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

 



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:heat treat (Score 1) 78

Sure working outdoors will make you lose some salt through sweat, but unless you're crossing a desert on hard rations that's doing you more good than harm.

More than that. If you're working all day in the hot sun and only drinking water, you're at real danger of heat cramps, followed by heat exhaustion and something worse.

You don't need *much* salt, but if you're sweating all day you need SOME. Gatorade or another electrolyte solution is carried on ambulance rigs in hotter areas for just this purpose.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 0) 343

Once a phone call is initiated it poses little or no risk as it continues. If I start a phone call while I'm at a stop light and continue with it I'm really not posing any additional danger to anyone. By comparison taking your eyes off the road to read and write a text message is inherently dangerous any time you are attempting to drive while doing so.

Ironically, the initial justification for cell phone bans (before the era of smartphones) was the exact opposite. Cell phones with physical buttons were easy to dial with, could be done by touch many times, and scrolling a linear list of contacts was easy. The "concern" was that an emotional call (or any call at all) would be distracting in a way that listening to the radio wasn't. This is why other "fiddling with things" tech, even available then, wasn't included in the ban here in CA. (I'm talking about things like dedicated GPS receivers, and classic iPods.)

Text messaging alone didn't seem to really take off until the early-mid 2000s in the US outside of certain circles.

Nowadays, of course, it's almost completely the opposite. Phone calls are rarer, and your mobile device is multifunction and used for all sorts of things by the broad populace on a regular basis.

I have to generally agree with the grandparent/first post though. If EVERYONE is doing it regardless, the draconian law should be changed so something more meaningful and fairer to enforce. I'd say more people are breaking the cell phone law than are breaking speed limits -- and that's something. In CA you're not allowed to have your cell in hand even stopped at a traffic light which (as annoying as it is to have to honk at someone that the light's changed) not as much harm as that ticket would seem to imply.

My suggestion: "special circumstances" for injury accidents and reckless driving / moving violation crimes with hands off the wheel and a renewed emphasis on "Don't do distracted driving" vs "Don't look at your cell phone". Let's be realistic, and we'll have much more compliance.

Comment Why demonize BK when this is what white hats do (Score 5, Insightful) 606

Congratulations, folks... BK has successfully demonstrated a giant vulnerability in Google's (and Amazon's, and Apple's...) product - it responds to voices from people it doesn't know, and the default access phrase is well-known.

Maybe instead of whining about Burger King, you can pressure your vendor to fix their design flaws. Or better yet, disable all voice recognition/spying devices and banish them from your house completely.

Comment Re:The google as corporate cancer (Score 1) 46

Just a few examples, but beyond the google I'm especially aware of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Exxon. Feel free to add your favorite corporate cancer here.

Exxon? Really? That's fairly retro. Ranting about Standard Oil and, to some extent, Baby Bells that aren't directly involved in cell tracking, seems rather quaint.

Replace Exxon with Facebook and you've got a far stronger argument. Exxon can charge me for oil and oil products. Facebook has enough privileges on any given smartphone to track me 24 hours a day and manipulate my interaction with most of my friends (while Google controls my interaction with rest of the world).

Far more important.

Comment Re:Ah Robots taking jobs again. (Score 1) 396

Interestingly enough, some of the posts I see on Facebook claim that the investment in robots and AI is happening because of the increase in the minimum wage...and something, something illegal aliens. I hate my Facebook feed.

The operative word is "because". It was already going to happen due to the laws of economics, but if it happens gradually enough there's a much higher chance of society successfully adapting and digesting the changes through longer-term programs.

Raise the minimum wage too quickly too high ($15 in Podunk, USA), vastly increase costs for employing people (30hr/week = health insurance), and you shock the system, forcing an earlier-than-expected look at capital investment.

Add in a Silicon Valley that's oblivious to any problems outside of the liberal, progressive, Bay Area bubble they live in, with priorities completely out of whack with the real world so long as the IPO money keeps flowing in, creating automation and tech simply because "they can now" and with an undying, almost religious belief in the merits of technocratic efficiency (like good little central planners), and you have a perfect storm of circumstances for mass layoffs and accelerating automation.

Without the ability to digest these changes, either the tech oligopoly gets nuked, mass revolution occurs (of which Trump might be the precursor), or we'll continue spiraling downward until the technological singularity hits... at which point all bets are off.

Comment Re: It's not just low skilled labor (Score 1) 396

Clean code is not required, just cost effective code.

Written by someone who never had to sort through spaghetti code to fix an HTML table for a graphic designer who doesn't give a shit that the widget maker doesn't produce clean code.

This is very true and -- sadly -- completely irrelevant. "Good enough" (or "good enough that the end user doesn't complain") is the rule across the entire tech industry now, especially as business/enterprise-level performance gets replaced with consumer-level expectations due to the users' rampant familiarity with consumer level tech.

Since the end users tolerate failure, reliability engineering goes out the window, as do the people with the domain knowledge to take crappy code/design/engineering and improve its quality to what might have been the expectation 8-15 years ago.

This is also why Developers think they can replace Systems Engineers and Administrators. Even though the end result of a lot of DevOps-mindset build work is atrocious, it works "enough" to skate by such that someone w/o domain knowledge might call the end result a success.

Comment Re:Thanks Samsung! (Score 1) 286

(hint: blowing out a window won't destroy the plane or "suck anyone out".)

Hint: You're wrong. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

A passenger plane made an emergency landing at Mogadishu airport recently with a huge hole in its side and one passenger missing. Somali Islamist militant group al-Shabab later claimed the attack, but several questions remain unanswered:

The only reason the entire plane didn't go down was because they were only about 15m into the flight and not at peak cabin pressure differential.

Comment Re:This is bullcrap (Score 1) 522

They get a saw and cut your nice expensive safe open.

And then everyone whines and complains because Apple (or the encrypted device manufacturer) has the knowledge of how to use a saw to cut this type of nice, expensive safe open.

Frankly, I think using the physical device analogy is good though. If the hard-coded decryption key is etched into silicon and only readable by physical access and some very expensive equipment then having an unlock brings us to almost exactly the same point: legal custody (whether of the safe or the device) means that eventually the authorities will be able to get into it with a warrant and/or subpoena.

Comment Re:Redundant (Score 1) 141

It is better to block it at the SMTP level and refuse to accept the message in the first place.

You might think so, but do you REALLY think any spammer cares about or even looks at the bounces from their spam?

Unfortunately, the only way to "block it at the SMPT level" for users is to return error code 67 (IIRC) from procmail, and that doesn't work if you are using IMAP to pull email from a server that has already taken final delivery.

You're begging the question. SPAM is unwanted mail. You "wanted" it by opting in at some point (probably within the context of a purchase or something).

Someone who doesn't intend to spam will provide an opt-out link. It's 2017, not 2002. Use it.

If you can't reject at the SMTP level then that means you're not running your own mail server. Every ISP or mail service in the last 20 years has maintained abuse accounts and administrators that will accept spam reports and (eventually) configure their systems to reject messages at the SMTP level for you (or pre-filter it). Contact them.

Comment Re:Overboard, Sad! (Score 1) 358

Most murders are crimes of passion, or by mentally unstable people, that is the perpetrators don't consider the consequences when committing the crime. That isn't a valid comparison to someone who likely is in their right mind and is just pursuing a hobby.

Begging the question a little. Most jurisdictions distinguish murder from manslaughter by whether there was premeditation.

A true "crime of passion" usually gets manslaughter. Murder is when you're planning ahead and are shown to have fully considered your actions in advance.

Comment Theories on Indonesia and Pacifica abound (Score 1) 143

One of my favorite was from a book in '05 that pinned it pretty definitively in Indonesia. Although the author passed away soon after, fans of his (and some relatives) have been commenting upon some of the research at atlan.org, which was the first thing I thought of when news of this broke.

Comment Re:I only hope (Score 1) 157

Why was THIS modded down? This would actually work... to some degree, if you had all the ad networks in there and didn't visit any malicious sites. (At least as far as for the *JavaScript* vector that is.)

That's basically ludicrous. You're better off disabling javascript and flash and leaving your hosts file untouched.

Actually, if you wanted a way to make the web more secure? Make all the browsers default only to Javascript 1.1 or some other ancient version with just enough built-in support for DOM tweaking to maybe update the status ticker, and then ban all cross-site loading of js files that's not HTTPS.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.

Working...