Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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:Not the same (Score 1) 97

This is not a fair statement. Google and Facebook both still track you if websites have links to their sites or embedded functions (Adsense, logins, etc.). It takes a significant effort to avoid it (plug-ins, IP blocking, etc.), enough so that the average user is unlikely to do so.

Which is very similar to the issue with ISPs, where using Tor or a VPN would be the only way to hide your traffic from them.

I agree with the sentiment in the article. Online privacy should be made law in such a way that it affects all sources of abuse and not just targeting one or two major players.

Comment Re:Modern consumer solar (Score 1) 129

Price of solar is about $3 a kilowatt/hour. So, a 45kw system would cost roughly $135k before subsidies.

It looks like he lives in the United Kingdom, which has subsidies at install and for production that could have cut the costs down below $100k om 2015 or 2016.

Also, there's no telling if any of his numbers are remotely accurate either considering his position on the matter.

Comment Re:This is only half the problem (Score 1) 124

Nice opposite-extreme strawman, but no where did I suggest they setup their own email systems.

I stated that email addresses from free-email accounts should never be trusted (and should be automatically scored worse by anti-spam systems) and that anyone that wants a trusted email account for their primary email address should pay for it on a non-free-email account domain.

You want to eliminate spam, you get people away from using free-email systems where the majority of spammers hide now.

Comment Re:Proof was not given... (Score 1) 352

Reading the study, it seems like the statistics are not so clear cut. Link: http://www.acc.org/about-acc/p...

"Data from the largest study of its kind in the U.S. reveal a 25 percent jump in the number of heart attacks occurring the Monday after we “spring forward” compared to other Mondays during the year – a trend that remained even after accounting for seasonal variations in these events. But the study showed the opposite effect is also true. Researchers found a 21 percent drop in the number of heart attacks on the Tuesday after returning to standard time in the fall when we gain an hour back."

It's a bit odd for the shift back and forth to be so closely correlated. Later in the study:

"Total daily admissions were adjusted for seasonal and weekday variation, as the rate of heart attacks peaks in the winter and is lowest in the summer and is also greater on Mondays and lower over the weekend."

A quick check in Excel tells me that for the period of the study (January 1, 2010 to September 15,2013), there is one more Friday, Saturday and Sunday than the rest of the week. There is no mention of this fact being adjusted in their results.

Then let's look at what day of the week the year starts:

1/1/2010 = Friday
1/1/2011 = Saturday
1/1/2012 = Sunday
1/1/2013 = Tuesday

Starting to notice something? 2012 was a leap year. No mention for any adjustment for that either. 2/29/12 was a Wednesday, by the way.

So, Mondays are statistically have the highest average heart attacks, most likely because there is one more weekend in the data and that one weekend is most likely in the winter (end of the year) when the number of heart attacks are lower. How much lower? A range of 12-18% lower would account for the 25% versus 21% in heart attack rates between springing forward and falling back.

There was a similar study several years ago that showed a similar correlated link of 10% between the day daylight savings movements as well:

https://www.uab.edu/news/innov...

But I could never find the study mentioned. I'm willing to bet there was also an extra winter weekend weekend or two they did not account for in their study as well.

Whenever you see correlations so tidy like that, there has to be something going on with the data.

Comment Re:Lots of work to do (Score 1) 160

You just linked a service that is essentially only used for huge companies and government entities. Even on that very same page is an explanation that Level 1, the level for the majority of credit card purchases via the average consumer, only passes minimum data like I stated. Level 2 is the old Level 3, where it offers sales tax and a unique customer code along with what Level 1 offers to help track the purchases in the card holder's accounting or ERP systems.

Level 3 requires an entire infrastructure of software on both sides, the credit card owner and the merchant, for it to work. I doubt many consumer-based merchants have Level 3 support, nor would any amount of fee reduction pay for the expense of it (and I would doubt many merchant merchants would survive had they agreed to doing this). This level of information is only used for large corporations buying from wholesalers and such so they can track the inventory they are purchasing from moment of purchase.

But nice try Googling something to feed your paranoia.

Comment Re:Lots of work to do (Score 5, Insightful) 160

That's a really nice attempt at an apologist's view of Google's monopoly, except credit card companies can only track WHERE you spend money, not the specifics of what you actually bought. Whereas Google literally knows what sites you are browsing, what pages on that site you are browsing, even what parts of the page you read through it's AdSense product and then takes all of that to determine what parts of the Internet it wants to show you through it's Search product. Then there's the email product, and the social media, etc. etc.

No other entity has ever been able to get that much information in that detail on a "customer" (quotes intentional, since let's face it you're the product to Google, not the customer).

The fact that Google is pushing an internet standard that would require accepting the use of their invasive business practices to maintain a normal experience on the Internet is pretty abusive of their monopoly in my opinion.

Comment Re:Lots of work to do (Score 5, Insightful) 160

Yep. I constantly need to do them because I have my browser locked down to stop tracking.

I have a feeling most of Google's new "invisible" method has more to do with the fact they are tracking you as a unique user and following your path to the page. If it looks legit, they don't challenge.

But if you're one of the many of us who actively fight being tracked, we're going to be relegated to second-hand internet user thanks to Google's monopoly.

Comment Re:NYT reported it (Score 4, Informative) 447

Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. Very first sentence of the article:

"The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team"

TRUMP TEAM. No where in either article mentioned does it say that Trump himself or Trump Tower was wire tapped. It's like you people don't even read...at all. I mean, it's EVEN IN THE HEADLINE TOO.

Another AC spewing pro-Trump, pro-Putin lies. FSB running in over-drive.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson

Working...