Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Great. Why not six years ago? (Score 1) 175

Can't do it all in a month; who'd a thunk it?

He was able to take 3 vacations and golf six times in a month, and nobody thought that was possible. Considering passing and signing legislation is their one fucking job, you'd think they'd be able to fit a single bill outlawing warrantless wiretaps into their busy schedule. But wait, Congress is on recess, meeting with their "constituents" (donors).

Comment Re:The kids are alright (Score 1) 123

Everyone is impressive when they are unburdened (or unaware) of regulations, red tape, laws, administrative paperwork, and a host of other headaches. And have the blessing of time, no domestic obligations, and a supportive 'go for it' environment & friends. And I am appreciative of this invention.

Oh, fuck off. Do you have any idea how many technological and scientific advancements were made over the past few decades, when we were told there was, "too much regulation"?

Comment Part of a botnet != ultimate attack target (Score 1) 158

For one thing, patches are ineffective against a bandwidth consumption attack.

Then updates don't matter and shouldn't be forced.

I was unclear. Against a bandwidth consumption attack, patches to the machine that is the ultimate target of the attack are ineffective, but patches to the machine that would form part of the botnet are effective.

I'm told a lot of these attacks target Internet-exposed devices other than PCs, such as modem-routers and older smartphones.

Then that has nothing to do with Windows updates and they shouldn't be forced.

They have much to do with Windows updates if a botnet is used to "target Internet-exposed devices other than PCs", and the machines that would form part of the botnet run Windows.

How do you think new vulnerabilities come about?

New vulnerabilities tend to be introduced with new functionality, not with patches focused solely on security.

The user is the only person who should get a say in what happens on their computer.

By that reasoning, the user should be held responsible and liable for all use of the user's computer as a botnet agent. If someone adds your unpatched computer to his botnet, and someone uses your computer to DDoS someone, you should go to jail for recklessly participating in said DDoS.

Comment Re:Sigh. (Score 1) 133

It's very unlikely that we will see AAA VR titles any time soon. Simply because the market is by no means big enough yet to be interesting for AAA developers.

AAA titles have to sell in the millions or at least close to it to recoup investment. That's by no means possible now. In November, Valve announced "more than" 140k Vive units sold. Let's say they sold 200k by now. And let's add as many Occulus, and throw in another 100k "others". That would mean that there is a world wide market of half a million units.

Even if every single owner of any VR device bought that title we're still not at a number that warrants the investment. With a cost in the ballpark of 10 to 40 million dollars, nobody is going to risk that on a game that may, at best, sell half a million units. Yes, yes, at 60 dollars a unit this may even break even. But with the same budget you can crank out the next incarnation of CoD, BF or slap a new year number onto some sports game and make a multiple thereof.

Risk free.

Comment Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot (Score 1) 123

Are there regulations and procedures to prove that it's safe? There were a number of one and two person entries into the DARPA grand challenge.

It's not a terribly difficult problem to get to work 99.5% of the time, but with lives at risk most people aren't too happy with that number. The airline industry has a failure rate of 1 in 10^-13 deaths per passenger mile or something like that.

They weren't even regulations. The government was halds-off the entire thing. They were merely inquiry questions meant to help facilitate the discussion on safe automated driving. The authorities asked because well, they were curious how this system would respond. It was the same set of questions that got Uber's cars out of San Francisco.

It was questions like how would the backup driver system operate in case someone needs to take over, or how to prevent the system from being misused (given the system only worked in a few car models, they were wondering how the hardware would limit itself to those models).

Basically it posed a few questions on how the system would handle safety issues. The NHTSA doesn't care how the system works, what the core technology behind it is, etc. Just a few open-ended questions.

Slashdot Top Deals

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak