Slashdot Mirror

1. links to a comic where a woman's opinions are considered shit
2. said woman in comic resembles Anita Sarkeesian
3. comic is "antifemcomics"
4. you bring up atheism

Is that you John Bain (TotalBiscuit)?

Guys like you are part of the problem.

1. You get offfended when some woman comments about some part of culture that you think of as "belonging to guys"

2. Therefore you don't even listen to her and denigrate what she says without actually reading it.

3. Get an army of your dudebro buddies to make death/rape threats, all because a woman dared to comment on "guy stuff"

4. Complain about censorship when this happens:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

No, I think they are the ones that you plead the third to. Unfortunately in Canada one might not have the same protections.

I am quite disappointed at the imagination of phone makers. A single headphone jack is one too few. .

12 obviously http://www.xkcd.com/1707/

Which in turn reminds me of this. The internet is magic.

"There are many kinds of encryption."

So what? Law is not about technology, but about definitions.

"Where do you draw a line?"

You basically don't need it. France has a long standing tradition on what Foucault described at Discipline and Punish to be alike a panopticon: this is the kind of "crimes" you put in place for "just in case" scenarios. You generally don't prosecute them but, by being vague and very difficult to avoid one way or another, you throw them at whomever you like, be it political dissent or someone you want to punish beyond what you have at hand. In you example, for instance, you don't ban saying "Uncle Henry is sick today" but add an "encryption" charge on top of whatever you have to the person you are after.

"What if I encode message into RAW camera image such that it does not affects how an eye see"

That's completly different. You just ban steganography along any other cryptography. You don't think the only way to "see" if a file comes with a hidden payload is to use your naked eye, do you?

"In real life less bits with smarter algorithm would have to be used to make impossible to prove that the image has hidden message beyond noise."

The only way to truly hide a message so it looks like noise is by using a one time pad. But we are talking about state power here, remember? https://xkcd.com/538/

Honest question, is GIT really that hard to understand and integrate into your process?

https://xkcd.com/1597/ pretty much says it all.

XKCD - https://xkcd.com/327/

https://xkcd.com/1319/

also

https://xkcd.com/1205/

The one thing I've found with automation to solve repetitive tasks is that the are two things that can happen to make the time savings spiral out of control. 1) is other people getting a hold of it, using it for something it was never intended to be used for, as part of some system, which know by default you have to try and support or something. 2) Is when whoever you are providing it to see the results and how good they are, they want more, then differently, then formatted a certain way, then changes again, etc... forever until you throw yourself off a bridge. I guess that last one is where the job security comes in.

That second link while not something I use specifically, is more less what I do in my head for everything I've had to do more less twice. Sometimes it is a bit of a guessing game to try to figure out how many times you'll have to do something to make it worth the effort. In most/many I've sort of defaulted to, might as well, you never know sort of attitude. I do find myself taking a big sigh when I decide NOT to automate something, and it is usually "fcsk it I'll just do it manually" sort of thing.

https://xkcd.com/1319/

also

https://xkcd.com/1205/

The one thing I've found with automation to solve repetitive tasks is that the are two things that can happen to make the time savings spiral out of control. 1) is other people getting a hold of it, using it for something it was never intended to be used for, as part of some system, which know by default you have to try and support or something. 2) Is when whoever you are providing it to see the results and how good they are, they want more, then differently, then formatted a certain way, then changes again, etc... forever until you throw yourself off a bridge. I guess that last one is where the job security comes in.

That second link while not something I use specifically, is more less what I do in my head for everything I've had to do more less twice. Sometimes it is a bit of a guessing game to try to figure out how many times you'll have to do something to make it worth the effort. In most/many I've sort of defaulted to, might as well, you never know sort of attitude. I do find myself taking a big sigh when I decide NOT to automate something, and it is usually "fcsk it I'll just do it manually" sort of thing.

Heretic! Of course xkcd represents reality; you just have to choose the right one. In this case, here's the one you want.

And all I have a copy of this on our team server's home page, darn.

I like that one, but the one hanging on my wall is this one, which I like even more. No one seems to like when I use it as a visual aid during meetings.

And all I have a copy of this on our team server's home page, darn.

I like that one, but the one hanging on my wall is this one, which I like even more. No one seems to like when I use it as a visual aid during meetings.

And all I have a copy of this on our team server's home page, darn.

I agree that this is a clear vulnerability... but seriously: if a single lock is the only thing separating an intruder and your valuables, bluetooth isn't going to save you anymore than a standard tumbler lock.

If anything, the data spillage on the password is the biggest problem (given people's propensity to recycle passwords). NOW the *ahem* "hacker" probably has a good guess on the login to your computer, wifi, bank account, etc. To prevent this human performance error, they should probably ditch the password in preference to some other key salted from a sensor on the device itself. That way, it's set once, provides a key to input to your mobile devices, and then be changed whenever you find out your spouse is cheating on you.

In deference to the XKCD, though, said spouse would probably kick the door down... so better make sure there's a backup plan!

That's why I added the phone idea. You need a trusted client to do the decryption.
Don't trust your browser? Then use a dedicated device that is 100% under your control.
Or use pen and paper, since your device contains silicon you didn't create.
But make sure to close all curtains and sweep for bugs first.
If they *really* want your secrets, they'll just use the $5 wrench method anyway...

I'm not sure locking the car will make any difference. My guess is they can hack into the electronic ignition they can hack into the electronic door locks as well.

I'm still looking forward to the day when I'll be able to pull this prank:

http://xkcd.com/1559/

With self driving cars one would not have to hack the ignition or even need a rock. If you can hack the autopilot in these things you don't even have to drive the car to the chop shop or even come close enough to drop a rock in the driver's seat. You just have to hack the car's autopilot from a safe distance, disable the trackers and tell the thing where to go. I'm sure there will be a complete malware package for this compete with side-loaded Android app. Joining the classic car club and buying an old completely analog car is beginning to have a certain appeal.

Look, this is simple. We just need government workers to show up and actually work. Yeah, crazy talk, I know.

Rachel from Cardholder Services advertises on Craigslist in Orlando. How difficult is it to just use their services (I know they're calling people at the FTC) and track them down? Use existing laws to put them out of business. There are plenty of options for those willing to do the minimal amount of work.

To be slightly more precise, we need legislators to get their heads out of each others butts and do their job. The current bunch are almost entirely occupied with infighting. Fire them all, just to be sure.

The post you're replying to says "there are plenty of laws already on the books that cover these situations, we should just use them." Your response is "congress should get off its butts and pass more laws."

Obligatory xkcd.

Reading all the comments here on this story, and honestly only one thing comes to mind... (yes, an obligatory XKCD comic) https://xkcd.com/927/

OB xkcd

There really needs to a far more standardization on emoji. The as explained in this XKCD argument our speach and communication has been moved to more of a visual form. Our standard text (Much like this) is designed for more formal expression of ideas and knowledge. Where it recommends that people sit down read it, think about it for a bit and respond to it, learn from it, or flat out reject it. Emoji are part of the new mobile text communication. Short burst of communications meant to get attention express an immediate or emotion.
Even if the Apple Smiley face seems a little happier than the Chrome Smiley face. Than the expression of the idea is different.

Anything over 5000 cases basically breaks the entire global economy.

FTFY.

You might wanna re-think that base, there: 1.01 ^ 5000 ~= $4,044,537,935,523,532,667,942.07

Simply put, any plan that involves having to sell off significant fractions of the earth's crust is probably unworkable.

OB xkcd, and OB PhD Comics.

Not long ago, we were all being told that illumination that mimics natural sunlight cures Seasonal Affective Disorder. Now we're being told it causes insomnia and bipolar disorder. If you look at the original article, the effect is tiny at best.

Obligatory xkcd

http://xkcd.com/893/

C is just a glorified macro assembler. Real programmers use butterflies anyways.

Nice. 'course, there's an Emacs command to do that: C-x M-c M-butterfly

[I actually have that comic taped to my door.]

That is kinda funny, being that Most Sitcoms are
1. based in California.
2. Have at least 1 aspiring actor/actress.
3. a. If about a family: Based in Suburbia
3. b. If about young adults: Based in an Apartment Complex
4. No matter what type of job they have, they can live an upper middle class life style to extreamly wealthy.

Very West Coast Culture in these shows. I am surprised that is very popular in New York City.
Or are you making your assumption due to numbers that correlate with a population heat map. XKCD did it

Actually, I've always hoped XKCD would do a data-set for television series, where produced, where set, and what genre.

I expect NYC cop shows will be among the largest blocks.

That is kinda funny, being that Most Sitcoms are
1. based in California.
2. Have at least 1 aspiring actor/actress.
3. a. If about a family: Based in Suburbia
3. b. If about young adults: Based in an Apartment Complex
4. No matter what type of job they have, they can live an upper middle class life style to extreamly wealthy.

Very West Coast Culture in these shows. I am surprised that is very popular in New York City.
Or are you making your assumption due to numbers that correlate with a population heat map. XKCD did it

3. Obligatory XKCD reference. Seriously - this. I've got a phone with accurate time that can be in my hand in 2 seconds, one-handed. It's barely less convenient than a watch, especially a dumbwatch on which I either have to press a button, invoke Siri or strike a mail-order-catalog "I am now looking at my watch" pose to get the display to turn on.

Personally (and I've believed this for a lot longer than smart watches have been a "thing") I think there's something to be said for reducing life's little annoyances. Reducing the keys on my keyring, for instance, made a small but noticeable change in my daily routine. I had to re-key some locks in and around my house, but I think it paid long-term dividends. When I moved to a new house, I went to a simple keypad entry system (without IoT) and now I only have to carry the key fob to my car. It made me happy.

So yeah, pulling the phone out of my pocket isn't that hard. But I do it many times a day, so even a small improvement pays dividends for me. And looking at my watch is a lot easier than pulling my phone out of my pocket while I'm sitting down.

Is it worth hundreds of dollars? That's a subjective personal question that everyone will have to consider for themselves. For me, on a quest to reduce the annoyances in life, the answer was a clear "yes".

I'm no fan of smart watches but is there really anything wrong with the Apple watch aside from the fact that the whole concept is a solution to a non-problem?

They're a great solution to the problem "I have spare money that I want to spend on an expensive, impractical gadget".

Main problems (shared with most high-end smartwatches):
1. Short battery life: Fail to put it on charge at night and its useless the next day, something that's most likely to happen when your routine is disrupted, e.g. by travel, which is just when you're most likely to need a smartwatch.
2. Normally off OLED display: strictly for people who don't remember why the LED digital watches of the 1970s were such an amazingly bad idea.
3. Obligatory XKCD reference. Seriously - this. I've got a phone with accurate time that can be in my hand in 2 seconds, one-handed. It's barely less convenient than a watch, especially a dumbwatch on which I either have to press a button, invoke Siri or strike a mail-order-catalog "I am now looking at my watch" pose to get the display to turn on.

Practical upshot: forget the "smart" bit - it doesn't even do the "watch" bit properly.

Main problem not shared with other smartwatches: it only works with iPhone. If you use an Android phone, don't bother. Anybody think the iPod would have been the success it was if His Jobsness had stuck with the original, Mac-only version? Or if the iPhone had required you to own a Mac?

The only smartwatch that appeals to me remotely is the Pebble range, because they have vaguely credible battery life and always-on reflective displays (but they look awful). Those seem like absolute, bare-minimum requirements for a smartwatch to me.

Careful with that!

https://xkcd.com/1013/

https://xkcd.com/1013/

we don't really want the population awake, that would make them unmanageable ...

https://xkcd.com/1504/ "That's Opportunity's side of the planet."

https://xkcd.com/605/

https://xkcd.com/893/

About standards

Relevant XKCD

https://www.xkcd.com/1053/

The XKCD comic's version: https://xkcd.com/1589/

Isn't that the point of every app? Like TornadoGuard for example...

Because we are humans and not machines and, as such, we are capable of understanding limiting principles that are fuzzy and imprecise.

However, there's nothing fuzzy or imprecise about "unlimited". It means you can use as much as you want. "About 15 megabytes" would be fuzzy.

To give a practical example, coffee shops are happy to offer "Free WiFi", often having a large sign to that effect. But if buy a small regular coffee and proceed to download/serve dozens of Linux ISOs at max bandwidth over Bittorrent (and degrade the service of everyone else in the shop), you will be asked to leave. It's implicit that "Free WiFi" here is understood in the context of things that normal people do in a coffee shop.

Right. So if that coffee shop specifically advertizes "Free WiFi With Unlimited Bandwidth", and is not a coffee shop but a multibillion dollar IT company with a dedicated department of lawyers going over every detail of the deals they offer, what's the implied meaning of "Unlimited Bandwidth"?

TLDR: Summarized succinctly in a single-pane webcomic.

That guy is the one making the offer, not the one taking it.

Offer unlimited storage, and when people upload 75TB worth of data it's abuse.

Yes, See XKCD: Arbitrage.

As I understand it, Microsoft didn't sue the people who uploaded 75TB of data, or do anything punishing of them. They saw people overusing the system in a way they didn't expect, so changed the terms of the service. Like if a restaurant goes from "free Wi-Fi" to "free Wi-Fi with purchase of a meal" to "free Wi-Fi for 2 hours with the purchase of a meal."

Surely you aren't criticizing Microsoft for that.

Because we are humans and not machines and, as such, we are capable of understanding limiting principles that are fuzzy and imprecise. Moreover, in many cases we prefer such fuzzy limits because in most cases it's much less effort to rely on them than to expend the intellectual effort to precisely quantify the limits. Besides being a pain to draft, communicate and clarify, precise language creates two additional negative effects: first it displaces the existing fuzzy limits, which can actually lead to less heuristic control. Second, it encourages rules-lawyering that consumes more effort and bogs people down in nit-picking (except that pig likes wrestling in the mud).

To give a practical example, coffee shops are happy to offer "Free WiFi", often having a large sign to that effect. But if buy a small regular coffee and proceed to download/serve dozens of Linux ISOs at max bandwidth over Bittorrent (and degrade the service of everyone else in the shop), you will be asked to leave. It's implicit that "Free WiFi" here is understood in the context of things that normal people do in a coffee shop. It would be positively ridiculous for them to have to write the rules out instead of just assuming that people will be reasonable.

You can only use X MB per hour and $Z of baked goods minus A MB every time you harass the baristas. At no time can your peak bandwidth, as measured by the rolling average over the last 60 second period as computed every 10 seconds, exceed A/B Kbps download/upload. A first offense under this section shall be punishable by a discrete warning. A second offense under this section shall be punishable by a public shaming in front of the other patrons. Third and subsequent offenses shall be punished by having hot coffee poured on your laptop, phone or pants at the discretion of the barista. Offenses shall toll at the rate of 1 offense per calendar week, provided that you visit the coffee shop at least twice during said calendar week.

TLDR: Summarized succinctly in a single-pane webcomic.

One look at the map in TFA and this came to mind: https://xkcd.com/1138/

Neither India nor China are on those maps. Those maps show consumers, not developers.

One look at the map in TFA and this came to mind: https://xkcd.com/1138/

I guess it surprises someone that "software development" includes a whole lot of people all over the country. Databases don't query themselves, and there's always a lot of corporate tools in every line of work. Software developers make them...

related xkcd

I appreciate the concise summary, since most times I've tried to look this up the articles just go on and on about it... "What was the big deal?" I would say as I read them, but this was the one question which they were apparently unwilling to answer. Turns out it wasn't a big deal, just a bunch of news fluff.

"Wasn't a big deal"??

A guy hijacks a plane under threat of an (apparent) bomb, takes over a million dollars in cash (in today's dollars) in exchange for hostages, and then parachutes out, and this "wasn't a big deal"?

Even if your standards of "big deal" are low enough that this wouldn't seem noteworthy, the case is also notable for the roughly 15 copycat hijackings it caused within the next year (also people extorting money on planes, requesting parachutes, etc.).

Ultimately, this case (and the copycats) led to the institution of universal luggage searching on flights, the first step down the slippery slope to voiding the 4th amendment as we've seen with the TSA in recent years. Arguably, these cursory searches (for bombs, other explosive devices, and major weapons) were necessary to prevent the nearly weekly hijackings that were going on. But if nothing else, this case is notable for a string of hijackings contributing to setting us on that path. (Note there were other high-profile incidents requesting passage to Cuba that also contributed to the new search policy, but weekly demands for million-dollar ransoms must have also made an impact.)

Also, obligatory xkcd.

I know some people believe he resurfaced years later as an auteur, but I don't buy it. Everyone knows he really died fighting Sasquatch to protect a bunch of hot, shirtless young men.

Oblig: https://xkcd.com/1013/

Stop playing the latest video games. Only play 4 year old stuff.

That reminds me of xkcd #606 "Cutting Edge". As the comic implies, this means you'll also be five years behind on discussing story events in these games. And as the title text implies, you're likely to run into matchmaking servers that have been permanently shut off.

https://xkcd.com/397/

I'm glad you posted this. I didn't knew that xkcd comic and it's a good one.