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


Forgot your password?
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:What a fatuous, nebulous piece of crap??? (Score 4, Informative) 161

Apple could have killed them ages ago, by allowing their OS to be licensed on any processor, and include a state machine rom with each licenced copy, said state machine being a soldered un-crackable dongle, so that Apple gets ~~$100 per copy - they would slay Microsoft.
As it is Apple clings to their walled garden = dumb, but Apple = richer than me, so what do I know?

I think you forgot about the Mac clone era. Unfortunately, the third party clones were horrible. At the time, discontinuing the licensing of Mac clones was the right thing to do. All they did was tarnish Apple's image.

Comment Re:Everyone on the underhanded snooping bandwagon? (Score 1) 113

It depends on the interpretation of "inadvertently", perhaps. There were a group of engineers who designed the system to capture data and that group later tried to "shop" the data to other groups within Google, including the Search group, but they didn't think it would add value. This was covered ad-naseum in the European press for almost 5 years now.

From the BBC in 2010:

Google said the problem dated back to 2006 when "an engineer working on an experimental wi-fi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast wi-fi data".

That code was included in the software the Street View cars used [...]

John Simpson, from the Consumer Watchdog, told the BBC: "The problem is [Google] have a bunch of engineers who push the envelope and gather as much information as they can and don't think about the ramifications of that."

This wasn't an oopsy, of some off the shelf stuff that was doing things they didn't know about. This was, at best, engineers at Google overstepping their bounds without oversight. Google is still responsible for what happened even if the left hand didn't know what the right was doing at the time.

Comment Re:They didn't know! (Score 1) 464

I'm guessing it went something like this:

NSA: "Nice products you have! We'd like to license $10m of it please for our own use, but could you make this algorithm the default in the configs? It would save us a lot of headaches in our configurations and it's the best algorithm to use!"

RSA sales people: "OK! Sounds like you know what's best and your money is always good, of course!"

Comment Re:Question for financial gurus (Score 1) 475

Yes, there's nothing magical about it. All you'd need to do is find somebody who trusts you to pay them back and you effectively make a bet with them. They don't even need to own any Bitcoins themselves. For example, I might agree to give you today's value of 5 bitcoins but you'd need to pay that back to me within, say, 6 months and when you do so you have to pay what the value of bitcoin is at the time. Depending on how savvy and how much the other person trusts you, they may want you to put up some amount of cash in an escrow so you can't flake on them and run with the money without finishing the deal.

Comment Physical Mailbox? (Score 1) 285

What about keeping a drive/Time Capsule in a locking mailbox at the curb? Of course, power might be an issue, but maybe slip a 12V line up into the box from the yard lighting to power it, or even some solar cell set up although you don't want to attract too much attention that something electronic is happening in there. If nothing else, it could be a convenient place to swap or grab backups as needed that is relatively 'off site'.

Comment Thinking what's appropriate vs. Doing (Score 1) 453

I found the opposite to be true. The older demographic (who tended to be higher up) were the ones who took more frivolous calls during meetings. The 20 somethings usually left their phones at their desk. I suppose the younger people questioned might say they think that it is OK for the older folks to do that while if you ask the older folks they would agree that it isn't appropriate but they do it anyways.

I think that can be all well and good for a 'study' except for the last flip comment at the end: "And if you’re an older worker annoyed at what you believe to be rude behavior, just remember, it’s not you – it’s them!" The researchers clearly don't know how to interpret their own data objectively. The study was asking what people thought would be appropriate, not what they actually do!

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing