Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment it's a terrible SUV (Score 4, Informative) 136

Even when it works its awful. The 2nd row is short on room. The 3rd row is tiny. And you cannot fold the 2nd row seats so even if you fold the 3rd row down you can't fit a bike in it.

Here is a video showing how much more hauling space there is in a small LEAF than in a Model X.


And you can't even put stuff on the roof of the Model X due to the stupid doors.

Get an AWD Model S. Skip the stupid Model X.

Comment you're an idiot if you believe this (Score 2) 201

I don't mean if you believed the drill guy, I mean if you believe this story about other people believing him is real.

People like to tell a good story, to be seen on youtube, etc. Even if you think everyone is dumber than you you have to be a bit smarter than to fall for this.

Comment people always do this (Score 3, Insightful) 106

People are idiots. Some want attention. Some want ad revenue. Some just are bored or something. This kind of thing always happens. It surely happens to Samsung's competitors too. It definitely happened to Toyota during the Prius acceleration scare (and surely Audi too so long ago).

You shouldn't take all reports as gospel. This shouldn't make you think, you should always be thinking.

In the end what really matters is whether Note 7s were experiencing battery fires at a higher rate than normal. And the answer still appears to be yes, clearly yes. So Samsung did the right thing with the recall.

Comment this isn't an external brute force attack (Score 4, Informative) 66

This attack is still done on device. It just clones the NAND back to "0 strikes" after each 6 attempts.

This attack doesn't extract the memory and doesn't decode externally. It just copies NANDs.

Why is this significant? Because it means you can't do extraction in parallel, you still have to go through all the codes sequentially on the device.

It defeats the significant portions of the backoff. It defeats the erase after n failures. It's a very significant attack.

But no one said this type of attack was impossible. I personally read about variants on this attack while the controversy was going on. I even posited it myself. I believe Apple even addressed it claiming that this attack wasn't possible on later iPhones due to a change in how the failure count is stored.


Stanford Engineers Propose A Technology To Break The Net Neutrality Deadlock (phys.org) 199

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Stanford engineers have invented a technology that would allow an internet user to tell network providers and online publishers when and if they want content or services to be given preferential delivery, an advance that could transform the network neutrality debate. Net neutrality, as it's often called, is the proposition that internet providers should allow equal access to all content rather than give certain applications favored status or block others. But the Stanford engineers -- Professor Nick McKeown, Associate Professor Sachin Katti and electrical engineering PhD Yiannis Yiakoumis -- say their new technology, called Network Cookies, makes it possible to have preferential delivery and an open internet. Network Cookies allow users to choose which home or mobile traffic should get favored delivery, while putting network operators and content providers on a level playing field in catering to such user-signaled preferences. "So far, net neutrality has been promoted as the best possible defense for users," Katti said. "But treating all traffic the same isn't necessarily the best way to protect users. It often restricts their options and this is why so-called exceptions from neutrality often come up. We think the best way to ensure that ISPs and content providers don't make decisions that conflict with the interests of users is to let users decide how to configure their own traffic." McKeown said Network Cookies implement user-directed preferences in ways that are consistent with the principles of net neutrality. "First, they're simple to use and powerful," McKeown said. "They enable you to fast-lane or zero-rate traffic from any application or website you want, not just the few, very popular applications. This is particularly important for smaller content providers -- and their users -- who can't afford to establish relationships with ISPs. Second, they're practical to deploy. They don't overwhelm the user or bog down user devices and network operators and they function with a variety of protocols. Finally, they can be a very practical tool for regulators, as they can help them design simple and clear policies and then audit how well different parties adhere to them." The researchers presented a technical paper on their approach at a conference in Brazil.

Comment okay Netflix, then why do you have stream limits? (Score 1) 160

Why does Netflix have a limit of concurrent streams and they charge more for more streams? If Netflix is serious about having various levels of service at different prices is unacceptable Netflix should lead the way by going to a single fixed price for all customers.

4K or not, any number of concurrent streams, etc. It all could be the same price.

The reason why it isn't is the same reason ISPs don't charge everyone the same price. You can make more money by offering differentiated services at different prices.

Comment their upsell system sucks (Score 1) 341

This happens over and over at companies who incentivize their customer service people to push services and accounts. If you ever go to Wells Fargo they always try to shift you into a new kind of account or something. And so I'm sure if not enough people walk in they just resort to making up fake people or changing account signups for people who didn't even show up.

Creating this kind of structure is bad business and leads to dumb things like this.. Companies shouldn't be so stupid as to make this mistake over and over.

Comment VCs didn't get rich sharing money (Score 0) 43

They don't get rich by sharing their returns with non-investors.

He likely has either been diluted or owns a class of shares which will be diluted.

They didn't give out those shares because they actually wanted to make someone rich, but as a promotional effort. Once the promotion was accomplished they immediately had plenty of reason to begin cutting the guy out of the deal.

It's weird that the original (fusion) article switches between saying they are options and they are shares.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"