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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Leap Towards a Career in Ethical Hacking with 60+ Hours of Prep Toward CISM, CISA, & More Certification Exams at 95% off ×

Comment Re:Never misplaced a 747 around the house. Floatin (Score 2) 329

The key is that nobody on board can stop the aircraft's position from being reported.

Other than by tripping the circuit breaker.

You do NOT want to have an electrical device on an aircraft that does not have a way of being unpowered when something shorts out and draws lots of current.

But yes, basically, all this talk about floating USB sticks being ejected from a crashing airplane is just nonsense. If you can't find the large bits of debris from the airplane itself, you aren't going to find small stuff. And if the airplane is on fire before ejecting the USB sticks, they can burn.

Continuous satellite data feeds on any aircraft over X pounds or Y passengers. It's not that expensive these days.

Comment Re:One thing (Score 1) 134

Cellular tracking is much more likely to vindicate you than implcate you. I can pretty much prove where I'm at at all times.

Unless you're in pretty sparsely populated areas, I bet there is some crime taking place within the positional accuracy of the cellphone tracking.

I track myself with Amateur radio aprs, and anyone in the world with a web connection can see exactly where I am at on the road.

If your APRS unit is in your car, then they can tell where your car is. You aren't necessarily in your car.

And, of course, it is ridiculously trivial to spoof the NMEA string most APRS TNCs take and report any location you want. An Arduino can have you driving around Burbank while you are actually in Berwyn. (Berrrrwynnn?)

Comment Re:One thing (Score 1) 134

Well, it could be that he just thought it jammed other people's cell phones

Which a violation of federal law. It was icing on the criminal cake that it also jammed public safety users.

But maybe not quite as malevolent as to deserve a $48k fine.

Yes, sir. It does. Deliberate, random jamming of other people's use of licensed radio frequencies is a serious crime. You can't wave off the public safety jamming as inconsequential.

Comment Re:One thing (Score 1) 134

If I buy a lawnmower robot and it has an unadvertised feature that makes it sneak out at night and kill cops, will I be convicted for that?

Failed analogy.

If you buy a lawnmower that the seller tells you has the specific purpose of sneaking out at night and killing cops, but he says that it is legal to do that, YES, you will be convicted for the deaths your "lawnmower" causes.

If it has all the legal labels and no mention of any features other than cutting grass?

How can you possibly claim that a device that is sold as a "cellphone jammer" includes no mention of the jamming of cellular telephone systems?

Don't be silly. People buy cellphone jammers for the specific purpose of jamming other people's licensed use of public airwaves. Would anyone believe that a "TV jammer" is legal? Would anyone believe that a "cop frequency jammer" is legal? Of course not. Why should they believe that a cellphone jammer is legal, despite any claims by the vendor otherwise?

Comment Re:Malware trick (Score 1) 376

The notification will install Windows whether or not you have administrative privilege.

The notification installs nothing. The Windows Update system that you told to "automatically install recommended updates" does the install. The notification is telling you it has been scheduled to happen and how to stop it.

That notification basically says that you WILL be upgraded unless you take active steps to stop it, administrator or not.

Well, yes. You need to take active steps to change a setting that authorizes automatic installation of recommended upgrades.

Windows is scheduled to be installed and it will install even if you do nothing at all!

I think that's what "automatic" means.

This will happen even with a guest user account!

The nature of the account using the system at the time of upgrade has nothing to do with it happening. The admin account set the upgrade policy. I've had systems reboot after updates while users were in the middle of a computation -- them being logged in and using the system didn't change the admin policy (which got changed right after that.)

Though I suspect you do need administrative privilege to cancel the upgrade...

Yes, you do need admin privileges to change update policy. That's to keep guest users from changing that policy. I LIKE that limitation, because it keeps my users from turning automatic updates back on and getting their systems broken by Microsoft.

You're still stuck in the mode of thinking that Microsoft is doing everything properly

Hardly. I'm stuck in a mode of the admin has some responsibility for the upgrade taking place, and that 'clicking the "x"' isn't causing the upgrade to happen. I've never said that making Windows 10 a recommended update was a good thing, or that Microsoft is not out of line for the measures they are taking to remind people to upgrade. I find it reprehensible that they install an "update" that includes a demon that does nothing but keep reminding me that I can get a free upgrade (GWX), that takes special actions to get rid of. But once I've removed it, it doesn't come back. And it never appears on systems where automatic updates are disabled. And even moreso are the mandatory updates for Windows 10.

or that only idiots can misunderstand a notification designed to fool people,

People who think that clicking 'x' to dismiss a window will change a system policy set by the admin are the foolish ones.

or naively assuming that Windows would never upgrade itself without opt-in permission.

Setting the automated update policy is opt-in permission. And the notification was specifically intended to tell people how to change that permission.

Yes, it is naive to believe that Microsoft would never upgrade something in a way that you didn't like after you give them blanket permission to upgrade anything they want to. It's naive to believe that ANY company or software source won't upgrade things in a way you don't like when you allow them to upgrade things for you. There are too many examples of Android apps that I've stopped updating because the latest versions are unusable, or Android itself, or Firefox on Linux, to ever go back to the trust model of updates. But it is also naive to see a notice of a scheduled upgrade and dismiss it with no action with the expectation that dismissing the notification means stopping the scheduled action.

Comment Re:Proposal (Score 1) 376

You missed it entirely. Things like upgrades are supposed to ask for PERMISSION.

"Automatically install recommended updates" is permission. I've had lots of "recommended updates" install automatically, and none of them have asked yet again for permission. If you want your system to always ask for permission, there is an option for that. Well, there WAS an option for that, and THAT is one of the valid reasons to excoriate Microsoft policies regarding Windows 10. The fact that you cannot stop all updates on production systems that need to run for long, continuous periods of time IS a reason to hate Microsoft; doing an upgrade that you gave permission for and didn't pay attention to a notice that told you it was going to happen and how to stop it isn't.

Any answer but yes/OK means don't do it.

Except you said yes already. The issue at hand is not a request to do an upgrade, it is notification, in advance, that an upgrade that YOU AGREED TO is scheduled to take place and you need to act to stop it. Doing nothing means you accept the scheduled upgrade. That's what clicking the 'x' means. If you didn't read the notice before dismissing it that's your fault, not Microsoft's.

MS is violating that in this case

Already dealt with. 'x' means "close the window without action". In this case, that means you want to take no action regarding the scheduled upgrade. That is exactly how it is supposed to work.

I suspect you know that too.

I suspect you don't understand what I know, even though I've tried to tell you.

Comment Re:Math doesn't work out (Score 1) 994

And kinda disingenuous to deny that there are people trying to live on the wages.

Who is denying that? People try all kinds of things. I said what the minimum wage is supposed to be, not what people are trying to turn it into. It applies to the job position, not the person holding the job. If you're 45 and a father of ten, or a 17 year old earning gas money, you get paid the wage for the job you're doing. Being 45 and a father doesn't necessarily make you a more valuable employee to MacDonalds.

You figure they are only employing teenagers?

That you want to pretend that I said that tells me a lot about this discussion.

Comment Re:Malware trick (Score 1) 376

I'm sorry, but you are defending the indefensible. If Microsoft were being as reasonable and transparent as you suggest

I'm sorry, but you're making things up. I'm saying that "clicking the 'x' causes an unwanted upgrade to Windows 10" is a lie. I'm saying that "clicking the 'x' on the scheduled upgrade notification window is a change to the meaning of 'x'" is a lie. And I'm saying that "clicking the 'x' and getting upgraded is Microsoft not understanding what 'no' means" is a lie.

Clicking the 'x' in the notification does exactly what clicking the 'x' in any other window does: close this window and take no action. The notification is not "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10?", it is a statement that the upgrade has been scheduled and you need to do something to stop it. Clicking 'x' means "take no action", and thus you've taken no action to stop it.

Why was it scheduled? Because you opted to allow Microsoft to control what software is installed on your system. They define "recommended" and always have. You accept recommended updates without question. You said "yes, install recommended things".

The behaviour we're talking about, installing recommended updates automatically, is the default.

Which YOU CHOSE TO KEEP. And which you CHOSE NOT TO CHANGE when you were told it was going to result in an upgrade to Windows 10.

It's what someone gets if they don't know to actively change it.

And that's what the notification told them.

users are being tricked into upgrading,

"Yes, Microsoft, please install whatever updates you deem necessary and recommended."

If this winds up in a court, it's unlikely those types of argument will do them much good either.

If this ends up in a court of law, all Microsoft has to do is say "it's an optional upgrade, the user has the choice of refusing all recommended upgrades, and they were notified in advance that the upgrade was part of the recommended upgrades and HOW TO STOP IT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT THIS SPECIFIC ONE." I'm sorry, but the fact that people knee-jerk click 'x' on notifications without reading them isn't a basis for a lawsuit. It just isn't.

Now please, go after MS for any of the real things they do that are wrong. This isn't the molehill to base your outrage on.

Comment Re:Proposal (Score 0) 376

Note that they have changed the setup multiple times after people have declined the update.

Irrelevant. Clicking the 'x' on a notification window is doing exactly what it is supposed to, and has always done: "close this window and take no action." They aren't changing the standards by doing something specific when the user 'x's out of a notification window.

Yeah, they've changed some other things after people have declined, but in this case people didn't say "no", they said "install automatically that which Microsoft thinks should be installed on my system." How can you complain when you hand the decision for what is installed on your computer to Microsoft, they tell you in advance that something major is going to be upgraded, and instead of changing the settings that would stop it you dismiss the warning in a way that has always meant "do nothing about this notice"? Because it's Microsoft, of course. It's almost as if Microsoft doesn't do enough stupid/malevolent things to be justifiably angry about, we have to create fictional monsters from the dust bunnies we haven't been cleaning out from under our own beds. This 'x' dismissing a notification just isn't one of those anger-causing monsters -- it's how that option is supposed to work.

Ms is basically saying "Do you weant me tonot stomp on your foot now?"

No, that is NOT what they are saying. They are saying "because you have accepted automatic upgrades there is an upgrade to Windows 10 scheduled for sometime in the future. If you want to stop this, do something." It has nothing to do with "now", and they're only"stomping on your foot" because you told them they could do that -- and when they tell you they are going to do it you choose to do nothing.

Since the 3rd grade, I've upped my standards, up yours!

Your standards aren't much higher than third grade when you make this kind of comment.

Comment Re:Blaming minimum wage (Score 1) 994

Minimum wage is a convenient scapegoat, but all businesses move to reduce overhead.

Low-hanging fruit is most convenient to eliminate for improving profits. When you make "minimum wage jobs" into that low-hanging fruit, they'll be more likely to go. If you don't think that doubling minimum wage will make the choice between "eliminate employees to save dollars" and "redesign processes to save pennies" much easier, then, well....

Comment Re:Malware trick (Score 0) 376

That's cute, but for nearly 10 years the recommended default for non-technical users, both according to Microsoft themselves and according to most people who knew about IT, was to enable automatic installation of recommended Windows updates for security reasons.

I don't know what you think is cute about it, but you're speaking non-sequitors again. Yeah, the recommendation was to automatically install recommended updates. But it wasn't mandatory, and it was the choice of the user to do it.

Microsoft don't get to dramatically alter what "recommended" means and how the system works after all this time,

Au contrair, mon frair. It is the provider of the updates who is the only one who CAN make the determination of what is "recommended" and what isn't. You can determine what you want, but they get to make the recommendations. They're the one who sets the "recommended" flag. It has ALWAYS been that way. You have never been able to say "KB23456 will be recommended".

And sorry, they haven't changed how the system is working. They're saying that Windows 10 is a recommended upgrade, just like they have said other things are recommended. And when YOU select the option to "automatically install recommended upgrades", YOU are the one who has handed the decision of what to install over to someone else. This isn't rocket science. You have to know that allowing automatic upgrades of any kind is allowing others to control your computer. Sometimes that's good, but sometimes that's very bad. And I don't think it is any surprise to learn that handing the decision to Microsoft isn't necessarily a good thing.

The fact that they've already back-peddled on this whole mess today, in the face of criticism that made the front page of not just the tech news sites but major general news outlets

A kerfuffle that is based on incorrect reporting. Clicking on the 'x' on the notification does NOT cause the system to install Windows 10. It was the choice OF THE USER who said "I want recommended updates installed automatically" that causes Windows 10 to be installed. If you say "tell me about but let me choose" (the most prudent course) then the 'x' does NOTHING at all, and Windows 10 is not installed.

Comment Re:Even at $7.50, they still will save money... (Score 1) 994

It's gonna take my order and my money too?

Order-fulfillment automation is an existing business. Little bins filled with product that spit one or two or three of their contents onto a conveyer taking everything to a central boxing location -- or bagging in the case of fast food.

You need people refilling the bins, but one person doing burgers can multitask and refill the fry making machine every half hour or so with little interruption.

And yes, it's even simpler for there to be a touch-screen to take your order and money acceptor to take your payment. If you haven't noticed, bill readers have gotten a lot better and more versatile in the last decade, and NFC makes paying by cellphone trivial.

It may not be a $35k robot doing all of this, but it will replace enough people in the processing chain that it will pay for itself.

Comment Re:Malware trick (Score 1) 376

If somebody with clear ulterior motives decides to "recommend" that you take a teaspoon dose of the contents of a plain white box they mail to you, do you do it?

You've already said that you will automatically ingest any contents of any box they send you when they recommend that you do it. That's what "automatically install recommended updates" means.

What if they send you a sheet of paper saying "for description of contents, go to this site to read bulletin"?

I don't think anyone who is complaining that Windows 10 was installed "without their permission" has any need for a paper telling them to go to some other website for a description. I think they're pretty clear on the concept of what Windows 10 is and that they don't want it. The only problem is, they told their current OS that it was ok to apply updates that were recommended, based on the precedent that "recommended" didn't include free updates to a different OS.

Since the update is free, there is no reason why MS couldn't say it was recommended. "Recommended" is the opinion of the source, not the recipient.

Comment Re:Malware trick (Score 1) 376

I also wouldn't expect the e-mail client I've been happily using for years to one day automatically schedule an update that reorganised its whole UI,

It's not your email client that scheduled the update, YOU told it that it could automatically install any recommended updates that were available. YOU gave it blanket permission to update based on what other people thought you ought to have.

You also propose an email client that makes massive updates and THEN notifies you that it is going to happen. That's not what is happening here. You're being told about the update ahead of time, that is scheduled to happen and you can stop it, and you clicked on the "dismiss this notice" option -- choosing to do nothing to stop what you've previously chosen to do.

If nothing else, this shows the danger of letting other people decide when your software should be updated.

Comment Re:Math doesn't work out (Score 3, Insightful) 994

There are very, very few positions that could be automated in a way that makes sense financially at $15/hr that wouldn't also make sense at $5/hr.

There is an awful lot of automation that doesn't make sense when the workers are cheaper and the payback is far off, and a factor of three is a good bit of money here. If your labor costs double because the minimum wage doubles, then there is a lot more incentive to find ways to automate those jobs. Some people "don't buy" that economic fact, but it's true.

Basically, automating that position will either be super-cheap or super-expensive.

The excluded-middle of "costs a little less to automate at a wage of $15/hour but more than $7/hr" still exists. It surprised the heck out of me when I saw my first automatic french-fry machine, but it was obvious that the costs of paying someone to do that job were going to be a lot more than the cost of the machine and paying someone to refill the freezer every so often.

Its disingenuous to tie it to the current debate over moving the minimum wage back up to a living wage.

It is disingenuous to claim that the minimum wage ever was, or was intended to be, a "living wage". It is supposed to be an entry-level introduction to employment wage. Saying "moving ... back up to" when it never has been is silly at best.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Working...