Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Cars Are Not More Expensive--BS!!! (Score 1) 622

The best comparison is by comparing wages. Circa 1970 entry level job wages where in the sub $1 range. Certainly much less than 20% or current minimum wages.

To summarize.... average buying power is probably at least doubled, that gets you a car that has far lower operating costs, is much safer, has many more amenities, and lasts anywhere from 2-5 times as long.

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 299

The concept doesn't HAVE to change, it just will change.

There won't be any requirement for you to only use services. You will be able to purchase and operate your own autonomous vehicles. It just that most people will realize that it is (maybe) a lot cheaper to subscribe for services than to own your own.

Comment Re:GM coral (Score 4, Informative) 145

For a slightly more balanced view on this see here:

One of the reasons that coral can adapt quickly is that their symbionts adapt quickly.

From the above reference "Although coral genomes may evolve slowly, their symbionts have extremely fast generation times, averaging every 7 days. Furthermore the symbiont community consists of hundreds of symbionts that have already adapted to a wide variety of temperature, irradiance and salinity variables within different microclimates over the past million years. Symbiont shuffling and shifting is an evolutionary masterpiece that circumvents plodding evolutionary mechanisms of most organisms with long generation times and enables immediate adaptation.

A good summary statement is provided by Baker et al. “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”.

Comment Re:It is allowed by (e) and (j) (Score 1) 78

It is not illegal for the government to do it.

But it is prima facie illegal for the third party to develop the tool unless they where hired specificallyto create the tool by the FBI. I.e. specifically it would be illegal for them to create it, but not illegal for the FBI to use it.

Not sure why the FBI bothered to pay for it. They could have just arrested said third party and to verify that the tool was illegal tried it out on certain phones. That is a win-win situation for sure!

Comment Re:Well, I have my doubts (Score 1) 252

Exactly. Being able to force Apple to sign code allows for weaponized updates. Custom versions of code that can be covertly placed into a targeted phone (either black box or via normal update). Think of phones that simply send the GPS tracking data continuously to the relevant authorities in real time. Or have the microphone recording audio and forwarding in real time.

Comment Re:Well, I have my doubts (Score 1) 252

First, there are tools to translate from source code to binary and binary to source code. Merely a mechanical translation. Object code is provably equivalent.

Second, if they made change to the binary with a binary editor, the signature would no longer be valid and it would not work. It would need to be resigned which as explained is speech and also cannot be forced (hopefully.)

Comment Re: Torn (Score 1) 405

The current court order is that the FBI wants Apple to produce a customized version of IOS signed for installation on a single iPhone. Done in this case in open court to sway public opinion. And presumably with some custom installation method because they can't auto-update without the password.

But remember that most of these requests are done under seal with Apple not being allowed to talk about it publicly. So once this precedent is set, the next step is a court order to do similar or other customizations to IOS for a specific customer's phone and then simply put that into the normal IOS update system so that the next time that phone is updated (e.g. when the customer sees that a new update is generally available) the customized version of IOS is installed.

I'll leave to the imagination the types of customizations that the FBI or the NSA (or any totalitarian government e.g. China, Iran, etc.) might think to ask for.

This really is the the camel getting it's nose into the tent. Once it is there we won't be able to get it out. And at that point there will simply be no way to trust our phones are doing what we think they are doing. They will be doing whatever the government wants them to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.