Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment In my experience most companies avoid this because (Score 2) 269

...they don't know how to manage remote employees. I find this difficult myself, but primarily because I ad hoc manage a few people who are remote - I think if you manage the entire team in a remote fashion, it can be a win.

With a management process built to support this type of team - remote teams actually coordinate and communicate better than physically co-located teams.

We currently have a single remote team (many other teams in-house) at our company - and they're fantastic. That's primarily down to the fact that the guy running the team (also remote) has a great and transparent system for communication that works well.

Now, there are many reasons why it wouldn't work for a given company - but I can definitely state that it can work, and work REALLY well - given the right circumstances.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 0) 307

Yes, because they're meant to kill - of course they're a better deterrent than something not meant to kill...

The numbers you quote, which came from actual studies, are valuable; however, the rather important contrast (you left out for some reason) is that given the average annual defensive firearm incidents reported - the number of violent crimes committed using firearms is astronomically higher (in 1992 for example, 931,000.)

Statistics clearly state that gun ownership is not an effective deterrent to violent crime committed with a gun.

I'm not interested in taking peoples' guns away, but it does get annoying to listen to the bullshit spouted in the name of "guns are good" and "the only cure for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" types of stupidity.

BTW, not sure where you got the crazy numbers of 2.5 million and 4.7 million given that in 1992 there were fewer than 4.7 million violent crimes of any time (robbery, murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, et cetera...)

Comment Re:Who knew? (Score 1) 295

Even the most rudimentary investigation into this story reveals that the hospital didn't decided to take her from her parents, the state child protective services (equivalent) did. There are also some pretty strong correlations between her condition being strongly exacerbated by the presence of her mother (which is the basis by which she has been diagnosed with a psychosomatic disorder.)

I don't doubt that this poor girls is suffering from physical disorder(s), but it's a very complex situation and the hacker seems like an idiot for reacting in this fashion.

Comment Re:Ex post facto (Score 1) 302

It depends (of course, lol.) If they did something explicitly (not implicitly) allowed by law - that would be true. If implicitly allowed (i.e. there's no law that says you cannot do that) then it's certainly arguable.

The EU would likely argue (likely very successfully) that Apple behavior is not explicitly forbidden, but instead implicitly forbidden by other laws (which they will traipse out at that time.)

The whole thing is academic at this point because everyone and their dog knows that this is exactly what Apple was doing, and they were expecting that the EU would just be happy to receive the little taxes they did receive. Solid, but short term, thinking. As soon as the U.S. got pissed about this, the EU knew they had Apple over a barrel.

Comment Not surprising, people who are usually excellent.. (Score 1) 179

...at reverse engineering and cracking tend to be extremely 'pragmatic' in their approach to creating software.

People are constantly confusing programming with software engineering. Look at Google for example, look at the design decisions behind golang. Google has lots of very smart people no doubt, but golang was designed around their pervasive weakness - they do not tend to be good software engineers (experience will usually lead them there though.)

Comment Re:Security theater (Score 1) 19

It's not security theater - it's not intended to make things 'more secure' - it's intended to allow enterprises (Fortune 100 types) to integrate their existing centralized key management systems into GCE so that they don't have two sets of keys, two sets of audit data, two sets of key policies, et cetera.

This will make it an easier decision for enterprises to push their key-oriented applications/systems/service-bus' into GCE. Previously this was a pain in the rear.

Comment Re:Not Client Side? (Score 2) 19

This is a move by Google to allow enterprise key management systems employed by big business to operate in the Google Cloud (previously a very hacky arrangement.)

I wouldn't be surprised, given Google's new focus on the Enterprise with GCE (note the leadership changes), to see Google Docs starting to embrace a 'bring your own' encryption feature set to its applications as well.

This would be a differentiator for Google as Microsoft's solution (RMS) really doesn't work well in this scenario and Amazon is starting to embrace enterprise key management (but is just starting.)

Google would be the first with a cloud offering, encryption integration points, and an enterprise encrypted document play that could be federated. The fear is, as some other posters noted, will Google commit to this or just do it for 2 years and then dump the whole thing?

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?