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: This can't POSSIBLY go wrong! (Score 1) 85

My Target card has a PIN. My major credit cards with big limits have a PIN. Don't confuse PIN with the mag stripe. It's two factor identification.
1. Something you know: the PIN
2. Something you have: the card with the chip in it that is not easily forged or reproduced.

The fingerprint is the third of the three types of "factors" to authenticate you. Try as hard as you like, there are only three ways to authenticate something:
1. Something you know. (password, pin, musical notes, etc)
2. Something you have. (car key, house key, credit card with built in microprocessor and storage, a key fob device with USB connector, etc)
3. Something you are. (fingerprint, retina scan, DNA, etc.)

The fingerprint just allows the possibility of three factor authentication. There are no other ways other than something you know, you have, or you are.

BTW, that chip on the credit card is a tamper proof self contained computer with storage. (also: it runs Java.) It has a private key that was originally generated on the chip and never leaves the chip. The bank has the other key of that key pair. So the bank can be sure you really do have the actual card when the card is inserted into the POS terminal. The card can authenticate itself by signing a random token from the bank, while the card is inserted in the terminal. Only your card could do that because nothing else has that private key to do the signing.

The credit card has always been "something you have". It's just been a question of how easy is it for a crook to replicate that card and have it too. The new chip makes that cost prohibitively high.

Comment Re:Can't a magic 8 ball replace most CEOs? (Score 1) 229

CEOs make decisions carefully in order to achieve a goal. If they just made random decisions, like magic 8 ball, then sometimes they would make the right decision -- like magic 8 ball would randomly sometimes make the right decision.

It can be no accident. It must be a deliberate, careful, calculated effort to always make the wrong decision.

If CEOs were to, or magic 8 ball were to sometimes make right decisions, this could have a serious impact on how corporations operate.

Comment Reliability (Score 0) 141

What would happen if only 1 in a million flying cars just dropped out of the sky every day? Scale that up to big city commuter traffic.

Would it help reduce population?

Would it create more building repair and construction jobs?

Maybe flying cars is an idea whose time has finally come?

But can flying cars run on coal to put the coal miners back to work? What!?! Nevermind then.

Comment Re:I support this! (Score 1) 229

An AI can be trained to act like a used car salesman. With the right training data, it can even be trained to talk using the language of a con man.
* I promise
* It will be the best
* Trust me
* You'll love it
* Everyone says that they just love it
* Believe me
* Nobody can do it better.
* Bigly
It's not only the language of a con man. It's the language that even a US president could use. Even when he is attempting to persuade someone to make love.

Comment Re:Garbage In... (Score 1) 229

Middle managers don't make decisions that could potentially backfire. Pass the buck. CYP.

CEOs may have all the data, but it often misses the important bits. They think in spreadsheets and powerpoint. If a concept cannot be expressed in ten words as a power point bullet then it is too complex for an important CEO to deal with. On a spreadsheet, I see this project needs more resources, we'll just move more warm bodies over to it from something else. Obviously when picking cotton, more man hours == more cotton in a fairly linear scalability. It doesn't work that way with software projects. Nor would CEOs ever consider that developers are not interchangeable cogs. Different cogs have different skills. They can learn other skills, but it's not a zero cost. Or they can treat them like spark plugs and re-accommodate the old ones to unemployment while hiring new ones. What could go wrong? Surely they wouldn't end up with zero loyalty and a workforce highly skilled at interviews.

Comment Re:Can't a magic 8 ball replace most CEOs? (Score 2) 229

A magic 8 ball cannot replace a CEO. CEOs make decisions carefully in order to achieve a goal. Magic 8 ball is random. Statistically a magic 8 ball will make the right decision some of the time. This would have a serious impact on how corporations operate.

Comment Re:CEO's now... (Score 2) 229

They may be thoughtless and inhuman, but they are still biological meat stuff. They expect many, long and lavish vacations. And to be treated special. Once they are upgraded to machine robots, they can work 24 / 7 like they demand of their workers, and could potentially be more human than CEOs are now. Furthermore, just one year of their compensation package could employ many humans, along with more robots working with humans.

Just wait until they discover their golden parachute is actual gold metal in brick form with the expected aerodynamic properties. Wile E. Coyote's golden anvil. After impact, the gold can be recycled for circuit contacts. Quite fitting.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 306

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Working...