Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Another Reason (Score 1) 105

This is just one more reason to boycott Google and it's evil products.

I don't understand. Why would a Google manufactured phone be a reason to boycott Google? If you're worried about evil, surely they can't pack much more evil into a Google Manufactured phone than they could into a phone developed by a 3rd party to their exact specs?

Comment Re:News at 5... (Score 1) 422

Scenario 1: Crash directly into a concrete barrier or into a crowd of people and cats. Really, there are no other possible outcomes at all? Not rapid controlled deceleration, not swerving off the road, nothing else comes to mind?

Since the car is already looking ahead and can calculate the car's reaction to all control inputs based on the road conditions (because, after all, the car is already trying to slow down, and it knows the coefficient of friction with the road), it knows that it can't stop or steer off the road in time, it's already computed that regardless of what evasive actions it takes, those are the only two options, so it has to decide which is better - veer off to the side and hit the hard concrete barrier and kill the car's occupants, or use the bodies of the crowd in front of it to cushion the blow and potentially save the occupants.

So it's still a valid question that needs to be answered - should the car be programmed to preserve the lives of bystanders, or preserve the live of the car's occupants. And is there a limit to how many lives it should risk. I.e. if there are 2 people in the car, and one person in the middle of the road, should it run down the person in the road to save the 2 passengers? Or should it be based on the person's monetary net worth (which, as everyone knows, is a perfect proxy for the person's value to society) - should the car scan the RFID tag in the person on the road to see his net worth and compare it to the passengers?

Comment Re:Stranger Danger! (Score 1) 211

Because he's not 'your neighbour', he's some guy who bought the apartment next to you, never lives in it, but rents it out to strangers on the internet for profit.

He is my neighbor, and short-term rentals ( 180 days) are prohibited by the HOA, though special permission for shorter term rentals can be granted on a case by case basis (i.e. you're traveling for a month and want to rent out your apartment for that one time)

Comment Re:Stranger Danger! (Score 1) 211

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

Which emphasizes the point that rent control is detrimental to building more housing space.

Whoops sorry, had that backwards -- I meant it applies only to building built *before* 1979 -- any building built in the past 37 years is not subject to rent control.

Comment Re:Arrived at an airbnb place today (Score 4, Interesting) 211

I've just arrived at an AirBnb apartment for a 2 week stay. When booking the place I was warned not to mention that I was in an AirBnb place as the locals aren't too happy with it. So I have been thinking about such apartments this week, and it seems to be that the hotels are missing out on an opportunity for renting out complete apartments.

Isn't that pretty much what Extended Stay suites are? Studio, one, or two bedroom suites available for rent by the day, week, month or longer.

don't have to worry about strangers wandering in every day to clean the place and poke around my belongings.

When I've stayed for an extended stay suite hotel, they only offered full housekeeping once a week, and I'm sure you could tell them to skip that too if you really don't trust the housekeeping staff.

Comment Re:Stranger Danger! (Score 1) 211

Leaving a door unlocked is plain dumb no matter where you live. You may know and trust your neighbors, but can you say the same about your neighbors guest or even family visiting?

If I trust my neighbor enough to leave my front door unlocked, then why wouldn't I trust him to vet his guests?

I've exchanged keys with my neighbors and trust them and their guests enough to not use those keys to come in and steal my stuff. They have the same trust in me.

Comment Re:Stranger Danger! (Score 1) 211

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

SF's Rent control only applies to buildings built after 1979 - 37 years ago.

Comment Re:I never understood privacy (Score 2) 205

I never understood why people think networks like the Internet are supposed to be private. They weren't designed to be originally. In fact, the first networks were broadcast: every node "talked" to every other node. Networks are supposed to facilitate communications. They aren't designed to hide communications. In fact in a peer to peer network like the internet, every node is supposed to be able to talk to other nodes. I know a bunch of people are going to get angry at this but the fact is if you want secrecy, don't use a communication network like the Internet. I know it is hard to believe, but it is possible! I'll wait for all the blah, blah, blah, I hate you Aspie responses, but if you look at the history of networks in general, security was an afterthought that was tacked on top (poorly).

Few people think the internet is private, that's why they use encryption.

If someone wants your secrets badly enough that they'll backdoor your phone without you knowing it (and they have the resources to do so), then no communication is safe, not even a person-to-person conversation.

Comment SHA3 is not an encryption algorithm (Score 1) 262

From the caremonkey security page:

All data in the CareMonkey mobile apps for smartphones or tablets is stored in an encrypted format using SHA3 (512bit). An essential requirement is that if a device is lost/stolen or someone gains access to the data files on the device that they are not be able to access any personal data.

SHA3 is not an encryption algorithm, it's hash function (it's right there in the name, SHA= Secure Hash Algorithm).

Comment No expectation of privacy in public? (Score 4, Insightful) 224

If the FBI's argument for these cams is that there's no expectation of privacy in public, then I suppose the FBI wouldn't mind if a group of citizens go together and published a map of all of these cameras? If they can be seen by the public, then that's fine, right?

And likewise, if I choose to park outside of an FBI field office every day and publish license plates, and video of everyone going in and out, that wouldn't be a problem either, would it? It's a public street, so no one should expect any privacy.

Comment Re:Shows how weak they really are (Score 1) 58

Oooh, a library! Boy, you guys must be really tough, if you hacked the web site of a library!

My biggest fear right now is some massive and misguided response to the Florida shooting. ("We've got to strike back! Let's bomb somebody...") I actually really appreciate this story, just for the fact that it underscores how weak ISIS really is, and that alot of what they're doing is just a lot of bullshit bluster, in the desperate hope they can inspire someone else to do their dirty work for them.

If by Florida shooting you mean that little punk twerp Treyvon Martin, I say good. It's good for everybody else anytime some piece of shit thug nigger gets himself killed by acting like a thug nigger. The younger this happens to them the better - preferably before they reproduce.

Before you say "it's good", maybe just take a look around and see what "Florida Shooting" could be related to an article about ISIS. You don't have to look very far, just look at the previously posted Slashdot story:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

Slashdot Top Deals

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Working...