Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Not a big deal (Score 1, Interesting) 37

Someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Not likely. We tried the Surface Pro at work. Its performance was so bad, its interoperability with Microsoft's own software so poor, its concept so poorly thought out that our management, largely pro-Microsoft since the beginning of time, threw the piece of shit in the trash.


They didn't repurpose it, didn't give it way, didn't recycle it. They literally threw it in the trash and swore against ever using it again.

This plummeting revenue mirrors our experience with it. Shockingly, Microsoft's Surface revenue has dropped by only 285 million. They couldn't pay us to even pretend to use it.

Comment App is not gone (Score 1) 100

u are hand waving a bunch of dumb shit like "app opens a port and then the app is gone

There's the exact problem though. Why do you THINK the app is gone?

If the app has permission to open a port that means it had permission to have a long-running service sitting on that port.

Why else would it open the port if it were not going to do just that?

Most non-technical users rarely if ever delete apps...

I mean, I agree that android phones are utter shit

They aren't at all, they work really well.. it's just that they ALSO bring the same security risk as any PC to a group of users who by and large have no technical ability to understand, or deal with the risk they are taking on. Sp it propagates the decades of horrible security flaws the PC world has enjoyed, like bank account being compromised, or identities stolen.

It bullshit to claim that is OK, that it's not really a problem when it is a massive problem that affects the people who can least afford to deal with it.

Comment Rationality? (Score 3, Insightful) 54

"much of the money still being invested is pouring into the upper echelon of highly valued start-ups like Airbnb and WeWork or younger ones with clear paths to profit," leaving "scores" of previously well-funded startups now struggling to survive."

If they're not a highly-valued (ie speculative) startup, or one with a CLEAR PATH TO PROFIT, why the fuck would/should anyone be investing in them?

Comment Re:Ban 'em from public roads (Score 1) 28

Except the test tracks are designed to test the mechanal features. For automated cars there is a degree of this on test tracks. But there comes a point where it needs real world testing. If you write software at nearly every level of complexity once you hand it to the real world they find new problems that needs to be fixed.

Comment Read Original Quote (Score 1) 100

What is the difference between an open port on an Android device and the dozens that are open on your personal computer? Nothing.

That is absolutely correct, and we all know that personal computers are rife with security flaws.

Part of that is because services are sitting at a number of different open ports, every service that is doing so increases the chances of a successful attack vector being present on your system,

So now we bring forward this same, known to be failed and dangerous, security model to the phone? Remember the original comment was talking about how open ports "are not dangerous" - with the implication that nothing is necessarily behind those open ports. But just like the PC we all know today, if something opened those ports that almost certainly means there is a service sitting there, listening, possibly vulnerable...

Or would you like to ignore decades of failed PC security?

Comment Re: Bullshit. (Score 2) 96

"Using a chat program to hide " doesn't even make logical sense.

It does if the chat program using public key encryption between the users. In that case even the mediating servers don't have access to message contents.

The scheme is flawless -- but then it almost always is unless it's devised by a total ignoramus. What they get you on is implementation.

Comment Re: Yeah, sounds nuts alright. (Score 1) 106

Plus, a transplanted *head* might end up paralyzed from the neck down in its donor body, but at least the patient might have working eyesight & facial muscles. Transplant a brain alone, and the patient doesn't even get to have *that* as a 'Plan B' consolation.

Another possibility is that at best, you'd be resurrecting a zombie whose brain effectively had its programming erased when it died (or, perhaps, would be like a Sandforce SSD that loses power during a write operation & leaves the storage in a state that it can't make sense of later).

As difficult as it might be to transplant a donor cadaver's body onto another patient's head, at least there *is* a chance that it might work well enough to keep the recipient alive with some quality of life. IMHO, a brain-only transplant at this time is several steps *beyond* the realm of anything that even *pretends* to resemble sanity.

Comment Re:Drill baby drill (Score 1) 136

Until his supporter who wanted jobs realize they are not coming back. For example his promise to bring back coal. Coal is in a worse state that offshore drilling. At least with drilling, companies can get oil and natural gas which are used in many applications. The uses of coal are dwindling.

Comment Re:Fuck California. (Score 1) 209

You don't have a right to my property.

I have to laugh at this. Of course he does, through force of law. You essentially rent the land through property taxes, and you have to abide by zoning rules and ordinances. You have to meet certain standards with your construction, and the house must be serviced by certain kinds of utilities to be rated habitable. And if you want to enter the commercial sphere you have to follow the rules of the market.

None of what I said is even remotely controversial or new, and if you disagree with that it is you who are the special snowflake.

Comment Re:Safety hazard. (Score 1) 149

Well, this is beyond impractical, but on that specific front, it wouldn't be too hard to do, and I can swear I remember already seeing that. You have barriers that rise up before descending and the walls close over the hole like doors.

Of course, you could only go so far without destabilizing the ground, no way you could practically avoid all the underground infrastructure and have decent paths, the energy required to zip things around that fast would be significant unless you evacuated a lot of the air (like hyperloop), but a car cabin wouldn't be designed for it (instead of sled, a sealed capsule maybe....).

Either way, it won't happen because it would be impossibly expensive even if possible.

Comment Re:big businesses asking for special favors (Score 1) 295

Netflix can arrange their network to get very low per packet costs because they can move their endpoint wherever they want.

You are aware that Netflix is not an ISP? They are not a T1 company; they pay a T1 for that. Comcast could do that too.

Comcast can't do that. So, necessarily, Comcast's per-packet costs are higher.

That's on Comcast. That's part of their business.

Yet Netflix and Comcast cooperate to deliver packets that benefit them both equally. When benefit is equal, but costs are wildly unequal, it makes sense for one side to pay the other. And that's what the free market developed over many decades.

Again, Comcast is in the business of being an ISP. No one is forcing Comcast to be in this business.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.