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:I am very skeptical. (Score 1) 100

Unless, of course, the report assumes that anything running Lollipop or older is not recently patched, which seems like a reasonable assumption.

According to Google, 65.9% of users are on Lollipop or older. That means 29% of up-to-date Androids would have to come from 34.1% of users, or that 85% of Marshmallow and Nougat users are fully patched. I'm skeptical.

Also, nearly half of Android users are using an OS at least 2.5 years old. :-/ Compare with 79% of iOS users on a 6 month old OS, and 95% of iOS users on an OS less than 1.5 years old.

Submission + - SPAM: Quicken Bill Pay is No Longer Safe to Use 1

Bruce Perens writes: I don't usually make security calls, but when a company makes egregious and really clueless security mistakes, it's often the case that the only way to attract their attention and get the issue fixed is to publicize it. This one is with Quicken Bill Pay, a product of Metavante (not Intuit). It's from personal observation rather than an expert witness case, and the company has been unresponsive through their customer support channel.
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:"We" are forcing quality down ... (Score 1) 65

Poor(er) people think that way. If you're rich, you have the luxury of getting what you want, and not having to have the cheaper stuff; of not having to choose between a good product or a good holiday/eating out more/clothing and feeding your kids. Poorer people don't have that choice. And it's not as if the elite/rich people are doing all they can to lift poor people out of poverty. I'd not blame "consumers" for trying to stretch their money as far as possible.

Comment Abandoning Time-Worn Processes Leads to Atrophy (Score 5, Insightful) 158

Scientists determined that those people who made use of machine washing rather than hand washing had diminished hand strength and neurological motor communication necessary for fine motor control. Seamstresses who bought thread rather than using the spinning jenny were similarly impaired. But worst off were teamsters who used the internal combustion trucks rather than teams of horses and used forklifts and other mechanical devices rather than loading their vehicles by hand. Their overall body strength was much reduced.

Comment Re:Yes, let's build a walled garden (Score 1) 55

Yeah, sometimes you don't want to have to google apt-get, apt, dpkg etc. Sometimes you just want to install a fucking piece of software. That is, copy files from the download folder into some other folder so you can run them. I have no idea why handling dependencies is such a pain in the ass that involves needing to understand several tools. Sometimes the best answer to "it's always been that way" is "well, do it a newer, better way then".

Comment Re:Restructure gone wrong (Score 1) 299

Oh shit, that gives me PTSD hives. I worked at a startup with a sociopathic CEO who decided to pivot the week after Christmas. We all shuffled into the "living room" part of the office for a mandatory meeting, and he announced the big plan. Then he went around the room, calling out names and giving us our new roles. He didn't call all the names. "And for the rest of you: thank you for your contribution and hard work, but we've had to make some hard decisions and you won't be staying on."

Then - THEN! - the sumbitch called on each freshly-fired person in turn and asked them to talk about what their time with the company had meant to them. There were a few half-choked "I thank you for the opportunity to learn so much..." as the CEO smiled benevolently, pleased at himself for bringing such light into their sad lives.

Gah. I'd still cheerfully throw that guy under a bus. I mean, a literal bus.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.

Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible

Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.

In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.

Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.

We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

You're approaching it from an anthropomorphic perspective. It's not necessary for a robot to "understand" abstractions any more than they are required to understand mathematics in order to add two numbers. They just apply rules as programmed.

Today, computers can classify people in moving video and apply rules to their actions such as not to approach them. Tomorrow, those rules will be more complex. That is all.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 4, Insightful) 407

Agreed that a Robot is no more a colleague than a screwdriver.

I think you're wrong about Asimov, though. It's obvious that to write about theoretical concerns of future technology, the author must proceed without knowing how to actually implement the technology, but may be able to say that it's theoretically possible. There is no shortage of good, predictive science fiction written when we had no idea how to achieve the technology portrayed. For example, Clarke's orbital satellites were steam-powered. Steam is indeed an efficient way to harness solar power if you have a good way to radiate the waste heat, but we ended up using photovoltaic. But Clarke was on solid ground regarding the theoretical possibility of such things.

Comment Re:Why do you believe that? (Score 2) 456

Exactly. Nobody gives a shit about security, because nobody believes anyone's interested in their idle chit chat, and people are perfectly comfortable with the police (or whoever) trawling digital data to solve crime. Most people use facebook because other people use it. Even google couldn't get people to use google+ (which showed that "better" doesn't trump "everything else is using facebook". Firewalls etc aren't important because people use their phones/tablets to chat, typically over 4g. Fault tolerant? Facebook's usually up (to the point that it's news if it's down for more than a minute) and chitchat can wait.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...