Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Even ones that are tested can have problems (Score 1) 52

I bought an Anker USB C-C cable. I got an LG phone with C, and Qualcomm quick charging on it so I needed some new adapters to be able to charge it at full speed. Gout a couple of adapters, and couple of A-C cables and then said "why not?" and got a C-C cable too. No use for it yet, but I figured I'd get it since I'm sure my next laptop will have C on it.

A few weeks later, Anker sent me a recall notice. Apparently there was a problem in the cables that could cause issues with high power use cases so they gave me my money back and promised a replacement when available.

The issue was actually apparently in the ICs on the cable. Yes that's right, the cables have to have controllers on them too since they have to communicate what kind of power they can handle.

It is likely to be a problem for some time. The good news is A-C cables aren't such an issue since A supports much lower voltages and currents (can only go up to 12v and and like 2.5a) so they don't have to be as insulated and don't need as much protection (apparently a resistor on them does the trick) but still. The C-C stuff though, it will be an issue.

Comment If you do business in the US, the IRS gets to peek (Score 1) 189

You find it is true of most nations, actually. If you are playing with finances in their borders, their tax agencies get to have a look at what is going on. Doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. There can be tax implications even if you are't a citizen but regardless they want to see what is going on.

I mean look at the FIFA guys who got brought down by the US: It happened because they were doing shit with US currency and US banking. That is why the US took an interest and has legal standing.

Comment Warrants not required (Score 1) 152

They are not allowed to hack my computer even IF THEY HAVE A WARRANT, because no warrant can be granted for a computer on foreign soil.

I think what our courts would (eventually) say is that the constitution doesn't protect anyone, or anything, outside of the USA itself, and so no warrant is required in the first place.

That's pretty much the entire basis our CIA was built upon.

I'm not saying this is a good outlook; but I am saying it is the outlook.

Comment Security is an illusion (Score 1) 152

I have canceled more things than I've submitted for that exact reason.

They could have read it right off your keyboard anyway. By far the easiest place to monitor communications is at the unencrypted endpoints. If you don't want anyone to know what you're thinking, don't say it, don't enter it into a computer in any form, and don't write it down. That'll protect you. For at least a little while longer, anyway.

"Two people can keep a secret -- if one of them is dead."

Comment Re:Fair, but they have to decide what instead (Score 1) 290

You might want to try and spend a little more time considering your responses and a little less time getting all worked up, it'll help you make points more cognizant and likely to persuade.

First off I didn't post AC so... not sure what you are going for there.

That aside, when you start talking about nuclear power as "Kablooey power" you are more or less saying "ignore my opinion, I have a childlike view on this." Making up silly names does nothing to make your point, it doesn't convince me you have a valid view, it says to me your view is based on fear and a lack of understanding, not on a carefully considered weighing of the evidence.

So given that, I'm not going to waste more time trying to convince you since it won't work, logical appeals to people with an emotional position don't succeed. I'm just going to suggest that you might want to chill out, spend some time reading what you are responding to, and argue based on logic, not on emotion. You'll win more converts that way.

Comment Then again, there are the facts (Score 1) 225

The Inquisition killed about 3,000 people over the course of 350 years.

"The inquisition" comprises a combined series of undertakings beginning with Pope Lucius III's instigation in 1184 CE and terminating in 1834 CE - a span of about 650 years. The Spanish Inquisition was one chapter of this, but by no means can be reasonably considered an isolated or peak event.

Perhaps you'll find this of interest.

Historically speaking, Christianity, between the inquisitions, the crusades, the pograms, blood libel, and just general oppression of various and sundry kinds, has a great deal of theism-based violence to answer for.

Comment Should be obvious to everyone (Score 0) 552

Marijuana, like alcohol, screws with your brain to achieve its effects. There is a reason we are particularly squeamish about handing out legal medicine that works on brain chemistry. It's because messing with brain chemistry can be like opening Pandora's Box.

This isn't a good reason to keep the War on Drugs, but it is a good reason to reevaluate some of our society's basic principles on dealing with intoxicating substances.

The one concern I have about legalization is that there are a lot of people (probably 5-10% of the adult population) that can look at what crack, meth and heroin do and still use them. They just don't care. Their time preference barely goes a millimeter past the tip of their nose. Then they and many "good people" will piss and moan that they are poor and our "indecent society" is bankrupting them by not providing medical coverage to them on an affordable basis.

If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.

Comment Re:Not people: It's a computer problem (Score 1) 392

If you just have to punch a name into a computer and its suddenly all in front of you though, it becomes second nature to just dig into anyone you feel like -- whether or not you have legal justification for doing so. Time and money are gone from the equation.

That's a lot of words to say "Google" :)

Comment Re:DVDA for your data (Score 1) 392

Without going into detail, speaking as an engineer, one signal... many signals... the distinction is not a serious technical obstacle, other than money, which, again, not a serious obstacle to the state. Do you really believe this type of tech was only used 1:1?

The feds monitor emissions from vans, from aircraft, in vehicles, and from orbit. If they want you, they already have you. I write very high end signal processing software. I assure you this has been going on for decades. We just have better computers now. They have always had the best computers money could buy, so where we are today, they were some time ago.

It's just the way it is.

Comment Silly me. (Score 0, Offtopic) 581

All this time I had thought the archive was non-partisan. Sorry to see them choose a side. I'm a conservative and now I can't be sure I can trust them to be even handed when I archive pages that have a conservative slant.

Now to figure out how to stop auto-donating each month.

Comment Test... tickle. Is this mic on? (Score 1) 84

A high-quality microphone that is always listening and voice recognition are useful right up to the point where they are used against you.

Oh, you mean that smartphone you've been carrying in your pocket for years now? That high quality microphone? That voice-recognition? That always-on connection to the world?

The Echo and Amazon brethren are the least of our problems here. Also, as currently implemented, these devices recognize their names locally, and then talks to the world. I have watched the network traffic quite carefully -- that's how it works. For now, anyway.

I'm considerably more concerned with the smartphones. They're much more powerful, and the concern I have isn't so much what a corporation might do with my speech (try to sell me somehting?), but what the government might do with it. Because generally, a corporation can dangle temptation, but a government can do you direct and consequential harm.

Slashdot Top Deals

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Working...