Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Scary stuff (Score 1) 279

One question I have is: At what point does global warming become so evident that there is no more argument as to whether it is occurring, and the argument becomes what do we do about it? I'm pretty sure we should already be there, but we aren't.

My question is: At what point does global warming no longer become the impetus for switching to renewable energy. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't cause any harm to the environment (which of course it does, but that's not the point right now) they are a very temporary solution. There's only so much oil and coal in the ground, and we're going to run out at some point. Switching to renewable energy sources is simply the pragmatic option. The longer we wait, the more of an emergency it becomes when it does run out, and we're left with hundreds of coal fired plants with nothing to fire.

Plus it makes financial sense. For anyone in a sunny region, solar panels provide very good ROI. Not investing is throwing away money.

Comment Re:Because most people already assume the worst (Score 1) 308

I haven't read through all 8000+ pages of the latest dump, but I couldn't find anything that outlined specific programs, plans or even intentions to use these tools on American citizens on American soil. Can we assume that someone will misuse the tools to spy on their ex? Probably. But that's just an assumption.

Until we have some evidence to prove otherwise, all we're left with is CIA doing CIA shit. They're a spy organization building spy tools. Color me shocked.

Comment Going Green (Score 3, Insightful) 44

At what point do we stop praising companies for "going green," when switching to solar just makes financial sense?

The company will net profit from this investment. It also happens to be good for the environment, so hooray, but I'm willing to bet the former was the real reason for this.

It kinda feels like praising companies for cancelling their ritual kitten sacrifice. They might be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or maybe kittens are just getting pricey, and then you've gotta steam clean the carpets because SOMEONE tracked blood everywhere...

Comment Re: "netflix-style" (Score 0) 33

The catch seems pretty obvious: bait and switch.

"Sign up now and you'll get access to These Great Games!!" A month later, those games are gone, but you can buy them individually to keep playing

This model works with Netflix: new movie or tv series shows up, I watch it, it goes away, I don't care. Games are a more perpetual experience: you play to get better (gear/skill) so you can play at a higher level, granting even more gear/skill so you can .... you get the idea. A month or two later, when the service takes that all away, you have an increased incentive to purchase the full game.

Also (not sure if this is a "catch," but) it drives multiplayer game purchases. If I own a full copy of Some Game, but my friend doesn't, this might allow us to play together. Once he gets invested, he's more likely to purchase the game, and all of its DLC

Comment Re: Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 126

That's kinda what I was getting at with the caveats. I wouldn't support a blanket warrant for every phone in the office (or some other arbitrary scope) in the same way that you wouldn't see a warrant to search every house in a city block. But if you have a specific warrant to get into someone's phone, and that person secured their phone with their fingerprints... then yeah, law enforcement should be allowed to execute that warrant

Comment Re: Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 126

In that case, I side with the cops, as unpopular as that may be.

If there is a warrant issued for the contents of your phone, and you carry the keys around with you at all times, law enforcement should be allowed to use those keys, biometric or otherwise.

That said, I've got a few of caveats: This is by warrant only. Not at a routine traffic stop, border crossing, or similar. This shouldn't include any rubber-stamp FISA warrants, but that's a separate issue. It also shouldn't include warrants that broadly say "search everything," but rather one that specifically calls out phone or other electronic storage device. And finally, it does not extend to pins or passcodes. They can't make you remember something, but they CAN take a physical key and put it in/on a physical lock.

I would also extend this to say that you can't be forced to tell which finger you used, or what part of the finger... but now I'm just getting petty

Part of the reason I'm perfectly comfortable with this is that you don't HAVE to use a biometric key. It's an option. So you need to balance the ease of use for you against the ease of entry it grants law enforcement. Plus we already have a fail safe. Just turn off your phone. It will require the passcode (no fingerprints) upon reboot. Problem solved

Comment Re: Uber? (Score 1) 641

Because the situation posits a question about human responsibility regarding ever evolving technology. Simply: is it possible for a piece of equipment (a car for example) to be "too awesome" for someone? If so, who makes that call and who enforces it?

Pushing the boundaries of tech is fine and dandy. Hell, it's necessary. But what limits should be placed on the dissemination of cutting edge tech, if any?

If tesla continues along its current trajectory, how much longer before the twitch of an errant sneeze can accelerate you to dangerous speeds? What about when other car makers catch up, and every Ford Focus or Geo Metro is capable of current tesla speeds and acceleration?

While this particular incident might be fairly open and shut (drunk driver) what happens when the driver is just ... bad? There are millions of mediocre drivers out there who simply can't safely handle top-echelon vehicles, drunk or not. Does the engineering company (in this instance, tesla, but certainly not limited to them) bear any responsibility in ensuring that idiots don't kill people with tech beyond their capabilities?

Comment Re:Nerdist, Planet Money, 99 Percent Invisible (Score 1) 268

I do love me some Nerdist Podcast. It's genuinely interesting to hear these celebrities carry on a fairly normal conversation. No audience (at the time of recording), no major plugs (though they might mention upcoming work), just a couple people talking about life. It gets weird though, when you find out that some beloved actor simply cannot carry on a normal conversation. Gary Oldman was one that caught me a bit off guard. It wasn't terrible, just felt kinda awkward and "meh." Meanwhile, others can far surpass expectations: Melissa Rauch was absolutely hilarious.

Slashdot Top Deals

Men take only their needs into consideration -- never their abilities. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

Working...