Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Hero's look like anachists. (Score 1) 369

They have no authority.

They do, however, have the authority to request the foreign country to extradite him or her and the foreign country must then decide whether that extradition can proceed.

The foreign country will refuse the request either because it's politically expedient to refuse or, alternatively, it's not possible for them to extradite for the particular reason due to their laws. On the whole, countries are sensible and do not request extradition unless there's a reasonable chance the extradition will be approved. Hence Saudi Arabia doesn't bombard the US with ridiculous extradition requests for Saudi citizens drinking alcohol in public in the US. (Or US citizens for that matter)

Were Assange to be arrested by the British Police on leaving the embassy, the UK would, for example, refuse to extradite him unless they get a guarantee from the US that he will not face the death penalty. That is irrespective of any crime he might have committed or whether that is an extraditable offence.

(In this particular case there would also be an extradition request from Sweden. I have no idea how the UK would prioritise them but I would expect that they would not extradite to Sweden unless they also guaranteed to require that the US guarantees no death penalty on a subsequent extradition.

Interestingly, if Assange could not be extradited to the US legally from the UK then the UK would (probably) refuse to extradite him to Sweden unless they guaranteed that he wouldn't be extradited to the US.

But as I suspect it's easier to extradite from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US, I would expect that the US would try to get priority over an extradition from the UK.

Comment Re:Nasty?! Isn't this better for everyone? (Score 1) 163

It's certainly vigilante. But given the societal harm being caused by shoddy IOT devices, bricking them is quite arguably noble. Also, this could be good for the affected users too.

Would you feel the same if it was a expert gang who were gaining entry into peoples homes and smashing their insecure IOT devices and then leaving (doing no other damage at all)

While I can understand the frustration that might have lead to this sort of attack, it, unfortunately, will probably not achieve the desired ends. End users will be told that the damage is due to a malicious act and not covered under warranty, they should claim on their insurance (which, almost certainly has an excess higher than the replacement cost). In fact, this could turn into an incentive for manufacturers to provide insecure devices (just sufficiently secure that it takes six months to a year for an exploit to emerge so they can get plenty of sales and discontinue the model before they all start dying). Then users can replace with a "New Improved" model.

It's possible, of course, that in time lawmakers will get sufficiently upset that they'll force the liability back onto the manufacturer, at which point something might improve, but given that such an act is going to face extensive opposition and corporate lobbying, it's not going to be quick arriving.

Comment Re:Wonderful (Score 1) 154

but where exactly are you going to find these "security professionals" to carry out detailed audits on entire firmware systems every time someone released a new product?

I'm not the OP you're responding to but I would assume the idea was that the chipset manufacturers have to pay for it.

It would make sense for a law to say something like - unless your customers can[1] do the work themselves (i.e. have access to the source code, chipset documentation and build tools) then the company is responsible for doing the work.

[1] where can includes paying someone else to do the work for them.

That way, new releases the company could keep in-house, paying for the auditors, but once it had reached EoL and the company didn't want that liability any more then they could release the information and say "it's up to the customer now"

Comment Re:This is inevitable (Score 1) 82

There's something dodgy with pricing going on though.

AAISP offer an ADSL only copper pair for 10GBP/month. The only difference between this and a full telephone service is that there's no dial tone and no telephone number. It's still exactly the same wires as when you go to BT and have the full telephone service. I'm pretty sure they're actually reselling a BT offering.

I think AAISP might put a recorded message on the line - because BT engineers were apt to just take any silent pair instead of following the correct procedure to take an unused pair - AAISP customers would suddenly find their ADSL had stopped working and investigation would discover that part of the route back to the exchange had been disconnected and the wires reused for someone else (probably due to a fault on that other persons line)

IIRC BT charges 19GBP/month for line rental. So they're claiming that it's an additional 9GBP/month to provide the dial tone. (with call charges on top of that) Ofcom appear to be saying that that's excessive and they need to reduce their line rental by 5GBP/month.

Comment Re:Or.. (Score 1) 401

Pumping >0C water onto the remaining ice will accelerate the melting

No, not in winter.

The problem in winter is that ice (and snow on top of it) is a good insulator that, once the ice reaches around 1-2m thick causes it to continue to thicken very slowly.

It's one of the reasons why the sea ice minimum is falling faster than the maximum - the arctic winter is cold enough to (almost) completely refreeze every year but that resultant ice isn't thick enough to survive a summer season. That's why there's so much interest in tracking the multi-year ice. That's the thick stuff.

Unfortunately, measuring volume is much harder to do so ice extent and ice area tend to take centre stage even if they're not the best metric for the state of the ice in the arctic.

Pumping water to the top of the ice would allow the ice to thicken much more than it currently can in a single winter.

Comment Re: Non Sequitur Conclusion (Score 3, Interesting) 283

Different test. Yours is a tautology.

My test: people who admit to using profanity are 100% truthful. People who say they don't are 50/50 truthful.

I show that even if people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful, the claim "I don't use profanity" is a better indicator of being a liar than "I use profanity" even though the only people who lie are those who use profanity.

Your test: people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful - but that's an axiom in my (made up) data because I exclude class 4. only 50% of the ones who do use profanity are truthful - I assign equal numbers to the three extant classes.

Comment Re:Non Sequitur Conclusion (Score 4, Interesting) 283

I'm not even sure the study is that good.

It seems there are four groups:

People who use profanity and admit it.
People who don't use profanity and admit it.
People who use profanity but don't admit it.
People who don't use profanity but claim to.

If we make the assumption that there's nobody in the last class and the other three classes are all equal sized then people who admit to using profanity will all be honest while only half of the people who claim to not use profanity will be honest.

In fact, I cannot see any way that the people who admit to using profanity can possibly appear less honest than the people who do on this test.

Comment Re:Defense: Unplug speakers or headphones (Score 1) 207

Stick a 3.5mm plug into the headphone jack. solved.

I'm not convinced - on my galaxy note at any rate - that this is guaranteed to work.

I've noticed that when I push the plug in, it detects the plug being inserted and then switches the sound from the internal speakers. I'm not convinced that, unlike old fashioned radios, inserting the plug physically disconnects the internal speakers.

But I could be wrong - it's something I've noticed in passing rather than something I've been looking out for.

Comment Re:Do greenhouses create their own heat? (Score 3, Interesting) 502

I despair.

CO2 from biological matter doesn't directly matter. (Land use changes that destroy biological matter and don't replace it are a different matter)

If it's plant based then all that CO2 that is released will have been recently extracted from the air to be incorporated into the plants tissues.

If it's animal based then any and all CO2 that is released will, ultimately, have come from the C in plants which, in turn, will have come from CO2 in the air.

it's really, really, easy to tell the difference between CO2 that has its source as the carbon cycle and "fossil" CO2 that has been sequestered for significant lengths of time. "Biological" CO2 will have been recently part of the atmosphere. Because C14 has a moderate half life (6Kyear), it will have needed to be sequestrated for tens to hundreds of millenia before all the (detectable) C14 will have decayed.

Almost all C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere (by thermal neutron capture by N14). Therefore, if the material you are burning, composting, digesting, gives off CO2 that contains C14 then the carbon that it contains (recently) came from the atmosphere.

Comment Re:Alternate method? (Score 1) 502

Why? How could it possibly make sense to "warm" the buoy data rather than "cool" the intake data? We know that the intake data was artificially warmed, that isn't even a question.

Because they're measuring a trend, not absolute temperatures.

it would make no difference if they used kelvin or celsius. The offset isn't important.

I would assume that they are cooling the intake data (I'm pretty sure I saw that when the original v4 data was created but I could be misremembering as there are also adjustments to satellite data as sensors degrade with time) but it makes zero difference when estimating the trend.

Comment Re:Two questions before I call BS. (Score 1) 502

(the very inaccurate ones)

You do realize we're talking about a correction in the trend of .06C/decade over recent decades?

The error bars on the measurements are huge compared to this.

If you plot a graph from 1998 up to 2015 using the best estimate and no error bars without this change, then people will tend, when eyeballing, to say that there's no trend. (the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero - but it's also statistically indistinguishable from the trend in the prior decades)

I haven't seen an equivalent graph that includes this correction but I'm assuming that people will no longer eyeball "no trend" (although the trend using just these years will still be statistically indistinguishable from zero)

Include more data, at either end, and they no longer come to the conclusion of no trend regardless of whether you include this correction.

Whether this additional .06C/decade is real or imaginary has absolutely zero impact on the science of climate change.

It will make a small difference in where we can expect to be in 50 years time in a BAU scenario but as no climate scientist was saying we can afford BAU for another 5 decades even with the unadjusted data then that's a moot point.

Comment Re:Or skeptics (Score 1) 502

If you disagree with the method used for correction of the valitidy of the bias claims, then attack those on their merits.

People have.

Indeed. This latest paper was from people who were skeptical about the NOAA corrections.

But when they did their own independent analysis they were forced to admit that the NOAA data actually looked better than the previous data.

They're labeled "deniers" and then told by the ivory tower elitists that they're "backwards rednecks."

Ermmmmm. I'm pretty sure these guys aren't being labeled deniers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry