Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Appeal (Score 1) 215

Anecdotal of course...but I live in the backwater of NYC and it's certainly NOT uncommon to see check engine lights on in Taxis.

It's also incredibly COMMON for taxi's to be horrible drivers (exactly as stereotyped) and either drive much too fast, much too slow, or take routes that make no sense (other than to increase fares), be on the phone despite the prohibition, and so on. Sure, NYC has plenty of rules and a complaint system...but it also requires you going to testify. Who has time for that just to back a complain that your drive decided to go around the block an extra time and was on his BT? Oh, and that assumes 'Muhammad' is actually driving with his own license, not the one he shares with his 3 cousins.

I'm not saying it's impossible to manage taxi's properly, but your perspective doesn't align with reality by a long stretch.

Comment Re:No, here's the suit - Plaintiff: Costco (Score 1) 266

Granted, Costco is suing for a declaratory judgment that they're not infringing in response to a complaint.

To say that Costco is stealing all the R&D that went into the balls is rather laughable. Acushnet is known for suing new competitors out of business to protect their own. Beyond that, golf balls are not nearly as high tech as modern electronics so it's not like there's multi-billion dollar fab investment or expensive rare earth metals involved.

If they have patents that are actually being infringed upon (and not nonsense stuff like omg balls with more/less dimples just to renew an expired patent) then costco should lose and pay up. The fact that costco sued for a declatory judgment tells me that's probably NOT the case and they probably ARE in the clear...and they probably don't want to deal with someone suing THEM and seeming like the bad guy so they're doing it first.

Comment Re:Give the consumers a refund on what they paid (Score 2) 48

If you're getting something for free then you're probably the product, not the consumer.

Ladies night at the bar? No, you aren't drinking for free. You're the product being sold to the men.

Free email? No, you aren't getting a service that millions are spent to develop and run for free. You're the product being sold to the advertisers, data conglomerates, and so on.

So, in reality you have a very distinct, real-money recurring value. You may not be able to personally realize direct monetary income from it, but you're certainly giving 'it' to google to sell.

Comment Re:In your face Betteridge! (Score 1) 498

Yes and no.

*IF* you can bruteforce from the 4-digit PIN/PW side then yes, it's trivial. You can brute force a 4-number dial lock in something like an hour.

If you can't and have to bruteforce the actual key (for example, apple secure enclave) then the answer is no. And yes I know there's been at least one POC showing a way around it but that's a vulnerability in the hardware, not a flaw in the algo/crypto.

Comment Re:Don't store multiple hashes! (Score 1) 498

Either you got this from a bad movie or you had some seriously terrible password security. Posting AC because your post is nonsense perhaps?

No reasonably secure password algo allows you to determine single digits individually. Hell, even a bad one wouldn't allow that.

If you're trying to say you had a 12-character password which was actually 3 people with 4 character passwords...well that's incredibly stupid and still wouldn't account for "determine the value of each position"

Comment Re: Well, that's one thing (Score 1) 295

You have some rose colored glasses on or just very limited experience with how much of corporate america works.

Practically speaking, few companies actually require 80 hour work weeks. However it's definitely NOT uncommon for a company to classify someone as exempt (even though the law actually sets the bar fairly high for that) and then require OT 'as necessary'...to the tune of 5, 10, maybe 15 hours or more a week. Of course, they'll tell you that the extra $ is factored into your pay (which it might have been once upon a time).

Can you quit? Of course. But is it practical to up and walk away from a job at the drop of a hat? No. Does a company come out and say "hey, work twice as much starting tomorrow"? Of course not. You just get extra work and tighter deadlines, and what started out as a 40-hour week becomes 45, then 50, then you take some work home, then you're doing email on the weekend at your son's bball game or whatever.

Most of the rest of your points only apply if you work at large companies, and even then, only the much more progressive ones. That may be YOUR experience but it's certainly not the norm.

Comment Re: Well, that's one thing (Score 1) 295

Which is all fine and good.

You let me know when how often individuals succeed in this type of "but...it's NOT CONSTITUTIONAL" type of arguments in regard to contract law. Hint: rarely. The time, effort, and cost to do so is extremely prohibitive so only large, broad cases (or someone wanting the limelight) make it anywhere.

And beyond that, Binding arbitration clauses have been UPHELD in court cases trying to call it unconstitutional and having it stricken (i believe it was verizon or comcast or something similar).

This is why it's beneficial to have these things spelled out clearly and separately.

Comment Re:Thirty-Three Billion (Score 1) 66

It's not the coding. Code monkeys are easy to rent.

It's the idea and, critically, the user base they've built. I'm not saying they're anything special, the 158 million users are.

Now, there's immense potential competition - FB messenger and whatsapp jump out. Others like KIK and the myriad of chat/IM/social media sites are the same.

Snap's plan is to broaden the offering and become more like a visual FB/twitter/IG ... except those already are good at what they do. Minor tweaks would put them on par (see: code monkeys).

There's one fundamental difference between many of the platforms - and that's identity. FB and Whatsapp target a 1:1 existence with your real self (phone number, etc.) while snap/IG/twitter/etc. are based on arbitrary names.

Comment Re:I really wonder sometimes.. (Score 1) 66

They can't.

For one, they'd dilute (or dissolve) their voting block.

Two, there's two people who still have the large majority of shares. If they dumped them on the market en masse the stock price would tumble in a heartbeat.

Three, a CEO (and founder and majority stakeholder) is expected to hold much of their stock - especially in the short term - otherwise investors will bail too...and stock tumbles once again.

Also, there would almost certainly be SEC investigations into fraud and insider trading. You don't go public to divest yourself - the red flags would have their own red flags.

Comment Re:ATM could sell you an adjustable rate mortgage (Score 1) 644

That's...not...really it.

The main reason for an ARM is to save money on interest. Typically ARM mortgages have significantly lower interest rates because the bank doesn't have to factor in the long-term changes to base interest rates. The savings can range, but they're usually substantial. This also allows people to borrow more than they would with a fixed mortgage or pay off their mortgage faster.

The down side is, of course, the gamble. If interest rates go significantly higher you could have a greatly increased payment well beyond your ability to pay.

ARMs aren't bad - in fact they much more accurately reflect the 'cost' of your borrowing. A fixed mortgage just front-loads the risk. If you're borrowing within your means in a relatively stable economy, an ARM is generally a better choice.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001

Working...