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


Forgot your password?
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 This will STOP WIN10 infection (Score 1) 720

There is an excellent 3'rd party utility that SO FAR, has successfully prevented MotherShip from forcing it's malice upon several Internet-facing WIN7 machines that are under my care. This utility is basically a watchdog to keep MS's fingers out of your Registry.

Here is where you can find it:

(I hope his server won't melt! Too bad the CORAL mirroring system is no more.)

You're welcome. ;)

Comment Re:Who needs analog? WE DO! (Score 1) 200

Because my former boss wanted to sell. He was ready to retire.

The products we made are very reliable, solid, and well-made. He always had high standards, and insisted that any 3'rd party suppliers met those standards before he would accept their products. The new owner is keeping up that tradition.

To answer another comment, the NEED for using analog was primarily for radio frequency energy issues.

Comment Who needs analog? WE DO! (Score 1) 200

This story is based on real life events. A small company I was working for was bought-out by another small, but out-of-state electronics company. The new owners were well versed in bit-banging and CPU. My former company was 99% analog. We used op amps and R/C circuits for timing/filtering. They used code on CPU's. The new owners flew me out to their facility on three different weeks, to help their staff incorporate this whole new product line into theirs.

One interesting discussion I had with them involved creating a 0.5 second power-on reset signal for a USB interface chip, to allow the rest of the unit to "settle" before bringing up the USB interface. One guy said he'd just use a little 8-pin CPU and some code. I suggested an op-amp, some resistors, and a cap. They looked at me like I had two heads.

I reminded them that because these devices were intended to be used in environments with high levels of radio frequency energy, and high sensitivity receivers, (transceivers) RFI ingress and egress were important! The op amp and R/C circuits were virtually RF immune, and generated NONE. A CPU generates some, and is sensitive to RF.

Case-in-point: They had a high-current, DC switching system (multiple DC power ports that could be controlled remotely) that was driving them completely bonkers, because of random resets or other unpredictable behavior when they switched loads on and off. When I tried to explain current loops and grounding, they again looked at me like I had two heads. One even said, "But isn't ground, just GROUND??" (Insert FACEPALM here!)

I had to briefly explain OHM'S LAW to them! Ground planes have a measurable (albeit small) resistance, and when you are passing a dozen amps or more, you start to see dozens of millivolts from the E=IR drops... sometimes, switching spikes were high enough to false-trigger CPU inputs or other circuits, because the CPU was "riding" up and down on those voltages! When I showed them one of our old ANALOG designs, with separated ground paths... and explained WHY those paths were separate... I think they finally "got it". Their next complete redesign didn't have the issues of the first.

I summed it up by saying, "It is an ANALOG WORLD, guys!" ;)

Feed Techdirt: Guy Who Won Original Right To Be Forgotten Case Loses His Attempt To Have New Story About His Past Forgotten (

The whole right to be forgotten thing over in Europe continues to get more and more bizarre. Not too long ago, we wrote about one Thomas Goolnik, who had succeeded in getting an old NY Times story about him "delinked" from his name in Europe. The NY Times then wrote about that delinking, and we wrote about the NY Times article. Mr. Goolnik then succeeded in having our article about his successful right to be forgotten attempt also forgotten by Google. So we wrote about that too. And, once again, Goolnik succeeded in having that story forgotten. As of yet, it appears our final story on Goolnik has remained accessible on European searches for Goolnik's name, but we have no idea if it's because Google has realized that it should remain up or if Goolnik just hasn't made a request.

Meanwhile, it appears that the guy who first convinced the European Court of Justice to enforce this right to be forgotten, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, may have run into a similar situation. As you probably remember, Costeja brought the original case that argued that Google should no longer show results on searches for his name that linked to some stories in the late 90s about his being forced to sell some land to cover debts. The Court eventually decided that since this information was no longer "relevant," that under the data protection directive, it should be "delinked" in Google's database as a "privacy" measure.

Of course, as many people pointed out, in bringing that very case, the details of Costeja's financial transactions suddenly became relevant again. And, apparently that resulted in more people commenting on Costeja, including an article entitled "The unforgettable story of the seizure to the defaulter Mario Costeja Gonzalez that happened in 1998." And, as you might imagine, he wasn't too happy about some of the comments, and with this newfound power that he helped create in hand, he demanded that Google also take down links to such comments (most likely including that article linked in this paragraph).

And here's where it gets fun: Google refused. And so Costeja went to the Spanish Data Protection Authority to complain... and the Spanish DPA rejected his claim, noting that this information is now relevant in part because Costeja himself made it relevant again.

Now the DPA finds that there is indeed a preponderant interest of the public in the comments about the famous case that gave rise to the CJEU judgment of May 13, 2014 – and expressly reminds that the claimant itself went public about the details.
So, yes, the right to be forgotten has now made the story that was "successfully" forgotten originally so newsworthy that it may no longer be forgotten, and in fact is much more widely known. I think we've heard of some term for that before...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comment Re:Class-Action time? (Custom system) (Score 1) 268

If we could replace this pathetic printer with something else, we'd be glad to. Unfortunately, it connects to a special piece of equipment that can only "talk to" a specific, limited set of USB printers. I am thinking about writing to the device manufacturer, asking them to add more printer support to the unit. I hope they respond in the affirmative!

As for the color ink drying out... we wouldn't care, as we *NEVER* use it in this printer. The irksome thing is that the printer simply stops working, altogether, when the unused/useless color ink runs out... it does NOT function as "Black Only" even when that option is set in the Printer Preferences.

BTW, the unit in question is used in a broadcast radio station, for the "Emergency Alert System", so it's not exactly something we can replace at will.

Comment Class-Action time? (Score 2) 268

This kind of thing looks like it would be good for a law firm to put together a case, and file a Class-Action suit. I am angered by printers where we *NEVER* print in color (printing logs at work) but after so many months, the printer WILL NOT WORK until you feed it a NEW color ink cartridge (or ALL THREE)!

Yes, even with the defaults set to "Black Only", changing the black ink is not enough. The printer simply WILL NOT WORK until all 4 cartridges are replaced. The old color ones feel much heavier than the old black one, so it is quite obvious what's going on, here.


Submission + - Windows 10 - More Big Brother (

Announcer writes: Big Brother is getting bigger, with Windows 10.

Here is an excerpt from the article:
"While it's incredibly clear what Microsoft means by “counterfeit games”, the wording “unauthorised hardware peripheral devices” is a little hazy. Does this mean Microsoft can now block uncertified PC or illegally-modified Xbox One and Xbox 360 controllers? Furthermore, Microsoft's EULA doesn't state if it will also disable other counterfeit software, such as cracked versions of Office or Adobe Photoshop, or if it only cares about pirated games."

What about useful or specialized "abandonware"? (Software that is no longer supported because the original company is no longer in existence, but is still useful.) This could also affect specialized hardware, or even custom hardware/software. A false "positive" could be devastating, especially in a manufacturing setting.

Comment Who owns it? (Score 4, Interesting) 46

I have a page where I put up a bunch of info about my experiments and memories of my Commodore systems. In the years that page has existed, the ownership of the C= logo/name/etc changed hands FIVE TIMES! Just now, I Googled it, and got this page:

It hasn't been updated since 2013.

My attempt at a disclaimer is at the bottom of this page:

(Google cached, to prevent Slashdotting my Host's server.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries