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

 



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:It is unfair (Score 1) 144

If they've automated such detection, they're already 'hacking' your site by violating your implied TOS.

Thank you IANAL for attempting to give legal advice.

There are no "implied TOS". If you do not make an effort to hide your site behind a click acceptance, it is fair game. What you are talking about is known as "browsewrap"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - There is no hard and fast rules about browsewraps being enforceable. It's done on a case-by-case basis. So unless the legal text is on the same page (and not just "by reading this you agree to the TOS found on this other page") as the data you're trying to protect, and most likely would have to appear earlier on the page, not in a footer, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

What sites are doing now is making obvious and unavoidable blockers (whole pages, modals, pop overs, etc) that will only go away with user interaction. These are referred to as "clickwrap". They are enforceable. The user (be it person or bot) had to perform an action acknowledging that they are aware and will abide by the policies.

For legal reference, I would look at Zappos' legal failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

They tried to force customers into using arbitration in any legal matters. But there was nothing stopping a customer from making a purchase without ever seeing the TOS. Since the TOS was not obvious, and nothing could prove the customer saw it, it was not legally binding and Zappos' lost big.

As a website owner, I talked with a lawyer in how to handle this. I added a checkbox to the end of the membership registration that must be checked before creating the account. I then save the language that was used ("I agree...") and a date/time stamp of the event along with their account details. So if anyone comes back and says they never agreed to the TOS and Privacy Policy, I have proof that they did.

Comment Riddles sometimes backfire (Score 1) 1001

I interviewed for a QA position for a large corporation. Even though it was for a manual testing gig, they brought in a group of developers to be part of the "gauntlet" of interviewers. So on top of the normal "tell us about you" and "why here", one of them asked me a programming test question.

After discussing what he wanted, I went to the whiteboard, struggled for a bit, then said, "I'm sorry, I can't figure this out at the moment. Can you show me your solution?"

The smug developer explained (didn't actually write the code) how to tackle it. I paused and considered his answer and said, "That won't work because of X". The other devs in the room thought about it, giggled, and agreed. So they went back to asking relevant questions, and the one dev was silent for the rest of the interview. As we were shaking hands I had an epiphany and explained a working solution.

I ended up getting the job and was assigned to QA a number projects lead by that developer.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 54

Some of us are against walled gardens that are "hardware locked." An example of this is buying into an ecosystem that only works on one vendor's mobile device selection. STEAM works on my PCs...

Which this article points out is not a factor. You can play PlayStation Now in the walled garden of a PS3, a PS4, a PS Vita, *or your PC*. Guess it's not as hardware locked as you are trying to rally against.

As for Steam's services being "essentially" free... PlayStation Now is $99 a year. That's less than $10 a month giving you access to 100's of games, making each one of them "essentially" free too

Comment A short two-weeks notice (Score 1) 765

While at my last job, I got an offer for something better in a new state. So I told the new company I'd need a month; two weeks for the current job then two more weeks to relocate. They agreed so I turned in my two-week notice. However it just so happened that I had to give the notice on the Friday just before the company shuts down for a week for Xmas/New Year's holiday.

Comment Re:Plausible? (Score 1) 164

I think the first thing to note is that I doubt laws uses "quotes" to define a term like "plausible". So it is suspect that what was in the summary is not accurate/official/legal (surprise, surprise).

Given that, I'll try and make an car analogy work.
* Let's start with; yes, one person is the registered owner of the car so it is possible that that person is responsible for any infraction involving the car.
* It is also possible that anyone else in the house could have taken the keys and borrowed the car without the owner knowing.
* Perhaps a neighbor has a key to this car and the owner doesn't even know that they are using it
* Maybe the car was left unlocked with the keys out in the open so anyone walking by could have used the car
* What if this is one of those modern self-driving cars and a hacker has hacked their way in and drove it remotely
* Someone slim-jimmed the lock and fooled On-Star to start it remotely
* Someone just broke the window and hot-wired the car

While option one is plausible, there are so many other ways that someone other than the person whose name is on the bill could the actual perpetrator, that you cannot summarily say "He's the one".

Comment Google Alerts (Score 1, Interesting) 150

I don't know why Google Alerts isn't considered dead.

I have not received an alert from then about anything in over two years. Which is very unfortunate as I relied on it for my company. I would have it alert me anytime it was mentioned so I could watch for trouble, positive and negative reviews, etc. My company is still around and making news, but the alerts just stopped showing up.

Comment Re:X-Files vs. Bab-5 - ouch! (Score 1) 480

Which would have been useful if her[Troi's] powers were used or well defined enough. Instead each writer for the show went his or her on way. Does telepathy work through a video screen? Depends on which episode of TNG you watch. At least the writers realized they were being idiots by the later seasons and stopped doing that stuff.

I agree, Troi's powers seemed to morph every episode. She can sense emotion, unless she can't. She knows when people are lying, except when they are good at it. She can read minds, unless the plot would be cut short. She can talk to people telepathically, but only if they can talk back.

The biggest blunder of her was probably during the best show of the series, "Darmok and Jalad". They encounter an alien race that essentially talks in metaphor. The only people who should be confused would be people that don't know the back story and just hear words. The whole point of the language is to invoke imagery. So unless her only skill is to see the words that someone says printed in their brain, as if reading a book, then any one of her previous skills would have helped defuse the whole thing.

Comment They forgot the "The Last of Us" method (Score 1) 163

They list only two method of virus spread, but seem to leave out a third; zombification/infection by both blood AND by latent, airborne contact.

**This will be kinda spoilery, but mostly open knowledge.**

In this model, "zombies" are created not just by blood contact, but by an airborne pathogen. So the initial wave of zombies were created due to a spore/fungus. One that was based on a real fungus so I would think that would rank even higher than say, "Shuan of the Dead".

So the ways to contract this "disease" are many:
1) The typical bite, scratch, splatter, etc due to blood contact
2) The fungus/spore that started the whole thing existing in the wild
3) Those infected, once they reach a specific point, either by the host being used up by the fungus, or by some external death, create a landmine for an airborne version

That third point is very important. Generally, once you "kill" a zombie, the threat is neutralized. Just kick 'em to the curb and burn when you get a chance. However in this model the corpse is still a carrier and must be handled and disposed of carefully to prevent new contamination. Once the fungus reaches a point where the host body no longer sustains it, it starts releasing spores which can infect any passer-by. So even though you stopped the horde today, tomorrow the battlefield can become one giant infectious cloud.

Which means that while the population takes up arms to stop the physically attacking bodies, you need to dedicate a large percentage of the population for waste disposal. You're not going to be an effective fighter wearing a hazmat suit so the two groups should not mix. This depletes the number of people "fighting the disease" which may allow for greater rates of infection.

Comment Re:All or nothing approach is silly (Score 1) 131

The main problem of this is the developer now has the onus of describing to the user exactly WHY they really need that functionality within the app, and put in warnings and error screens if the user decides to turn off/disallow access. This adds a huge amount of bulk/overhead to even the simplest of apps.

What happens if a photo editing software is denied access to your camera and/or saved photos? It appears broken so the developer gets negative reviews. This is an obvious example, but there could be more hidden rationals in other apps.

- Your ToDo app wants to use the GPS so it can remind you when you are at a location to fulfill a task.
- Your calendar needs your contact list to send out invitations.
- Your game needs to access your camera to use VR or adjust the lighting.

You end up with every app giving a series of popups asking for permissions that may or may not make sense. And if there is one thing we've learned, it's that when constantly bogged down with warning popups, people start ignoring them and just click "Yes" for everything making the whole security aspect moot.

I'd rather see on the app store product page a listing of, "Here are the permissions this app requires, and here is the explanation for why it needs it." Then I can choose BEFORE I EVEN DOWNLOAD the app if I feel safe. Now, they could still be lying through their virtual teeth, but at least I have the foreknowledge to ponder why this app that is supposed to teach me about the stars needs my contact list and access to Facebook.

Comment Businesses need to learn how to kill employees (Score 1) 599

Not actually kill them, but get in the mind set of a will; What would I do if Employee X died tonight?

I have a will, so if I die, there are instructions so that life can continue without me; how money is to be handled, where important documents are stored, and the top-level password to the password manager program. The same needs to be always thought of in regards to employees. How would the business carry on if someone was no longer an employee tomorrow; both long term AND short term. (Death, disability, family emergency, quit, kidnapping, blow-to-the-head induced amnesia, etc)

- What duties do they perform and who can we use as a backup?
- What information do they have that we'd need to keep things running?
- If a parasite crawled in their ear and they went rogue, who and how could we isolate them to prevent further damage?

You get the idea.

Comment Re:Arguably lied? (Score 1) 569

In other words, change the line of questioning from binary to quantifiable.

Not, "Is Linux open source?", but "What percentage of Linux do you consider open source?"

Not, "Did you have sexual relations with that woman?", but "What parts of your body have been in physical contact with that woman?"

Not, "Do you kick puppies?", but "Over the last two year, are you kicking more, less, or about the same amount of puppies?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Torque is cheap.

Working...