Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:The mic was bad enough. (Score 2) 151

When the echo first came out, I thought the last thing I wanted in my house was an always-on microphone. I stand corrected.

Took me a few reads to realize you stand corrected because this is the new last thing you want. I originally read that as you changed your mind and like the amazon mic now.

Frankly these are all abominations, but the bedroom fashion camera still comes in second to the trivially hacked camera equipped vibrator...

Comment Re:Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the plan (Score 1) 496

Even minimum wage jobs will tend to be more worthwhile. the numbers!

If its full time.
And you don't have to pay for transportation to get there.
And you don't have to pay for daycare services.

Meanwhile lots of employers go out of their way not to let you be full time so that you aren't eligible for stat holiday pay, etc. Walmart, etc... while lots of other jobs like mcjobs and retail etc really often just need people for 4-6 hour shifts...

A mall that's open from 10am to 9pm for example, might, on the off season or slow day, only have 2 'shifts'... one from 10 to 4 and one from 4-9. with that half hour overlap for a bank deposit etc. Even working 6 days a week your still only at 36 hours, and odds are you are lucky to 4-5 shifts, and you are getting 24-30 hours. 24 hrs minimum wage plus transit fare... and welfare starts looking

In ontario a single person on welfare gets 656/mo. Contrast that with working an average of 30hrs a week, at 11/hr -> 1320. less $220 for transit. call it 1100. So worth working... kind of... you are ahead $100 per week... big deal. 30 hours a week work for $100 more than welfare. When it's put it like that its not that much incentive.

Same person has a child? Your employer doesn't give a shit. You get the same shifts and wages as if you were single. So they now get $941/mo from welfare vs $1100 working after transit; so that's even LESS worth it. That's a whopping $38 bucks a week in extra income... but they haven't paid for daycare yet. Good luck finding daycare for under $38 bucks a week.You'd be hard pressed to find daycare that cheap per DAY. Nope, if you have a child, you are actually better off, much better off on welfare unless you can not only land a proper full time job... but one considerably above minimum wage. Good luck landing a full time job with decent pay applying from welfare.

Comment Re:Sucks, but derivative work (Score 1) 137

A movie review that contains plat elements, stills, quotes, and even clips is a derivative work.

It's perfectly legal, under fair use. (as a critical work)

Being derivative has no bearing on whether or not it is fair use.

Fan subbing, is an "accessibility" transformation, and should be a fair use work, especially if it is produced non-commericially and distributed for free, separately from the copy protected film.

Comment Re:Choices. (Score 1) 106

Yes, "I can't afford to invest in my future" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Heh. The number one rule of smart investing is diversification. For the average middle class family to buy a 2nd house (and not just some small affordable rental income property in the suburbs... it pretty much has to be "downtown" to be much of a draw to airbnb guests...

Then you are tying up 100,000 to 200,000 just in the down payment; and taking on a large 2nd mortgage.

If your net worth is say, 500,000; and half of that is in your primary residence, would you put the rest all in one stock? even a blue-chip? Of course not! And putting it all into one single property, in the same city you live... that's just asking for trouble.

But that's what it would take... minimum just for a reasonable downpayment on a hot commodity condo downtown in these cities. Plus you are taking on a huge debt load that you're going to need nearly constant tenants to cover.

No, you need a net worth of 1.5M+ before it starts making sense to considering buying a 2nd property in a market like that.

There's LOTs of middle class people with net worths under a million dollars.

Comment Re:Choices. (Score 1) 106

Those people aren't in the middle class.

People who are renting aren't middle class? Graduated university, got a decent job, single, renting a condo or apartment in the city near where they work, living comfortably and saving money every month, but don't have a hundred thousand in cash for a down payment... or who would prefer to rent to stay more mobile, maybe even living with a roomate 90's 'Friends' style and don't want the commitment of a joint mortgage with those people... etc.

OR maybe their on a short term contract, so it doesn't make sense to buy a home.

That's not the working poor, and that's not 'dumb asses' either.

Comment Re: Irrelevant Studies (Score 5, Informative) 296

Chickens are frequently fed soybean meal so maybe they drew the wrong conclusions from DNA tests...

Yet the chicken meat at Wendy's, McDonalds, A&W... etc were all 85%+ chicken DNA. Only the chicken meat from subway was 50% chicken DNA.

The lab also was so surprised by the Subway results, that they did the test over again with completely new samples BEFORE publishing... and got the same results.

Comment Re:Choices. (Score 4, Insightful) 106

Why can't the middle class also buy up condos/homes and put them on AirBNB?

Get a clue... the middle class lacks the free money to buy an extra house just to rent out. Many in the middle class are often themselves renting because they don't have the free money to buy even a house for themselves, nevermind a spare one to rent out... meanwhile they are being evicted from those rentals so the owner can rent it by the day more lucratively on sites like airbnb.

Your solution to them being kicked out their rental to make room for airbnb, is to buy 2 houses; so that they too can benefit from airbnb!

"Let them eat cake!" am i right?

Comment Re:Attitudes (Score 2) 81

What if Russia nukes the whole of USA?

What are you trying to preserve in the event of nuclear holocaust?

Are you a librarian concerned about preserving humanities knowledge through another dark age? Or are you concerned about preserving the Xena fan fiction you were writing?

The former might consider hard copy and tapes in out of the way bunkers... the latter probably has more pressing things to worry about...

Comment Re:Actally yes. (Score 1) 448

Which doesn't exonerate BK at all, any more than an open unlocked front door exonerates an intruder.

Yes and no. I mean, I think you are right. But there are fatal flaws in your analogy.

An unlocked open door with no signage or markings forbidding entry... is it illegal to enter? That gets to be a grey area. In most places to be charged with trespassing without clear signage and barriers to entry you would have to be asked to leave before you can be charged with trespassing. (not all jurisdictions are the same... but this is the most usual case).

Your -home- is a little more protected, with precedents that raise the bar to entering one's home. So not all open doors are equal.

Now, suppose that someone came to your front door, said 'please open the door', and your door opened. A reasonable person would say that amounts to consent -- where you opened the door, or whether you installed a voice activated device to open the door upon request. Sure you can ask them to leave, and if they don't they are tresspassing. But they didn't walk in, they didn't do anything to your door... they *asked*, and the door opened.

And that, to me, is what puts BK in a unique situation. Their commercial made a request, and not just an abstract request the way a PC requests a file via HTTP, or the way a laptop asks to join a wifi access point... it made a plain old verbal request in a the most natural and human understood way possible.

I think it's problematic to criminalize that. The whole notion of consent requires that I be able to ask for consent without that itself being criminal. If it had said, "call now for your free sample" that shouldn't be criminal ... its up to you to decide to call now or not. It's clearly BK's intent that you call now, but it's absurd to characterize that as anything but a request.

Here, they intended to trigger any device that within earshot to perform an action. But at the end of the stay... they just asked. I don't think they are entirely in the right here... but at the same time, I think its kind of on you if you have a device setup to listen and do whatever commands it hears.

In the same way a TV show that records a cast member clapping... if that turns your lights on and off... that's on you. Even if the TV show did it as a 4th wall breaking prank (ie they intended to trigger any clappers in range).

Comment Re:Actally yes. (Score 1) 448

You set up a listening device in your house that responds to voice commands. You then turned the TV on. These are two unconnected things. By turning on the TV, you do not intend to activate the device

Suppose you set up a motion sensor to detect theives in your yard and set it up to take a photo and upload it to the cloud whenever it was triggered.

Then you bought a decorative windmill and placed it in your yard within sight of the sensor. These are two unconnected things. By installing the wind mill you presumably did not intend to activate the motion sensor and fill your cloud drive with pictures of your windmill every time the wind blew.

But it is nobodies fault but your own that this happened.

"Google presumably did not intend the device to be used to respond to TV shows"

But it makes no effort and has no apparent effort to differentiate between my voice, a recording of my voice, someone elses voice, a recording of someone elses voice... and when you set this up, just like the motion activated camera... this should have been obvious to the point that you should take some ownership of the fallout. A pissed off neighbor yelling at his google device loud enough to be heard by yours will set yours off too...

This its not merely bad security... it is 'no attempt at security whatsoever'.

Comment Re:Obama was an exception, not Trump (Score 4, Insightful) 268

""Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s policy is a return to the one followed by presidents who preceded Mr. Obama." (NYT). No mention of that in the summary."


" White House communications director Michael Dubke said the decision to reverse the Obama-era policy..."

Hints: "the Obama-era policy" means a policy introduced in the Obama administration.

And if Trump had created a completely new policy, it would not have been a 'reversal'. A reversal of direction implies going back where you came from.

It should be fairly reasonable to anyone without a bag of hammers standing in for a brain that *reversing* a policy Obama instituted defaults to a return to the previous policy. aka ... the policy followed by presidents who preceded Obama.

Yes, its not as explicit as coming out and saying it, but its a SUMMARY, if it included every explicit detail of the full article it would not be a summary. So the summary implied a detail that was made explicit in the full article... so what was your problem?

Comment Re:Media trolls (Score 1) 448

"I do. Every time. If you don't, that's on you. Not on Amazon."

When you place with an order on amazon via a browser? Or when you place it entirely with the Alexa voice assistant without even looking at a screen?

I suspect you were talking about the former, and if you read my post, I was talking about the latter.

People like you probably don't even use voice assistants like Alexa to place orders. I know I don't. But the people who do are the people who do use one-click ordering, and don't confirm their cart.

Comment Re:Actally yes. (Score 2) 448

"They manipulated my 'computer' from far way through sound waves to do their bidding, on purpose, repeatedly."

When you turn your computer on, and navigate to a webpage, the remote computer, through the internet sends files to your PC that manipulates what is displayed on your computer to show you what it wants to show you. Are they hacking your computer?

What if they send you video file and it starts playing? what if they send you some javascript (and you've enabled javascript) and a little program runs on your computer inside the browser sandbox all nice and proper? Are they hacking your computer?

Presumably this is ok, because you turned on your computer and requested that it do this?

Well.. didn't you also purchase this google thing, with an always on microphone, and set it up on the internet set to obey any commands it recognized? And then you put this thing within earshot of your TV with the volume turned up loud enough to ensure it could hear it?

And they didn't 'hack' you. They didn't run an exploit, overflow a buffer, or escape from the sandbox. They issued a request... literally a verbal request, in plain english. And your system was setup to audibly play their content, to listen to anything audible, and consent to anything it recognized.

Are you sure you aren't a little bit responsible here?

As always, It's all about intent right? What did BK intend? They wanted to get your device to play you a 2ndary ad. Nobody disputes that.

What exactly did "you" intend? When you setup an always listening device within earshot of your TV set to obey any audio command that it recognized? You did THAT? but simultaneously didn't intend for it do things the TV said?

I mean, i don't want to blame the victim; but this isn't a girl wearing provocative clothing getting assaulted.

This is a girl wearing provocative clothing, simply being approached and politely asked for a photo. The fact that she's gone and rigged her phone to always be listening and to automatically send photos of herself naked to anyone who asks for a photo is really on her. Maybe she only "intended" her boyfriend to get pictures? Well, sorry, that's not the system she setup.

Comment Re:Media trolls (Score 1) 448

you "press" order? In a voice activated system?

child: Alexa... get me a dollhouse...
Alexa: dollhouse added to cart! ...5 hours later...
you: Alexa... order paper towels.
Alexa: paper towels added added to cart!
you: complete order. pin 1234.

Alexa: Thanks for your order of paper towels and a dollhouse.

you: wtf?

Sure you could ask alexa to laboriously read your cart back to you... but nobody does. This is amazon... 1 click ordering. Nobody looks at their cart, or confirms there address, or even confirms their order.

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five cent nickel.