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


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:Not all wrecks can be avoided (Score 2) 173

Conversations would be different if the uber car was at fault but not all accidents can be avoided.

There are accidents that nobody could avoid, there are accidents that I cannot avoid, and accidents that could be avoided.

Obviously self driving cars will initially have to be clever enough to only cause accidents very, very rarely, At some point when this is achieved, they will try to avoid avoidable accidents where someone else is at fault.

Comment Re:Car manufacturers (Score 1) 208

If lexmark win this then every car manufacturer will be able to create their own fuel and shut out generic petrol alternatives.

The first car maker trying that would go bankrupt within a very short time. If Ford were mad enough to build a car that I can only fill up at Ford gas stations, what sane person would buy that car?

Comment Re:Fait Acompli? (Score 1) 208

I'm not clear on patent law in this case (certainly not the US laws), but I thought patent licenses cover manufacturing, not use.

It covers use as well. Imagine someone with a _real_ patent, and some company makes a million unlicensed products and sells them cheap. Then as a buyer you can't say "I'm just using the product, I didn't produce it, I should be allowed to use it".

Obviously when you pay a patented cartridge made by Lexmark you _have_ a license to use it. And if you sell that cartridge to me then I have a license to use it, and you don't have it anymore.

Comment Re:Note to self (Score 2) 208

The catch is that it's starting to be "never buy anything" from anyone. There isn't a company on this planet that doesn't want this ability to control it's products after purchase, and they consistently get away with it.

It seems that I can get third party cartridges for my Brother laser printer quite easily. It seems that Brother doesn't try stopping others from making cartridges.

Comment Re:Fait Acompli? (Score 2) 208

Excuse me? What have they patented exactly?

It doesn't really matter. They have patented _something_ and nobody claims that patent would be invalid. They then go on to claim that because they have some patent, nobody is allowed to refill their cartridges. And that's what should fail in court.

The exception would be if they have a patent on refilling cartridges, then they can deny you the right to refill cartridges _using their patented method_, but they still can't deny you the right to refill cartridges in any other way.

Comment Re:$75k? (Score 1) 122

Do they know its Apple they have by the balls?

They don't have anybody by the balls. There is a big, big difference between opening your big mouth and claiming you have access to 300 million iTunes accounts, and having access to 300 million iTunes accounts.

And one of the "hackers" will get his ass spanked by his grandma for deleting her account.

Comment std::insert is double awful (Score 1) 266

The first example: std::insert should do nothing if an item is already present. So calling std::insert only if the object is not yet present is 100% equivalent to calling std::insert directly, but it is 7 times slower.

This violates the important principle that when using a library, the obvious way to do things should be the fasted. So hacks are required to make your code fast, and that shouldn't happen.

I assume the explanation is probably that std::find is small enough to be inlined, while std::insert is too big, so nothing is inlined at all when you call it.

Comment Re:Destroy code? (Score 1) 518

Seems like encryption systems need to have two passwords; one that decrypts the volume and another that wipes the keys and images a fresh filesystem. When they compel you to enter your password, you enter the "destroy code."

What would be the use of that if you don't want to commit a crime and hide the evidence?

Comment Re:This is bullcrap (Score 1) 518

So you're telling me that the Judge has power to order you to do literally anything during a trial? such as stick a knife in yourself or someone else? and if you refuse you are now in contempt and can go to prison for ever?

If you talk nonsense like that in court, then the judge hasn't just the right, but a legal obligation to stick a knife in your eye.

Comment Re:This is bullcrap (Score 1) 518

So if you make the password itself something that would be incriminating, you could legitimately withhold it?

Possibly. Of course "I killed seven girls" as a password is not incriminating - it shows that you are a rather sick individual but not that you killed anyone. "Seven bodies are buried in my garden under the cherry tree" would be incriminating if it were true and the police checked.

But a much more plausible case is when it is known that either you or your best friend is the owner of the encrypted drive, but it isn't known which one. Then providing the password would be _very_ incriminating and you wouldn't be required to provide it. And of course you couldn't be held in contempt because there's only a 50% chance that you are withholding the password.

Comment Re:What if (Score 1) 518

What if it isn't even actually encrypted? "I see a lot of files on here that aren't .mp3, .jpg or .gif files, they have weird extensions like .class. They're obviously encrypted, decrypt them and show us the illegal stuff they're encrypted as!"

That's why you have expert witnesses and lawyers. No expert witness would make such a claim, because they would never be an expert witness again, and no lawyer would let them get away with it.

Comment Re:Contempt of the court... (Score 1) 518

No state has the right to compel assistance in one's own prosecution, constitution or no.

Sure they do. For example, if the police comes to your home with a search warrant, you have to assist them by opening the door. In that particular situation, the police doesn't mind if you don't assist and you will not be prosecuted; they feel that having to pay for a broken door that stopped them for five seconds is enough punishment.

You have to provide keys or code for a safe if they have a warrant. You have to unlock encrypted drives if they have a warrant. What you don't have to do is give evidence against yourself. Unlocking an encrypted drive that they already know was used by you is not giving evidence against yourself.

Comment Re:Contempt of the court... (Score 1) 518

Think of the ramifications, the court claims you saw something with no evidence of proof of that claim, you say you did not and they imprison you until you say what they want you to say.

You see, the analogy breaks down at the point where evidence was found on his Mac, and the two encrypted drives were connected to his Mac. If you show me a random encrypted disk drive, I have no idea what the password is. If you show me an encrypted disk drive that was connected to my Mac, either I know the password, or it's stored in the keychain of the Mac so you can access it with the keychain password.

And that's the situation this man is in. They ask for the password to an encrypted drive that he has been using.

Slashdot Top Deals

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy