Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Took them long to start building something of f (Score 1) 276

From a hardware perspective (which can easily hide/mask mal intent) almost all of the hardware we purchase is difficult to trust. Add in the firmware added by the NSA for things like phones etc, and the saying only trust a source if you see the code. The same applies for hardware. I wish we could have open source hardware in more abundance.

Comment Re:Let me foresee what will happen... (Score 1) 276

A country level agreement is often met with a request to provide source code for "their safety". CHina demands it when they purchase Citrix Licensing, Russia can demand it when they use it for government purposes. I doubt they would need to hack MS to get their code made available. enough zeros in the order price is more than enough to get what you want. This change besides being a thumbing of the nose to MS also supports alternatives which boost their local economy. This is a move to hurt the US financially and boost their own services.

Comment Re:It's how I would have done it (Score 1) 196

According to the Intercept they collaborating with the Israeli Government to decide what should be censored. The next time the censorship subject comes up about Facebook it won't be about naked children. Justifying censorship as an algorithmic decision absolves no blame.

Comment Re:Diminishing photo title (Score 1) 196

She has come to terms with the image and understands the importance of it being published. If she got over it, maybe you can too?

Phan Thi Kim Phuc is an UNESCO Good Will Ambassador and the biography/documentary about her has all proceeds going to the Kim Phúc Foundation, which supports child victims of war. She is hardly asking to be forgotten or for dignity she has been denied. You shouldn't be offended that the the name is what is in the picture. It is awful what she suffered. We should all be ashamed of what happened to her, but not at the name of the photo.

Comment Re:Cut the bullshit, facebook. (Score 1) 196

This sounds like along winded way to say that no company of any size could have culpability because they're all just doing their job trying to make money. The people affected by such actions are too simple to understand the nuance of why things occur.

There is a fine line between making money and being a corporate sociopath.

(And now for the record, you can find a naked 9yo on Facebook.) Correction you can find an iconic portrait of a 9 YEAR old who had just been napalmed and spent the next 17 months in a hospital getting skin grafts. The photographer Ut took her and the other children to a hospital in Saigon where she luckily survived.

Facebook makes money and has an obligation to their shareholders. Operating at the scale and visibility they do, makes censorship an incredibly powerful tool. If they hadn't just been in the news for more censorship, and then just yesterday for working with Israel to work on what to censor, and now this. You can white wash it all away as shit happens. I think you'll find the news will always be slanted in their interests and not yours. Mistakes happen, censorship is seldom an accident. Algorithm or not someone censoring what you see is never in your interest.

Comment Re:"faulty cables and cooling fans" (Score 1) 103

To a degree. What if there is a serious bug or hardware flaw from a sourced component. Remember when HP bought motherboard components (faulty capacitors - from a supplier who had tried to steal the code from another company and had stolen fake docs) about 10 years ago? Their laptops and desktops had about a 40% failure rate in the first year as a result. Is that on the consumers shoulders to have purchased a machine with bad motherboard capacitors that were sourced by HP? They should have met the specifications but the failure rates were 3-4 times the norm. So the consumer is at fault for expecting lower failure rates?

This may be very different than what happened here, but it might not be entirely different.

Comment Re:why are there still no privacy regs? (Score 1) 239

You can’t fly a small UAS over anyone who is not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle. No operations from a moving vehicle are allowed unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area.

This is from the section 107 remote pilot certification. So it looks like two immediate laws are being violated by yet another asshat giving drones operators a bad name. 1. Go stand out in your yard. he is violating a safety guideline. 2. If he is using the camera to see where he is flying, he is flying BVLOS. If he can't physically see the drone from where he is flying that is a violation. from the sound of him looking in your windows, he does not have line of site to the drone. Both of these rules apply to commercial and non commercial use.

The trespass and local ordinances will define the law in your area as to proper alignment with the law and privacy. But the first two are enough that you can have something done about it.

Comment Re:Regulate by weight class (Score 1) 239

So added redundancies like redundant flight controllers, redundant IMUS/Motors/GPS and antenna and back up communication systems which make the drone safer should be regulated. SO everyone builds for the cheapest lightweight 5 lb drone without a single instance of safety or precaution b4ecause then it isn't regulated. They did away with logic like yours as it is mindless and insipid. If you think a 5 lb drone falling from 400 feet onto your skull is acceptable, then you are issing the point. It is better to have safer drones with redundancy than encourage lighter drones with no safety whatsoever.

Comment Re:why are there still no privacy regs? (Score 1) 239

1. You are not supposed to fly over the heads of people, without their prior knowledge and permission.
2.You are not supposed to fly over private property without permission.
3. The FAA is not only concerned with airports and other danger areas. There are plenty of regulations involved here. maximum/minimum flight heights etc.

You do not have an expectation of privacy, but that doesn't allow for flights over you or your private property.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.