Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment That's not how SwiftKey works (Score 2) 28

I understand your concern, but SwiftKey does not send individual keystrokes over the wire, and prediction is handled on the device. It does send any new words you type so that it can predict the same words on all your devices. It goes way beyond T9 prediction and considers the context from preceding words. When I'm replying with a canned response, I can often type the first word and then simply hit the spacebar to insert each successive word.

SwiftKey builds your personal vocabulary by combining the dictionaries you choose at setup with the words you type in context. You can also have it (optionally) learn from existing emails, IMs, Facebook posts, etc. If you don't want the cloud features, turn them off. If you don't want it to scan your existing messages, click "Skip" when asked.

This is definitely a bug and a problem, but the feature itself is entirely optional and clearly presented. SwiftKey is definitely one of my favorite apps, and it has a crap ton of themes.

Comment Re:Sharing is a business now? (Score 4, Insightful) 103

A rational person also wants to be able to consume said content easily. The content producers are doing their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible. Why can't I type in a movie name and watch it on my Tivo? Oh sure, it searches Netflix and Amazon and Xfinity and Hulu and . . . but then when you choose your provider (you can't always see the cost so it's hard to choose) you still have to search again in the actual app to watch it.

But then you can't download it to pause/rewind quickly, or you have to watch commercials, or you only have 24 hours to watch it, or you can't watch it in Bumfuckistan, or . . . WTF! I am happy to pay for content. I would be happier if the content providers got their shit together instead of fighting content sharing and wringing their hands over Bitcoin.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 81

Am I missing something here?

Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future, and cannot pretend that sponsored videos and articles are actually the work of independent producers.

It seems the punishment for breaking the law is that WB must now . . . obey the law?

Comment Re:No, we need to stop doing illicit things online (Score 1) 126

Just don't use your real name anywhere on the internet.

You mean like when you sign up for internet service using your physical address? Yes, I'm sure that's going to stop the state government—which probably runs the ISP—from learning who you are. Even if you limit posting your critiques to libraries or other public places, they can use the browsing history to narrow down where to watch for you.

Comment Re:That's amazing! (Score 2) 140

My daughter, for instance, has all but left Facebook for other social platforms. She still technically has an account, but mostly ignores it.

She still has an account, but is the app still installed on her phone? If so, then I bet she's still being tracked and could be shown as a suggested friend to others.

Comment Re:It has backdoor access. Authentication issue? (Score 3, Insightful) 245

And when the FBI orders them to provide secret access to this chip running in all devices using it worldwide, they'll obviously break national security laws to inform the public, right? Oh, but of course, since it's the FBI, it'll still be secure from all (other) bad actors!

Comment Re:Security by obscurity works quite well. (Score 1) 245

[I]t normally refers to relying on the method being secret to make discovery of a vulnerability more difficult.

No, the term security by obscurity means that the method MUST be a secret, because that secret is the only thing providing security.

I'd argue that you're actually agreeing here. MUST versus relying. It's the GOP's claim that the password, private key, PIN, gesture, one time pad, etc. determines the system's obscurity—not the method itself—that you're both disagreeing with, and rightfully so.

"Security through obscurity" has a very specific meaning that the GOP is trying to invalidate by claiming that every method that requires a secret is obscure. They are trying to equate a system that uses a 2048-bit public/private key pair with one that uses a single digit "password" because they both contain a secret, and are thus equal in strength. Utter nonsense.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson