she has are the ones that came scientific equipment she bought because some vendors don't develop for macs.

I have seen a lot of PCs hooked up to scientific equipment go down because a windows update failed, anti-virus software causing problems, etc. making those machines (some of them $1M+) be completely useless for long periods of time. In fact I have NEVER seen a scientific piece of equipment down that was run by a mac because the mac itself had issues.

So yes macs cost more only if compared to a single point of time. The hidden/soft costs of PC's come up in the medium/longer run.

Also why did Grandma need the 2500 version of the iMac? You can buy one for $1100. Unless grandma was hardcore into games or data processing?

Comment Root my Android phone? (Score 5, Interesting) 109

Can I use this to root my Android phone? I just want to install an ad-blocking /etc/hosts file, so I don't need a permanent root. This sounds like just the sort of exploit to do the trick, but I haven't looked at the technical details. I just want to do this before the next security update patches it.

Comment Re:odd--- (Score 1) 238

More like engineers are move devoted to their technology than to whomever happens to employ them at any given time.

Or their careers. Time spent becoming expert in a system that's not used anywhere else is time not spent becoming expert in stuff that might be needed in your next job. Getting locked in to your employer is very risky and has little if any benefit.

Slashdot Top Deals

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky