Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re: I like... (492 comments)

It seems like you present the hypothesis that the government would propose an amendment to do what you then ask if I would accept.

The government could not be trusted to propose an amendment to serve the people. Certainly not now, nor for the foreseeable future. In fact, if the states were to attempt to convene a convention, I expect the federal government to attempt to prevent it.

Such an amendment would be unworkable and a sincerely bad idea. One of the most powerful aspects of our constitution of the fundamental nature of it. Specificity of principle, not narrowness of action.

12 minutes ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re: I like... (492 comments)

There is no 'rampant' failure. And technology enabling encroachment on our freedoms does not justify the encroachment. Are you even paying attention? Technology is being used to harm us, not protect us.

1 hour ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re: I like... (492 comments)

These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?

The federal government can continue to monitor and enforce constitutional protections without new mandates forced by federal law and the narcotic of federal money.

4 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re: I like... (492 comments)

I disagree. Care to elaborate on what conditional authority the feds would be operating under?

5 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re:The death of leniency (492 comments)

Lots of infractions do not reach the DA. Minor traffic infractions in particular. These are so 'routine' that there is virtually no due process available to a citizen any more.

But cameras are not addressing running red lights or speeding. It's the violent confrontations these will be used for. Just as the courts 'don't have time' to process traffic stops properly, they will not be taking time to review video evidence either.

10 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re:One correction (492 comments)

I'm not ready to give in yet.

10 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re:One correction (492 comments)

Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.

The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.

10 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re:Will the cameras work? (492 comments)

It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,

i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.

Wishful thinking, maybe, but a chance to calm down the interaction is not a bad thing. Can't much make it worse.

10 hours ago
top

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

rickb928 Re:I like... (492 comments)

You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.

What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:

- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.

- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.

Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.

10 hours ago
top

Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

rickb928 Re: Thing is, we know what we have to do (138 comments)

And some nations don't. Your point?

More to your point, do the nations that rely on oil for electricity generation seem to be good candidates for solar replacements?

yesterday
top

Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

rickb928 Re: Thing is, we know what we have to do (138 comments)

We don't use oil to generate electricity, we use gas. Solar is not cheaper than gas.

Take away solar subsidies and it gets to the point the alarmists want. Deprivation.

yesterday
top

Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

rickb928 Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (138 comments)

1. Increase global energy costs by a factor of 5-10, crippling economies of most nations. Force airlines to scrap ground existing fleets and purchase replacements, causing fare increases of 200-500%, and then refit the existing fleet with more efficient, expensive, and lower performance engines, both increasing flight times and continuing fare increases. Rapidly build high speed train routes at astronomical costs, increasing rail fares commensurately. And then compel freight carriers to purchase battery EV trucks at great expense and with and marginal performance, reducing service and capacity, in creasing costs of most goods. These to be fed by local wind/solar storage at even higher energy costs since subsidies cannot be provided within a collapsing economy. We know we can do this, we just have to accept the diminished standard of living and loss of mobility, and the enriching of the suppliers of this technology.

2. Reduce heating/cooling in buildings. Efficiency. There's most of your energy use. Renovate, at great expense, existing structures to incorporate passive solar design, put solar cells on roofs so long as these are available, and promote the use shades and ceiling fans that we have and are already doing as we have for half a century, despite the redundancy of promoting this. Just expire tax subsidies and exemptions for buildings that don't do this, phasing them out 10 percent a year and causing the wholesale razing and replacement as these 'substandard' structures are legislated out of existence.

3. There is no 3. steps 1 and 2 are certain to accomplish one of the goals of climate change alarmists - destruction or minimization of the industrialized world, and the commensurate punishment of those who enjoyed the standard of living made possible by profligate, in the opinion of these activists, consumption.

yesterday
top

Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

rickb928 Re: Not news (275 comments)

It doesn't matter. Islam has been going this way for centuries.

about three weeks ago
top

Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

rickb928 Re: Might cause a re-thinking of the F-35 (275 comments)

That AC might not twang to quit their day job.

Yes, it was funny. Till it became real.

about three weeks ago
top

Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

rickb928 Re: Might cause a re-thinking of the F-35 (275 comments)

What would be a third role for a 1-2 seat Jet aircraft without a cargo bay? Oh, bomber, if you don't need much capacity.

I don't think of the A-6 as a fighter. Not does the F-104 seem to be much of a ground attack craft. It may not be difficult, but true air superiority fighters are nor automatically also serviceable ground attack craft, and some were never multi role

I'm not sure the F-117 is a fighter.

about three weeks ago
top

Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

rickb928 Re:Not news (275 comments)

That is exactly how to fight a theater air superiority battle.

Bring in low-observable aircraft and elicit a missle launch.
ECM/maneuvers to survive, hopefully.
Loitering anti-radar aircraft target the missle site and hopefully the control site(s).
Ground probes monitor and report on communications traffic and identify transmitters.
More anti-radiation missles on the way.
Enemy loses its ability to command SAMs.
Ground assaults now only deal with handheld or small arms/AAA.
Profit.
;
Most likely the modern battlefield, be it air or ground, will see C&C denial the key to victory. Jamming, countermeasures, selective obfuscation, usurpation, spoofing.

The Islamofacists will not trust tech enough to be defeated by this. They will, however, learn to fight the cyber battle against their enemies. Us first-world combatants will keep trying to out-tech them, and end up using overwhelming force. And raising another generation of fascists with a more convenient excuse for murder than just hating everyone else.

about three weeks ago
top

Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

rickb928 Re:Might cause a re-thinking of the F-35 (275 comments)

The F-4 was multi-service. Navy variants may even have different refueling probes and avionics.

And its multirole functionality was largely due to avionics and weapons systems.

Look what they did with the F-15/16s, everything but carrier ops.

about three weeks ago

Submissions

top

Cox Coaster, life in the frustrating lane

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

rickb928 (945187) writes "So, I've become a participant in the Cox Coaster trial here in the Phoenix area, and I'm wondering if any of you have had a shot at this elsewhere, or if you have some questions about it.

Coaster is Cox's IPTV offering, still being built and tested apparently. As part of the deal, I got a new Cisco router/firewall/wifi hub, the Coaster PC, HDMI cable, and TWO remotes.

And so far, it is an unrewarding experience, but I'm not done trying it out. Verdict pending.

Questions?"

Link to Original Source
top

We're the governent, and we're here to secure you

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 4 years ago

rickb928 (945187) writes "So the Pentagon, with their shiny new CyberCom commander and all that, are trying to convince corporate CEOs and "companies that operate critical infrastructures" to let them install monitoring systems on their networks or, quote, "stay in the wild wild west of the unprotected internet".

From the article:

"Defense Deputy Secretary William Lynn III, speaking at the Strategic Command Cyber Symposium in Nebraska, said we need to think imaginatively about how to use the National Security Agencyââs Einstein monitoring systems on critical private-sector networks ââ such as those in the financial, utility and communication industries ââ in order to protect us."

Sure sounds good to me. Let the Pentagon keep an eye on your critical network, and they will not only alert you to something going wrong, but they'll even respond to the threat. And if you operate 'critical infrastructure'. you owe it to our nation to opt-in, right? I mean. What could go wrong? It's the Pentagon, surely they know what they're doing, right?"

Link to Original Source
top

Hidden web ads inflate revenues, don't annoy us

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 4 years ago

rickb928 (945187) writes "Well, sort of...

The Wall Street Journal publishes here (Same story, who stole what???) and here:

'Kraft Foods, Greyhound Lines and Capital One Financial have bought some strange ads on the Internet lately. What's so strange about them is that they're invisible.

The companies might not have known about their invisible display ads — the kind that are supposed to appear alongside content on Web pages — if not for Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who studies Internet advertising.

Mr. Edelman says his research shows that all three marketers, and many others, have fallen victim to Web sites that use such ads as a way to sell more ad space than they have.

The Web sites can get away with it, he says, because online advertisers don't always audit their campaigns for proof their ads are appearing. It isn't clear how common these ads are or how much they cost marketers.

Mr. Edelman and other Internet-security experts say the ads are created with the use of computer code that makes it look to marketers as though their ads are showing up on legitimate Web sites. But consumers who visit those sites can't see the ads because they have been placed on invisible Web pages.

In one example, visitors to a site called MyToursInfo.com saw an ordinary-looking Web page with one ad for Verizon Communications and another for a weight-loss product. But, Mr. Edelman, who studied the site in January, said software code running behind the scenes opened more than 40 Web pages, each including three ads from marketers such as Domino's Pizza and Capital One, which were invisible to visitors.

Mr. Edelman's analysis of the code was confirmed by computer-security experts at Symantec and McAfee as well as online-ad advisory firms DoubleVerify and Anchor Intelligence.'

Sweet. I'm not sure what's worse, these and other companies being cheated out of ad dollars by this latest wrinkle in fraud, or us waiting while these invisible pages load. Not only do we suffer through interminable Flash loads, every geegaw Web trick to tickle our eyeballs and/or ears, but we now can be pretty sure that some of those sites that take so ^*%^ long to load are actually loading up page after page of 'invisible' ads.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Ad fraud, right under our noses, on the Internet? Oh my..."
top

The Empire Strikes Back: Broadcast's end run?

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 5 years ago

rickb928 writes "Is this Television's big step past Cable? USA Today quotes John Eck, President of NBC Network and Media Works:

"If we play it right, it can be a compelling service"

Indeed, if several manufacturers follow suit and build mobile receivers, as LG, Samsung, Zenith, Kenwood, and others disclosed at CES in Las Vegas, this would offer viewers an option to cable, and even to Internet services such as Hulu, among others. Might even impact Youtube...

By offering local news, which normally isn't available from cellphone video services, they could leverage their fading brands even more, and most importantly directly to their audience. And probably preserve advertising views as well, which gives them an advantage with advertisers who pretty much despise Tivo and other services that let viewers bypass ads and get to the good stuff.

From the USA Today story: "At least 63 stations in 22 cities — including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston and Washington — will transmit news, entertainment and sports to portable devices this year, according to the broadcast industry's Open Mobile Video Coalition (OMVC).

The initial group will include affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW, ION and PBS. Each city will have a different mix. Most will simulcast regularly scheduled shows."

Gotta love it. Broadcast TV joining forces with the cellphone industry to take on a common enemy: Cable, which has been intruding on Telephony's turf with VOIP services, and clearly would love to dominate IP Television, may have a foe that can actually hurt them where it counts; in the wallet.

Do we consumers get anything out of this? 'Free' (as in beer) TV, albeit on smaller, mobile screens? On-demand shows? (I doubt that). Local stations on our phones or whatever little device? Smaller pictures of Jennifer Aniston? Is this a good thing?"

Link to Original Source
top

Reporters at Black Hat get bounced for hacking

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  about 6 years ago

rickb928 (945187) writes "So some reporters at Black Hat decided to teach the other reporters in the press room about the importance of securing their connections. They must have been thinking "hmm.. this is Black Hat, so why not hack their ids and passords and stuff, and show them how pwned they are, right?".

Not so funny. At Black Hat, hacking is encouraged. Everywhere except the Press Room, apparently.

So the reporters, from the French magazine 'Global Security Magazine', apparently did the unthinkable — hack at Black Hat:

"The French journalists — identified by organizers as Dominique Jouniot, Marc Brami, Mauro Israel — apparently set up their own server to siphon off traffic passing through the media room's central router."

Once again, hacking is cool. Unless, of course, it's done at you, or where you don't want it to be done.

Right back at ya, Black Hat."

Link to Original Source
top

Gold Digger or opportunist? Sexist or pragmatist?

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

rickb928 writes "When this story" on my company's internal blog, I had to go read the original. Yep, allegedly a woman posted a personal ad on Craigslist asking how to meet her 'Sugar Daddy' move to New York City, and basically cash in. And this is a reposting of the ad and a response.

Some of this may or may not be true — and that's not my point. But this gets me thinking. And wondering. Among other things;

Was there a line crossed in this posting and response? I mean, the obvious observations in the NYT article include the blatant sexism by both the woman and the responder, and while many will complain that his (and I assume it was a 'he') response was throughly sexist, wasn't it also honest, brutally so? And what about the woman posting? While she's honest, she's probably smart to be anonymous as well. Posting her photo would not make her gym visits bearable, I bet.

What was the most outrageous thing you have read in a personal ad? I read plenty when I was dating, and the ones pointing out that Republicans, ex-military, etc. need not apply always got my attention. And I got plenty angry until I realized that it was for the best that I avoided these women. And many men used the dating sites to troll for sex, pure and simple, and would post ANYTHING to get a meeting. After all, you can't make the sale unless you can meet the buyer. (Was THAT crossing the line?).

But more to the point, it's not about whether or not a woman can seek marriage to a 'rich guy' for no other reason than to be taken care of, or a 'rich guy' to marry a woman for no other reason than to have a pretty girl on his arm and in his bed. It's deeper than that, I think. How can you really know what your fiance really has on their mind? Rich guys, do you wonder about this? And beautiful women, do you also wonder if the attraction really isn't just skin deep?

Of course, does this matter a bit to your average Slashdot reader? Let's find out."

Link to Original Source
top

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

rickb928 writes "Just when you thought it was bad to talk on your cell phone all the time, comes this story about the amount of cell phone affecting your sperm count and quality. And it's all about the quality, isn't it?

The premise is that men who talk on their cell phones for more than 4 hours a day have lousy sperm.

Of course, the first question I have for the researchers is, 'Dude. The phone is out of my pocket. It's in my ear. I'm not a dickhead".

Whatcha think? Hidden danger or the funniest thing since, well, since tighty-whiteys?



-rick"

Journals

top

Redesign

rickb928 rickb928 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

There's a reason Slashdot doesn't redesign the site very often. Same reason I dont lick the stove when its hot.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>