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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 161

Not necessarily. Take a look at the relevant portion of the Lantham Act. It would have to fit one of the provisions therein. It might make a false suggestion of affiliation, but it's arguable.

15 U.S.C. 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Comment This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 161

You violate a trademark if you mis-represent a good or service as that of the trademark holder. And it has to be in the same trademark category that they registered. Having a trademark does not grant ownership of a word, and does not prevent anyone else from using that word. Use of a trademark in reporting and normal discussion is not a violation.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 3, Informative) 500

Wrong. They recovered some of her emails, but not all of them. Some of the emails they were able to recover from the official state.gov servers, but an unknown quantity of emails were never recovered. To quote from Comey himself:

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

The bottom line is that we'll never know just how bad Clinton's handling of email was, unless someone (like Russia) comes forward with the emails they copied off her insecure server during the time it was running.

Comment Re:An important thing to note (Score 1) 611

I can't find one either - I moved out of the states ~20 years ago, and I have NEVER paid that much taxes since then, and much nicer (larger) houses.

NJ property taxes are insane, definitely. They've been insane for a long time, though, so I don't think they're evidence of federal taxes being shifted to the state level.

Comment Re:Missing a big point (Score 1) 513

Nice job of focusing on word choice and ignoring the point. The GP claimed that this would be studied and a fix for the current system would be pushed out, making it safer. My point is that I don't think the car has the sensors needed to handle this scenario, so it's not possible to push a fix to the current system.

Comment Re:Location from Wifi? (Score 1) 93

GPS does not work better with WiFi enabled

Actually, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location more rapidly if it has a good approximate location to start with, which it can get from Wifi location. If your GPS receiver had to start from scratch (no assumption about initial location), it could take multiple minutes to locate you because it has to find and identify multiple satellites, and listen for a full 30-second cycle from each. With a good location estimate plus an already-synchronized clock, the GPS receiver can refine your location in a few seconds.

So GPS does work better with Wifi enabled. And, as you said, location services can use Wifi even when GPS isn't available. In cities Wifi can be much better than GPS because unobstructed views of the sky are hard to come by, and the Wifi AP density is high.

Comment Re:Missing a big point (Score 1) 513

Tesla will make some changes to ensure that this type of accident is avoided in the future, and push at the next update.

I'm not sure that's possible. I think the biggest part of the problem in this case is that the sensor hardware on the Tesla Model S is inadequate for self-driving. The radar doesn't have vertical resolution so it can't determine whether there's enough clear space under an obstacle, and the camera can't resolve differences between a light gray truck and a light gray sky. To fix this you need either dramatically better vision processing software (which may well require better on-board computing hardware), or better sensors -- e.g. LIDAR.

Comment Re:It really is Google's fault (Score 1) 144

Google should have created an OS architecture that allowed for it to push its own security updates while leaving the aesthetic aspects and third party apps of the phone vendors and carriers alone (unless they were fundamental to the security problem).

If there were a clear dividing line between "aesthetic aspects" and "things fundamental to the security problem", that might be feasible. The Android One project has actually tried to draw such a line, but none of the big OEMs are happy with where Google drew it. They want lots of control.

Comment Re:This is an Android Problem (Score 2) 144

I don't see why Google can't figure it out

(Android security team member here)

It's not that Google doesn't know how to do that. It's that Google can't do that while also having a free and open source OS. Every piece that's moved out of the OS and into Play services is another piece that is no longer open. Moreover, if Google does too much of that sort of thing and removes the ability of OEMs to customize and differentiate their devices, they'll ignore Google completely, filling in the missing bits with their own code. Removing components from the OS is a last resort, not a first choice.

What makes things worse are carrier specific builds. Apple managed to do tell them to F off, Google should too.

AFAIK, Google doesn't do carrier-specific builds for Nexus devices (though I know there is some carrier-specific testing). Google can't control what other companies do. Their devices have to pass the tests to prove compatibility or they can't use the Google apps (including Play, which is the biggest carrot), but that's the full extent of the control Google has.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...