Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re: Serves them right (Score 2) 45

You don't think breaches of this kind would negatively affect the company?

Besides the point entirely. I was accused of victim blaming. Say you are a construction worker and you lend me your tools to look after until tomorrow. I don't give a damn and leave your tools lying around where anyone can steal them. Next day, the tools are gone and when you ask me for them I just shrug my shoulders. Who is the victim - me or you? Yeah ok, I have lost credibility. You will never lend me any tools again. But I wouldn't call me a VICTIM. If anything, I am an accomplice.

Comment Re:Serves them right (Score 1) 45

Nothing is unhackable.

In theory. In practice humans go for the low hanging fruit. This store was probably hacked because of ridiculous password security or SQL injection, or some other trivial technique. You don't need to build government-level security to convince a bad guy to move on to an easier target.

Also the store is not the victim. The customers who trusted the store are.

Comment Serves them right (Score 4, Insightful) 45

I'm sorry but when you don't take your customers' security seriously, don't complain when someone walks through the front door and steals the stuff you left lying around. The hackers are wrong, but it's the store's own damned fault. They'd rather make more profit than pay for serious security. Shows what they think of their clients.

Comment Yet Another Study in Mental Acrobatics (Score 4, Insightful) 304

Research reports like this on e-cigarettes annoy me. Ordinarily I might suggest that the press releases are making things appear more shocking than the paper, but it seems like the paper writers have also overemphasised the results of this study. This research appears to be a presence/absence experiment, rather than an actual harm experiment. The thought process seems to follow something like the following:

  1. E-cigarettes contain some nasty toxic chemicals in detectable quantities
  2. These toxic chemicals are nasty and toxic, and cause damage in high concentrations
  3. Therefore, E-cigarettes are bad and shouldn't be used

The problem is that studies of this sort aren't actually demonstrating harm. It's like saying that air contains carbon monoxide, so we shouldn't breathe it. In the paper, there are a few weasel words used that encourage thoughts like this:

Chemical analysis of e-liquids and vapors emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed nonusers... compounds are considered possible or probable carcinogens

The researchers say that they'll do the actual harm testing as an additional step:

The researchers are working on a follow-up study focusing on the health and environmental impacts of e-cigarettes.

Or, in the paper:

These chemical emissions are associated with both cancer and noncancer health impacts that will be quantitatively evaluated in an ensuing paper.

But until that's done (and has meaningful results) it's difficult to make a good case that E-cigarettes are doing the wrong thing and should be avoided.

Slashdot Top Deals