Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Serves them right (Score 1) 44

Nothing is unhackable.

In theory. In practice humans go for the low hanging fruit. This store was probably hacked because of ridiculous password security or SQL injection, or some other trivial technique. You don't need to build government-level security to convince a bad guy to move on to an easier target.

Also the store is not the victim. The customers who trusted the store are.

Comment Serves them right (Score 4, Insightful) 44

I'm sorry but when you don't take your customers' security seriously, don't complain when someone walks through the front door and steals the stuff you left lying around. The hackers are wrong, but it's the store's own damned fault. They'd rather make more profit than pay for serious security. Shows what they think of their clients.

Comment Re:Companies are not people (Score 1) 416

What difference does it makes that the company is limited liability? No one is likely to experience any liability for their political speech. This is just a group of people using their commonly-owned property and connections to spread their views. Whether the corporation is limited liability is irrelevant.

The fact that you can own and use "stuff" together while not having being liable for the problems said ownership and use might entail is a special exception to the normal state of affairs granted by the society. We make this exception because we deem the benefits outweigh the cost (and there is a cost, make no mistake about it). In order to make this exception we burden the limited partnership with rules and regulations that must be followed in order for us to grant the exception.

It is not therefore unreasonable to say that one such limitation on what the limited partnership can do is promote political speech. We give them extra power for certain purposes, to say that one of those purposes should not be to try and subvert the very mechanism that grants that privilege isn't on the face of it unreasonable.

So, no-one is trying to limit the speech of the partners as such. They have their rights as individuals. And if they want to band together in a partnership to increase their clout, then that's OK to. We tend to historically call such partnerships "political parties". But if they want to use the extra power the we have given them in the form of limited liability partnerships, then it's not unreasonable to say "no". If you want to use a regular partnership, go ahead, but the extra power that goes with a limited partnership is barred from such use. It's not part of the original deal.

So, my point is that people seem to think of limited liability partnerships as fine, normal and dandy, just because they've been around for a couple of generations. They're not. They're a very special exception from how things are normally and how they are "supposed" to be, and that makes them special not only in the extra power that comes with them, but also, not unreasonably, with extra limitations and duties.

They are not "people", and shouldn't be treated as such, and real people can't use them for whatever they fancy. That's not necessarily in the contract.

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 2) 306

If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?

Or you could write your library in C++ but put it behind a C interface. Then you can use all of the expressive power of C++ internally, and provide an API that can be called from any language. And it will still be very close to as portable as if it were written in plain C, because we now have decent C++ compilers on very nearly every platform.

Comment Re: This is an Android Problem (Score 1) 162

I wish that there were more phones running plain Android with fast updates.

This article is exactly what we need to make that happen, though ideally we need it to be on CNN, not just Ars. But Ars is a good step. When consumers demand good update policies, manufacturers will provide them. It's a competitive market.

Actually, I think we're further down that road than it may appear. Stagefright was a big kick in the butt for the Android ecosystem. Not because it actually affected any real users, but because it got a *lot* of press. I think many OEMs have realized they need to fix their update problems, because consumers are beginning to care. The problem is that the OEMs product plans for the last few years have not included plans for monthly updates. Planning for that sort of update cycle requires them to change a lot of things in the way they do business. One is closely related to what you mentioned about carrier-specific builds: The OEMs just have too danged many products. It's not uncommon that what appears to the end user as a single model (e.g. Samsung Note 4) is actually one or two *dozen* different devices... each with its own software build. Not because they actually need that many SKUs and not because all of them actually need different software, it's just been easier to do it that way. Now that the pressure to provide updates is being turned up, I think they're looking at how to streamline their product lines and processes to make it more feasible to deliver them. Oh, and they also have to build the cost of the update-related work into their business plans.

However, building phones is a complex process, and device design and planning cycles often run more than two years, so it takes time for changes in approach to reach the market. I think it'll start getting a lot better in the next 1-2 years.

That's why I'm just sticking with Nexus phones.

Me too. Of course, in my case it helps that I get them for free :-)

Comment Re:Missing a big point (Score 1) 599

Of course you didn't talk at all about "handling the current situation" you talked about "self driving" which isn't actually related at all.

I actually don't agree with that, though that's Tesla's position. I don't think semi-autonomous driving is realistic. Once the car can drive itself sufficiently well that people feel safe looking away to text or whatever, they will. Any system that expects that a human will continue paying attention and be ready to take over at a moment's notice is asking for trouble.

Comment Re:oh if only... (Score 2) 244

Not going to happen, despite these costs and strictures, media companies still stand to make money so they will play ball. And the US committee is just following the Olympic committee, who have demanded (and gotten) similar injuctions against nasty free-loading IP pirates in previous editions of the Games. SA gave them special IP police. And some details were published from the Bid Book instructions given to the Dutch commission when they were preparing their bid. It had plenty of provisions to very strictly enforce what went on in the stadiums (including tweets), and they even demanded that all neon signs for beers other than the sponsoring brands to be removed from bars in a 3 km radius around all olympic locations. Oh and they wanted highway lanes closed off at set times so the brass could quickly shuttle between locations in their limos.

It's the countries who should tell them to screw it. Sadly they will not do so either, the Games offer prestige and an enormous opportunity for politicians to shine (and have their pals make a bit of cash too). And the Olympic Committee know this, as well as the fact that if you can put something good on the table (or under it), any politician is willing to bargain, no matter how outlandish your demands.

Comment Re: The Theater Experience (Score 1) 326

I love those, sadly we don't have any left in Rotterdam. But our regular cinemas are decent enough, they are clean, with pretty comfortable seats, good picture and sound, and it's pretty rare for the patrons to be actively disruptive. I make one exception: not to ever visit the cinema during Ramadan; the place will be stacked to the rafters with f'ed-up teens looking for trouble.

Comment Re:This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 2) 244

Not necessarily. Take a look at the relevant portion of the Lantham Act. It would have to fit one of the provisions therein. It might make a false suggestion of affiliation, but it's arguable.

15 U.S.C. 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...