Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:One of the most frustrating first-world problem (Score 1) 191

Wrong; if all cars have the cap on the same side it leads to inefficiency at pumps when big vehicles / those too bad at driving to park sufficiently close to the pumps cause queues by having to wait to park on the same side of the pump. Yes, I know that pretty much every pump has a long enough hose that it doesn't matter which side you park on at least with a smallish car, but it still seems beyond some people. Optimally 50% of cars will have the cap on the left, 50% on the right.

It is not about the pump, as the hose is long enough to allow filling cars on both sides of the isle, but about the driver being able to check what is being done to his car on gas stations with full service.

Comment Re:I can't change my fingerprint (Score 1) 383

Note that I am not a security researcher and have no idea if what I just said is pure BS or not. However I would hope that people who ARE security researchers have already thought about these aspects.

No, it is not possible to "hash a retina scan", because just like fingerprint scans, the matching process for retina scans is based on feature comparisons. One can say that a retinal feature table is "a kind of a hash", but I disagree: it is quite easy to generate an artificial retina "clone" image from a list of features, just like it is easy to create a fake fingerprint from a list of fingerprint minutiae.

But database hackings are not the big issue here. If fingerprint or retina readers ever go maistream, you'll be simply sharing your password everywhere, from the gym to your job's access system.

Comment Re:Inflation (Score 1) 1040

Certainly the rent in "poor neighborhoods" will go up, yes. Not sure the rents in my area will go up, because contrary to popular slashdot belief, almost nobody actually makes minimum wage.

If living at a poor neighborhood costs more, then people will start thinking about moving to better places that are still cheap. And that goes on and on and on. Most systems interact and housing prices are not exempt from that kind of price increase propagation.

In fact, most housing bubbles are created when credit lines are offered for low-income housing, just like the US Housing Bubble was created by subprime lending. People start thinking "If it costs X to live AT THAT UGLY PLACE, then my house is worth X + Y" and then the price goes up everywhere.

Comment Re:Even higher! (Score 1) 1040

You're demonstrably full of shit. McDonalds could DOUBLE their wages and completely pay for it by raising the price of a big mac less than 75 cents. There's also the issue of, yknow, literally every single other first world country on the face of the earth objectively disproving your bullshit claims.

So why they just don't raise their prices right now, without giving any wage increases to their employees? If things are that simple, why are they avoiding an increase in revenue that would double their net income?

Are they stupid? No. Things are not that simple. They can't raise prices because that would lower the sales volume and also their net income. They probably employ dozens of people at their marketing department just to find that sweet spot.

So they could "OMG OMG DOUBLE" their wages and completely not pay for any of it because of simple market dynamics. But what if "OMG MAGIC" and we mandate that every single retailer in the food sector must DOUBLE wages right now? Inflation will be the answer. It's when people earn more money but buy less stuff, even after getting large wage increases.

Comment Re:FAR better than fossil fuels, and even better t (Score 1) 191

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.

You're not comparing just the weight of the energy storage element, but also the weight of the casing. And that has changed a lot in the last 10 years.

Comment Re:Hydrogen is not a fuel (Score 1) 247

Because neither will last forever. We could sit around until it's gone and then react to the catastrophe that follows (like we do with bridges and levies and education) or we could try some new things at relatively minimal cost in the meantime.

Hydrogen, being only a storage medium, is not a replacement for neither also. So the problem that "they will not last forever" is not being solved by those "new things".

You completely ignored his message.

(Some guy in 1960: "Why build this Internet thing when we already have phones and telegraphs and cans with string? We already have plenty of ways to communicate, why do we need one more?")

Not a valid comparison.

Comment Re:Fool it with a picture? (Score 2, Insightful) 164

Well, the technology may not be there yet, but conceptually, the strongest authentication available is some combination of voice and face recognition, as done by a human.

If you consider just a camera (with no additional sensors spread over a large area), it is a crappy concept. Its the kind of concept that stops being viable once it starts being possible.

Only an awesome 3D camera with an extremely wide angle would not fall into the "just use a printed piece of paper" method. And that non-existent awesome camera would still fall for several other methods, such as well-built models of your face. Even if you're using awesome stereo vision from 2010, the same printed piece of paper in front of any cheap model of a human head will do.

And the kind of AI needed for a computer to detect a person using only image and sound is HARD. So hard that when we actually have this kind of AI, the cheap tech needed to fool it (the hell, to fool real people) will already be available.

eg, if you want a new passport, in England, you have to take a picture, and get someone you know to certify it's a true likeness of you. How does that person know it is you? Well, by seeing how you look like, and listening to your voice. I guess?

The picture allows humans to recognise you. It is meant for humans and humans only.

So, from a theoretical point of view, this system is I feel sound. Just, maybe the technology is not quite there yet ;-)

It depends. If you can afford distributing sensors all over the place, it is POSSIBLE to avoid cheating. You can add cameras and distance sensors over a large area and youll stop most forms of cheating. High-tech cheaters can get away by standing in front of the system and using a special set-up to project a different image inside the camera.

If all you want is a small sensor embedded on a laptop computer, its a stupid concept.

Comment Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (Score 1) 484

He was criticizing Brazil's laws (civil or otherwise). Brazil's laws around libel and slander absolutely suck beyond all comprehension. Brazil has close to the worst in the world. They do infringe greatly on the quality of public speech in Brazil

No, these laws are not the worst in the world. They stop the country from having dirty tabloids like the ones from the UK, and are well applied.

And I agree with the judge's reasoning: if you want to make money (even if you charge nothing, it's strategic profit you're taking out of it) out of providing a space for people to communicate, you need to comply with the law or assume the risks. They should keep logs allowing law enforcement to do its job, and should respond QUICKLY to complaints.

That's part of the cost of running a public communications system. You can't expect to profit out of other people's misery. It's like when you want to sell guns: there are SEVERAL rules you must comply with, otherwise you will be in big trouble? Why? Because you're providing tools that might ruin a person's life.

Comment Re:Save the planet from WHAT? (Score 1) 424

* large parts of our way of life depends on oil * oil is a limited resource * we will be running out of it quite soon

The planet is not affected byoil shortages and energy getting expensive for us humans. When any left-wing idiot talks about "saving the planet", that's not the point they are trying to make.

They are just trying to tag their worthless attempts at self-promotion as something really important.

Comment Re:There's more to this story (Score 1) 691

"It's your fault that you're fat" is not only hurtful -- often, it's simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong. Whatever you put into your mouth, if contains more energy than your body is using, is going to get accumulated somewhere.

I know it's a difficult task, but it is just a matter of eating less. For the first months you do it, you'll feel hungry all the time, which is really annoying. Also be careful with gastritis and ulcers. After that, your body and stomach will be adapted to the new amount of food you're eating. You won't feel hungry anymore (it won't be a matter of ignoring that feeling, you won't actually feel it) and the stomach pain will vanish.

There isn't a magical evil gnome that makes people fat. It's the food they eat.

Comment Save the planet from WHAT? (Score 1) 424

We are saving the planet? From what?

From people? From pollution? From cute grass-jumpin cats? From what?

Why does every spoiled left-wing liberal arts major tags their ideas and projects as something that will "save" earth? Is the new eco religion that self-centered?

About the article: It's funny to see how the radical left (I'm not from the Right, before anyone confuses me with a Pro-Life Republican, I'm not even from the US and I don't vote right-wing where I live) has turned sides on the poverty issue. Things turned from "we should all save the poor from the destruction caused by the heterossexual white man, we should distribute the wealth that was stolen from the poor" into "the poor should stay poor to avoid damaging the environment" after what, one decade?

Nobody can talk about saving the planet until it's PROVEN that the planet needs to saved from anything. This kind of silly tagging reminds me of how Democrats tag their bills with names like "fairness" and "recovery". Until you recover something or bring fairness to a situation, shut up. Don't brag before the results and don't polarize the discussion with charged names. Democrats should respect the discussion and think for at least one moment that 1. They might be wrong, 2. Their solution might not achieve the desired results, 3. The results itself might not be necessary or even prejudicial to the actual issue.

Comment Re:There's more to this story (Score 1) 691

Because my wife was a smoker

What do you want? To pay US$ 800 / month for a few years so you can send US$ 100 000.00 dollars worth of lung cancer bills to the insurance company? It's not a socialist medical tax, it's a medical INSURANCE. It's meant to cover you against things you are not expecting to happen, at least not by your own severe negligence. If you work routinely to screw up your own body, you cannot expect to be insured for a reasonable price. The same thing for being too fat, not doing regular check-ups or not having a reasonably healthy lifestyle. When you buy insurance, you need to take good care of your body / respect traffic laws / keep your house well-maintained / respect building codes to be covered.

Life has a cost. You have to pay to have a house, a car, food and such. You also need to pay for body maintenance.

I believe the government should subiside the costs of diseases that are not caused by negligence, such as most cases of cancer. These treatments should be 100% free, even for the highest level of service. It's a way of helping everyone else around us to have a better life. Life is great and we all use the giant infrastructure that was built for us by the previous generations. Everyone deserves to make full use of all the modern tools that society has built as a whole, and that includes healthcare. But not if it was caused by negligence: YOUR FAULT, YOUR COST.

Comment Re:Going back to sleep now... (Score 1) 664

Oh, so you hated thin clients 25 years ago, and now you could never use one of those, right? Who would ever want to use a small device that has no hard drive, downloads applications from the cloud, and is web-centric? Things change.

No, they don't. The iPhone is flash-based (a local disk) and most apps run 100% local, only using the internet as an add-on (top scores, news, etc.). They don't use the internet as a code repository. iPhone user files are local too.

Comment Re:marketshare (Score 1) 343

You make it easy to add repositories which are on a whitelist that the distro maintains. It's not damn rocket science. They want to add a repository, you check first to see if it's an allowed repository. Christ. That's my entire fucking point. Pretty much any repository that had an actual real person or company behind it would be whitelisted.

Oh, that a nice, real-world solution: a central you-can - you-can't list. That's really going to work after 70% of the fashionable apps of the moment are still waiting in the debian repository approval queue. What about closed-source software? Will most distros include Adobe at the allowed list?.

And how are you going to prevent runnable Java applets (what the hell, even Firefox allows full-permission Java deployment these days) that will simply ask the user for the root password? Will you forbid running apps inside the user folder? Good luck with that, you just removed the Personal out of the PC. "What do you mean I can't run CuteBunnyGame? I'm going back to Windows, sorry."

You're still swimming in the failbucket, sorry.

Um, yes, there is. Namely, if they don't have to put in their root password for anything else, they just might get a little suspicious if they have to pull it out for malware. I love the idea that people just do random things to operate their computer. No, they are taught how to operate their computer. In Windows, they are taught to download and run, with admin permissions, the flash installer, or the Silverlight installer, or the Skype installer, or the malware installer, or RSS reader installer, or the...hey, wait, what was that one before the last one again? If you don't teach them that's how you install programs, they don't install programs that way, and look askew at any programs that says they should be installed that way.

You seem to be the failbucket administrator. All of your ideas are complete consumer turn-offs. Teach them? Who is going to teach them? The product vendor, who needs the user for profit / religious reasons? Are you serious? I can even imagine the box: "Warning, this product is not suitable for idiot users like you who will insert their root passwords at any time asked. Please GTFO, RTFM and learn how to secure your computer before using this product".

People won't learn because they don't want to and most of the time they simply can't. And they don't give the root password to anyone because Windows taught them, they give it to anyone because they want to install CuteBunnyGame and CuteBunnyGame is asking for their password. They paid for their computer and they WANT to run CuteBunnyGame.

You zealots simply don't get normal people. That's why you're all swimming wildly inside the failbucket.

I swear, it's like no one here has any knowledge of how antivirus works at all, and is incapable of reading what I actually type. Malicious programs that run under a single user account are trivial to clean up, a hell of a lot easier to clean up than the rootkit infections that cripple Windows. You could even reboot the computer into an 'antivirus mode' where no user programs get executed at all. (You know, sorta like safe mode is supposed to work, except that none of the trojans on Windows are running under user accounts or via the normal startup, but have instead inserted themselves as system files.)

Who cares? The biggest issue is getting infected in the first place, not if it is easy or not to clean it up. If your personal files are gone (or someone is requesting ransom for them) or your computer is part of a botnet, you have bigger things to worry about than "trust the antivirus" or "just reinstall the damn thing". Even worse: most knowledgeable users would not trust an infected machine.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. -- Dave Butler