Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Have they fixed Windows Updates yet? (Score 4, Interesting) 487

If you bother to do your research, you will find that Windows 10 does not, in fact, use BITS. BITS is still there, with the various registry controls (including a default limit of 4 simultaneous connections), but Windows Updates no longer uses it, and the new, half-baked replacement, has no limit on simultaneous connections, and so far as I can tell, no way to implement one.

Large organization have domain controllers, and use their own update servers, and always have to control bandwidth usage, because local network bandwidth is generally orders of magnitude faster than the internet pipe. My experience with Windows 10 is that a single computer will shut down the entire local network by using all available bandwidth, for considerable amounts of time, pulling multi-gig updates. But as soon as I block access to Windows Updates at the firewall, everything is back to normal. There's no question whatsoever what's going on.

This is hardly a new issue. It's been covered by technical media before. So far as I can tell, there's still no solution, and little reason to believe there ever will be. Microsoft clearly doesn't care if their products are usable or not.

Comment Have they fixed Windows Updates yet? (Score 4, Interesting) 487

Or does it still open 400+ connections to pull multi-gigabyte files every time, taking up all available bandwidth, and shutting down everything else on the network?

Windows 10 is literally not usable without an update server to let you control this, since they have apparently removed all controls for who much bandwidth it uses to pull updates. And it makes your entire network unusable, as well.

Comment Nothing new here (Score 1) 138

A flying car is also called "an airplane," and light aircraft have been around for a century. Curtiss never flew his Autoplane, but given that he was Glen Curtiss, there's no reason to believe he couldn't have if he hadn't been distracted by World War I. The Pitcairn PCA-2 was a production aircraft in 1923.

The History of Flying Cars.

The reasons this will be a non-event, like all previous attempts are as follows:

1. Flying vehicles must be built to higher standards for safety reasons - not just of the pilot and passengers, but if everyone. This means they are a lot more expensive.

2. Flying in three dimensions is more complicated than driving in two, and requires far more training. Most people simply can't handle the demands.

3. Ground traffic can be monitored and governed by simple rules and automated systems, like traffic lights and signs. Air traffic requires human controllers, and there is a limit to how many planes one controller can monitor. Automation can increase that limit, but not replace human judgment. The cost of replacing traffic lights with millions of air traffic controllers is . . . not feasible.

4. Self flying cars are even more ridiculous than self driving cars, given that self driving cars cannot handle streets that have not been mapped to millimeter precision, or road constructions, or bad weather, or any of a million other real life conditions. Flying is geometrically more complicated than driving, and there's no reason to believe anyone alive to day will live to see true self driving cars.

This is, in the end, simply an announcement that Airbus is going into the personal aircraft business with a high-tech helicopter for the obscenely wealthy. But I'm happy they're getting a lot of free publicity for it.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 69

They don't necessarily. They only have to put their database server on a network that's connected to the internet, and lose control of something else on the network. That's why computers than handle classified information cannot be connected to a network that is capable, at the hardware level, of connecting to the internet. If the wiring's there, it's not secure.

Comment Re:Facebook wants more liberal news (Score 1) 119

However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business.

Now? Really? It's always been a business, and it's not the business of selling news, it's the business of selling advertising, and always has been. Those that have tried to sell news (subscriptions) have not done well at all.

Your eyeballs are the product, and to survive, the news has to show your eyeballs what you want to see, true or not. Whether or not something actually happened is completely unconnected from whether or not it's "news." Only whether or not you'll watch it.

Comment This is about more than Best Buy (Score 5, Interesting) 389

The Geek Squad techs were, according to the article, "active informants" for the FBI, which is to say, they agreed to be beforehand. That means they are agents of the government, which means they are under the same restrictions as the cops. So if you think it's OK for Geek Squad to search your computer without a warrant, you believe it's OK for the cops to do the same thing, because it is the same thing.

Aside from that, the FBI did additional searches without warrants, like to get warrants, and apparently continues to hide evidence. They claimed the informants told them they (the informants, that is) had "accidentally" run the carving software that was, in no way, involved in repairing the computer, and found the image. So either the informants (at least one, and likely all three) lied to the FBI under penalty of perjury, or the FBI agent getting the warrant perjured himself to the judge. Or both.

There isn't an FBI agent involved in this case that doesn't belong in prison for corruption. Same for the prosecutor, at this point, because it is long since possible for him to not be aware of the FBI's corruption.

Best Buy is the least guilty of anything, and apparently, according to the update at the bottom, actually have policies prohibiting their employees from accepting any kind of reward for reporting this stuff. Whether or not they'll fire the employees named (there are three) for doing so remains to be seen. They are correct, though, that once they become aware of child porn on a computer, they're required to report it.

Comment Re:New Slavery (Score 1) 49

> SCOTUS made the correct decision in this case.

SCOTUS tends to avoid intervening until there are multiple appellate courts with contradictory decisions, creating regional interpretation of laws.

There are conflicting rulings in different districts, but this may well be the first to get to the SCOTUS level.

The SCOTUS hears a case to clean up the mess.

So until there are a couple of decisions that are different from the first one, the appellate decision stands as precedent.

Only in that district, and only if they say it's precedent.

Comment Re:New Slavery (Score 3, Insightful) 49

Of course they are.

The real complaint here is that "tech companies" are getting all the protections of being common carriers without any of the responsibilities of being common carriers. So they're not liable for ads posted for criminal services, but they can cancel ads that conflict with their own political agenda.

SCOTUS made the correct decision in this case. One can only presumed these women sued Backapages because their pimps - who actually forced them into prostitution - didn't have any more.

Slashdot Top Deals

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...