Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest archive

Car Manufacturers Sued Over Rodents Eating Soy-Insulated Wires

Posted by EditorDavidView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader writes about "a little-known problem plaguing many newer vehicles from the likes of Honda, Toyota, and Kia." The car makers used soy-insulated wiring to cut costs and "Go Green", but owners in rural areas are finding the local wildlife finds the wiring irresistible; thousands of dollars in damage has been done by rats and other critters eating wiring harnesses. Hackaday is asking their community to brainstorm solutions to this unique problem, as owners of affected vehicles have had to resort to sprinkling their driveway with coyote urine and putting rat traps on the wheels.
Hackaday reports that "It isn't just one or two cases either, it's enough of a problem that some car manufacturers are getting hit with class-action lawsuits." Back in 2010 Slashdot reported that rabbits had already discovered the joys of eating soy-insulated wires, and were turning the parking lot at the Denver International Airport into their own personal buffet.

There's even a web site called HowToPreventRatsFromEatingCarWires.com, which reports that Honda has already manufactured a special wire-wrapping tape that's infused with the active ingredient from chili peppers.

one word

By geoskd • Score: 3 • Thread

Honda has already manufactured a special wire-wrapping tape

This is simple: Poison

Just like pressure treated lumber, add arsenic to the insulation in relatively small quantities. Just enough to kill anything that eats this as a primary diet, but not enough to prevent biodegrading. Quickly enough critters will develop a strong distaste for the stuff.

Re:one word

By ColdWetDog • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Lovely. Chewed up wiring and dead, smelly animals in your car.

What's not to like?

Not Just Rural Areas

By careysub • Score: 3 • Thread

I live in surburbia, and this happened to me. Rodents ate the wiring in my Honda Odyssey a few of years ago.

Twitter Says It Exposed Nearly 700,000 People To Russian Propaganda During Election

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Twitter this evening released a new set of statistics related to its investigation on Russia propaganda efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including that 677,775 people were exposed to social media posts from more than 50,000 automated accounts with links to the Russian government. Many of the new accounts uncovered have been traced back to an organization called the the Internet Research Agency, or IRA, with known ties to the Kremlin. The data was first presented in an incomplete form to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee last November, which held hearings to question Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the role the respective platforms and products played in the Russian effort to help elect President Donald Trump. Twitter says it's now uncovered more accounts and new information on the wide-reaching Russian cyberintelligence campaign.

"Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States who followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked a Tweet from these accounts during the election period," writes Twitter's public policy division in a blog post published today. "Because we have already suspended these accounts, the relevant content on Twitter is no longer publicly available."

Because altering trends isn't ?

By RedK • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Changing the trending section to show TrumpShutdown instead of SchumerShutdown, even though a basic Civics class and understanding shows clearly that this is a Democrat action isn't propaganda ?

Removing the hashtag Release the memo from trending because a left leaning PAC said something about Russian bots isn't propaganda ?

Twitter please. And they say right wingers are prone to believing conspiracies.

So what?

By azcoyote • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I'm fairly sick of Twitter and Facebook going on about this. The Internet is full of propaganda. The world is full of propaganda. We should not be surprised if Russia meddled a bit, because we meddle in everyone else's affairs, especially in the Middle East. I don't like Trump much either, but the fact is that people are using this merely as a way to comfort themselves about him having won the election. But does it really make a difference? Were we really naive enough to think that democracy was truly fair in the first place?

Let's think about this rationally. 700,000 were exposed; that's a tiny number. A Google search says that almost 139,000,000 voted. So that means that about 0.5%--a mere half percent of voters may have been exposed. But chances are that only some of those who were exposed actually voted. And then most of them probably already were Trump supporters in the first place, who merely grabbed hold of the propaganda as confirmation of their already-held point of view. So it's impossible to say how much it affected the vote--especially given the complexities of the electoral college and the fact that we do not know where these viewers lived--but chances are that it did not affect it enough to have swayed anything.

Or let's put it another way: the burden of proof would be on those who would claim that Russia actually changed the outcome of the election. Prove it. I sincerely doubt that it will ever be proved, but people will go on and on about it because it gives them a kind of comfort to think that it was really the fault of some sinister external force. People love blaming outsiders, or even internal minorities who are treated as outsiders--such as Mexicans like myself--but it is a sad, pathetic, illegitimate comfort.

Re:Nope

By RedK • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

At this point, any shred of evidence would suffice. It's been a whole year of people talking and talking and no one even showing a shred of evidence.

At least if you provided ANYTHING, it would give us something to actually talk about. At this point, this is just people shouting over each other's head, and the Democrats showing they are sore losers who can't accept their candidate's failing.

Re:Not just propaganda though is it?

By JBMcB • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Hacked the DNC and DCCC,

Allegedly.

hacked elections systems in several states, grabbing electoral data.

Allegedly.

Handing the electoral data and political information to people like Aaron Nevins and defacto co-ordinating with them to get Ron DeSantis elected in Florida

Allegedly.

There are plenty of allegations flying around that this was all Russia's doing. It very well may have been. What is lacking is evidence.

It would be politically expedient for the US if it were Russia behind the meddling. It may or may not be politically expedient for Russia to have Trump as president. Hillary was a known quantity to Russia. They've dealt with her before as Secretary of State. Knowing how someone operates is diplomatically valuable.

Trump *seemed* to be more friendly to Russia, but he was also incredibly flaky, even as a candidate. The reasoning behind a coordinated push to back Trump over Hilary seems tenuous at best.

Re:So what?

By jonsmirl • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

You are missing a big piece -- the horrible ineffectiveness of Internet ads. So what if 700,000 people were exposed. I am exposed to several thousand Internet ads a day. I remember none of them. They are just clutter that I ignore. You probably need to expose me to an ad 5,000 times before I will notice it. I may have been exposed to the Twitter and Facebook ads, who cares, I never noticed them.

This Russian ad spend was on the order of a few hundred thousands dollars. A couple hundred thousand does nothing when applied to large numbers of people. Put into perspective that the candidates spent two billion dollars.

You can then try to make the argument that the Russians highly focused the ads on to a specific target group. But that rapidly turns into preaching to the choir. It is easy to get a highly targeted group to do what the ads imply, that is simply because they were very likely to do whatever it was anyway. But there is no way that 700,000 people is a tightly selected group like that.

What a Government Shutdown Will Mean For NASA and SpaceX

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
Ars Technica reports of how the government shutdown affects federal agencies like NASA, as well as commercial companies like SpaceX: So far, NASA has been keeping quiet about this particular shutdown and has been directing all questions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. But NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, told employees in an email obtained by The Verge to be on alert for directions over the next couple of days. "If there is a lapse in funding for the federal government Friday night, report to work the same way you normally would until further notice, and you will receive guidance on how best to closeout your activities on Monday," he wrote in the email. The most recent guidance from NASA, released in 2017, indicates that all nonessential employees should stay home during a shutdown, while a small contingent of staff continue to work on "excepted" projects. The heads of each NASA center decide which employees need to stay, but they're typically the people who operate important or hazardous programs, including employees working on upcoming launches or those who operate satellites and the International Space Station.

NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.

More important than ever

By Koby77 • Score: 3 • Thread
It seems to me that private company launches are more important than ever. Once they're funded, the petty politics can't shut down or delay a launch. Space exploration could move on without D.C.

Re:First shutdown ever for a majority administrati

By Plus1Entropy • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.

They want to be able to pass the budget without a deal, just have the Dems roll over (which frankly they are pretty good at). Now that they're taking a page from the Rep's playbook, suddenly it's unfair.

Cry me a river, and then dump pollution in it.

Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat

By c6gunner • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.

FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.

For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.

This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.

Learn from Australia

By Pseudonym • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

The Australian government can't shut down in practice, because in a "loss of supply" situation, the Prime Minister must resign or Parliament is dismissed and a fresh election is called for everyone, half term or not. (Or, if the PM chooses to do neither, be sacked as happened in 1975.)

Learn, guys. Politicians aren't so quick to block supply if they are the ones who are going to be stood down.

Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat

By Ly4 • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.

Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

How To Tame the Tech Titans

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
dryriver shares an opinion piece from The Economist: Not long ago, being the boss of a big Western tech firm was a dream job. As the billions rolled in, so did the plaudits: Google, Facebook, Amazon and others were making the world a better place. Today these companies are accused of being BAADD -- big, anti-competitive, addictive and destructive to democracy. Regulators fine them, politicians grill them and one-time backers warn of their power to cause harm. Much of this techlash is misguided. The presumption that big businesses must necessarily be wicked is plain wrong. Apple is to be admired as the world's most valuable listed company for the simple reason that it makes things people want to buy, even while facing fierce competition. Many online services would be worse if their providers were smaller. Evidence for the link between smartphones and unhappiness is weak. Fake news is not only an online phenomenon.

But big tech platforms, particularly Facebook, Google and Amazon, do indeed raise a worry about fair competition. That is partly because they often benefit from legal exemptions. Unlike publishers, Facebook and Google are rarely held responsible for what users do on them; and for years most American buyers on Amazon did not pay sales tax. Nor do the titans simply compete in a market. Increasingly, they are the market itself, providing the infrastructure (or "platforms") for much of the digital economy. Many of their services appear to be free, but users "pay" for them by giving away their data. Powerful though they already are, their huge stockmarket valuations suggest that investors are counting on them to double or even triple in size in the next decade. There is thus a justified fear that the tech titans will use their power to protect and extend their dominance, to the detriment of consumers (see article). The tricky task for policymakers is to restrain them without unduly stifling innovation.

The Problem

By duke_cheetah2003 • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

The presumption that big businesses must necessarily be wicked is plain wrong.

This presumption is accurate. Corporations are required by law to make money. Share holders can exact retribution if they don't. People lose their job if they fail to steer their company in a growing profitable manner, regardless of whatever else.

Once these companies 'go public', they are beholden to the share holders to give a return on their investment. The ever increasing demand for more profits, more growth, well, it's what turns good ideas into evil entities we despise.

If company's goals were things like do X better for society, discover Y, provide Z service to the best of your ability, things might be better, but that's not how it is. Every company has the same goal: Make more money for their share holders. Period. Every other consideration is secondary.

Every corporation I've ever seen has done one of two things: Get bigger, or disappear.

Opinion piece and garbage at that.

By Gravis Zero • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Wow, this is a load of horseshit. He's discounting science and calling it "fake news", why? Simple, it doesn't fit the narrative that he's trying to sell you.

Evidence for the link between smartphones and unhappiness is weak. Fake news is not only an online phenomenon.

I can tell you for a fact that adults addicted to their smartphones just kinda check out of being parents and only do the most superficial component of parenting. They aren't neglecting their children but they also aren't involved in their lives in any meaningful way. There's a new generation of children being raised by zombie parents because of these damn machines and it's going to lead to an increasingly and strangely fucked up future for society. These devices could be great tools but there is far more profit in making money off of neurohacking people which results in screen zombies.

It's ultimately up to the individual to decide how they live their lives but there is nobody warning them about the danger smartphones present.

Too big

By Tablizer • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Many online services would be worse if their providers were smaller.

Bullshit. If there are a larger quantity of providers, they compete harder and customers have more choice. Japan had 7 viable car companies that kicked the ass of our 3 in the 80's.

The only place I see it being a problem is cross-country coverage. But the co's can make roaming deals with other carriers.

Oligopolies consistently have the worse customer service in surveys among different products that have fell under oligopolies/monopolies.

Re:Make Tax Rates Scale With Size

By ShanghaiBill • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

you'd have to be functionally retarded to interpret "a company worth more than 9 figures" as "limited to Google."

If "more than 9 figures" means more than $999,999,999, then there are several thousand corporations just in America.

The bottom company in the S&P 500 is worth $3.6B.

Disclaimer: I think the idea of nationalizing these companies is insane. I trust Google way more than I trust the NSA.

not tech

By Tom • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

This is not about tech companies. There is a general problem with the way our system is set up whenever a company (representing the desire to make money) is large and powerful enough to make demands from a government (representing the diverse needs of the people).

Whenever one desire can subdue all other desires, you have something we call addiction in psychology. And the general agreement is that it's a bad thing, unhealthy for the whole organism.

View societies as organisms (living systems theory, in case you are into such fields) and many faults of our system become painfully obvious.

Ajit Pai's FCC Can't Admit Broadband Competition Is a Problem

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: While the FCC is fortunately backing away from a plan that would have weakened the standard definition of broadband, the agency under Ajit Pai still can't seem to acknowledge the lack of competition in the broadband sector. Or the impact this limited competition has in encouraging higher prices, net neutrality violations, privacy violations, or what's widely agreed to be some of the worst customer service of any industry in America. The Trump FCC had been widely criticized for a plan to weaken the standard definition of broadband from 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up, to include any wireless connection capable of 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. Consumer advocates argued the move was a ham-fisted attempt to try and tilt the data to downplay the industry's obvious competitive and coverage shortcomings. They also argued that the plan made no coherent sense, given that wireless broadband is frequently capped, often not available (with carrier maps the FCC relies on falsely over-stating coverage), and significantly more expensive than traditional fixed-line service.

In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Ajit Pai stated the agency would fortunately be backing away from the measure, while acknowledging that frequently capped and expensive wireless isn't a comparable replacement for fixed-line broadband. "The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload," stated Pai. "The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service. Instead, it notes there are differences between the two technologies, including clear variations in consumer preferences and demands." That's the good news. The bad news: the FCC under Pai's leadership continues to downplay and ignore the lack of competition in the sector, and the high prices and various bad behaviors most people are painfully familiar with.

Smell Smoke

By jwhyche • Score: 3 • Thread

Ajit Pai couldn't admit his ass was on fire even he smelt smoke.

Ajit Pai is an industry shill

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Ajit Pai is an industry shill. He will not admit to anything that is not in the interest of his industry masters.

Why is this so hard to understand ?

Pai's FCC knows broadband competition is a problem

By Burdell • Score: 3 • Thread

And they're doing everything in their power (and beyond) to stamp out such competition.

For those of you wondering why they backed down

By rsilvergun • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
it's because the Republicans can't afford to piss off rural voters. The US system of government gives them a disproportionate amount of voting power and their interests don't often align with the city voters, making them a prime candidate for politicking.

The ultimate solution

By kilodelta • Score: 3 • Thread
Is rule saying the last mile is a public right.

Nintendo's Newest Switch Accessories Are DIY Cardboard Toys

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
sqorbit writes: Nintendo has announced a new experience for its popular Switch game console, called Nintendo Labo. Nintendo Labo lets you interact with the Switch and its Joy-Con controllers by building things with cardboard. Launching on April 20th, Labo will allow you to build things such as a piano and a fishing pole out of cardboard pieces that, once attached to the Switch, provide the user new ways to interact with the device. Nintendo of America's President, Reggie Fils-Aime, states that "Labo is unlike anything we've done before." Nintendo has a history of non-traditional ideas in gaming, sometimes working and sometimes not. Cardboard cuts may attract non-traditional gamers back to the Nintendo platform. While Microsoft and Sony appear to be focused on 4K, graphics and computing power, Nintendo appears focused on producing "fun" gaming experiences, regardless of how cheesy or technologically outdated they me be. Would you buy a Nintendo Labo kit for $69.99 or $79.99? "The 'Variety Kit' features five different games and Toy-Con -- including the RC car, fishing, and piano -- for $69.99," The Verge notes. "The 'Robot Kit,' meanwhile, will be sold separately for $79.99."

it's a money pit

By known_coward_69 • Score: 3, Funny • Thread

$300 for the console, $60 for the games, $50 or whatever for the SD card because Nintendo is cheap on space, $80 or so for extra controller, taxes and now $70 each for CARDBOARD toys that cost $1 or so to make.

They can be #3 in the console game and still make out from all the suckers willing to shell out all this money

meanwhile one of my kids can't get enough for a $27 copy of Minecraft on the PC and the other one plays Forza on a $189 xbox one s

Won't someone please think of the children

By LordKronos • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Seriously, I'm sure many of you will be happily mocking Nintendo's newest effort. But I think this particular product isn't aimed at virgin gamers living in their mothers' basements. This product is aimed at families with children. My 7 year old daughter loves to cut up every cardboard box we get and make something out of it. She makes houses, cars, planes, and even a recreation of Wall-e. This sort of stuff is aimed at them. Only now they don't just get to create lifeless box items for their imagination. They can see the mechanics of how steering wheels, pianos, and fishing reels work. The can see the pulley's and cameras driving this stuff. This is engineering for elementary school kids. You want to promote kids getting into STEM fields? Try cultivating their imaginations instead of mocking it.

Re:it's a money pit

By pots • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
At first glance I made this mistake too. For some reason they've chosen to focus their marketing effort on the cardboard, and not on the game that you play with the cardboard. This gives the impression that you're shelling out really a lot of money for some punched cardboard that have have to assemble yourself. In fact, that $80 robot kit comes with a $60 game. The cardboard is just a substitute for the plastic controllers which were so popular on the Wii.

If you look at it in that light, the cardboard is an improvement: It's cheaper than the plastic controllers, it's more environmentally friendly, it takes up less shelf space, etc. The only downside is that it's not as sturdy. This is possibly a large drawback.

The confusing bit is that they don't call the game a game, they call it "kit software," and it makes up a very small part of the advertising. I think they're trying to spin it as educational, and the fact that you have to assemble it yourself is a positive because... creativity. Or something. The problem is this gives the impression that this whole business is way overpriced.

Norway Will Make All Short-Haul Flights Electric By 2040

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
Norway's public operator of air transport plans to make all short-haul flights in the country entirely electric by 2040. "State-owned Avinor, which operates most of Norway's civil airports, is aiming to be the 'first in the world' to switch to electric air transport," reports The Independent. From the report: "We think that all flights lasting up to 1.5 hours can be flown by aircraft that are entirely electric," chief executive Dag Falk-Petersen told AFP. The announcement confirms Norway's reputation as a leader in electric power. In a 2017 report, Avinor announced that in cooperation with the Norwegian Sports Aviation Association and major airlines, it had set up a development project for electric aircraft. Avinor said it had "called for Norway to be established as a test arena and innovation center for the development of electric aircraft." Avinor intends to reduce aircraft greenhouse gas emissions in the short term by phasing in biofuels in the coming years, and then build on these reductions by phasing in electric planes.

Re:Amazing

By Rei • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Quite to the contrary, I think it's absurdly pessimistic. People always underestimate S-curves. They did it with wind, they did it with solar, people are in various phases of realizing that they did it with EV passenger vehicles, and they're actively doing it with electric road transport, electric marine transport, and electric aircraft.

There's several companies close to offering electric puddle jumpers. Today. It's not going to take 22 years to transition.

Re:Nope

By Rei • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

The funny thing is, electric aircraft can regenerate on descent. If for some strange reason you "ran out of power" in the air, yes, you'd have to make an emergency landing, but it would be an emergency powered landing. Unlike the unpowered landing a combustion-powered aircraft landing has to make if it runs out of fuel.

Re:Amazing

By Richard_at_work • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I don't, i think it's wildly optimistic.

The problem with switching an aircraft over to electric power involves a metric which isn't really that much of an issue with cars or boats - weight.

Batteries weigh the same at the start of the flight as they do at the end of the flight - so the aircraft has to carry more weight further.

It also has to land with that extra weight, each and every time.

So the airframe needs to be stronger, which inevitably means more weight.

In airline terms, weight is everything. Boeing and Airbus get to pat themselves on the back when they remove a single metric tonne of weight from an aircraft such as the 787 or A350, so when you take an aircraft such as an ATR-72 and tell it to fly around and land with an extra 1.5 tonnes of weight for it's entire lifespan, it's going to be an issue.

22 years to move to an all electric platform in a 1.5 hour sector goal is a huge ask, imho.

Re: Nope

By ceoyoyo • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

You can probably fly pretty much anywhere in Norway and to the capitals of her neighbours in that amount of time. I live in Canada, which is huge, but most of the traffic is on ~1 hour short haul routes.

Personally, I'd wait until I had a few years experience with electric aircraft in a variety of environments and weather conditions before I decreed liquid fuel to be passe.

2040 is still a ways off.

Fake news?

By Thor • Score: 3, Interesting • Thread
I don't know if this has been mentioned here by someone else, but somethings seems off about this news article. As a Norwegian I couldn't help to wonder where this story originated from, as I have seen nothing about this in norwegian newspapers. Slashdot links to the independent, that refers to an article by NRK on norwaytoday.info. This website does in fact not represent NRK. NRK uses their own NRK.no. The rapport from Avinor predicts that electric aircraft should be available from 2030, not that all Norwegian flight use them from 2040. This seems like a bad job by the journalists in siting sources, or just bad journalism.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai Says He Does Not Regret Firing James Damore

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded today to the firing of employee James Damore over his controversial memo on workplace diversity, stating that while he does not regret the decision, he regrets that people misunderstood it as a politically motivated event. Speaking in a live conversation with journalist and Recode co-founder Kara Swisher, MSNBC host Ari Melber, and YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki in San Francisco, Pichai said that the decision to fire Damore was about ensuring women at Google felt like the company was committed to creating a welcoming environment.

"I regret that people misunderstand that we may have made this for a political belief one way or another," Pichai said. "It's important for the women at Google, and all the people at Google, that we want to make a inclusive environment." When pressed by Swisher on the issue of regret, Pichai stated more definitively, "I don't regret it." Wojcicki, who has spoken publicly about how Damore's memo affected her personally, followed up with, "I think it was the right decision."

Slight update

By NotSoHeavyD3 • Score: 3 • Thread
he regrets that people realized it was a politically motivated event. ---------------- FTFY

Re:Regarding the right to not be offended

By ttsai • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Even if defining culture and etiquette are similar to defining values, there is a world of difference between voicing personal opinions and values and forcing those opinions and values upon financially dependent subordinates. It's that control that renders many normal relationships non-consensual. Sexual relationships and philosophical/religious/political discussions that are fine among friends have such a coercive potential in superior-subordinate relationships that they are legally prohibited in many situations and maybe should be in all such situations. This potentially coercive relationship certainly exists in the employer-employee relationship. Think the way I want you to think or you may be fired, demoted, or otherwise financially penalized. It really is as bad as it sounds.

Re:You can't get an ought from an is.

By Xenographic • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

Damore is talking about a big 5 personality trait with neuroticism, not a mental illness.

The reason for bringing up different preferences and saying they lead to people developing different average skill levels in groups was to find a non-discriminatory way to make Google more woman-friendly, not to write a bunch of sneaky insults. That is, instead of trying to reject more male candidates, they could try to make the job less isolating than sit in a cube for 60+ hours with minimal interaction.

But people were introduced to it as an "anti-diversity screed" which causes an anchoring bias, even though Damore's goal was to present ideas on how to help women be better represented in tech by making the job nicer. Somehow that point continually gets lost and many stories don't even bother to link to Damore's memo.

Re:Epic bullshit

By slashrio • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
Damore didn't leak the memo, so it wasn't him who embarrassed Google.

Re:Regarding the right to not be offended

By rl117 • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Thanks for posting this. I've read through it all and you're absolutely right, it is damning. I hope that they win this case. Even if they don't, it serves to show that the workplace culture of Google is absolutely terrible, and that I'm glad they didn't offer me a job; I didn't get good vibes when I interviewed with them, some of the people were just weird. Why are all these people spending their work time pushing their left-wing progressive ideology in everyone's faces (I deliberately avoid calling it "liberal", because it's anything but). Why have so many places permitted politics and SJWs to become part of work life? Surely we are there to do our jobs, rather than engage in other people's politics? I'm in a similar situation in the place I work. Allowing people to bring politics into the workplace, from co-workers, to direct managers and up, is deeply divisive and unpleasant. It leads to a workplace where one group has free reign to belittle, insult, marginalise and bully people in the other camp, all with the tacit approval of higher-ups. It doesn't make for a friendly environment. It's effectively sanctioned discrimination. As the indictment presents evidence in detail, in Google's case this was with the knowledge or HR and senior management, who turned a blind eye at best, and tacitly and overtly encouraged it at worst. It's bad, and Damore I think has good grounds for the legal proceedings based upon that. Discovery might produce even more.

Security Breaches Don't Affect Stock Price, Study Suggests

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
Computer security professional Bruce Schneier highlights the key findings of a study that suggests security breaches don't affect stock price. The study has been published in the Journal of Information Privacy and Security. From the report: -While the difference in stock price between the sampled breached companies and their peers was negative (1.13%) in the first 3 days following announcement of a breach, by the 14th day the return difference had rebounded to + 0.05%, and on average remained positive through the period assessed.

-For the differences in the breached companies' betas and the beta of their peer sets, the differences in the means of 8 months pre-breach versus post-breach was not meaningful at 90, 180, and 360 day post-breach periods.

-For the differences in the breached companies' beta correlations against the peer indices pre- and post-breach, the difference in the means of the rolling 60 day correlation 8 months pre- breach versus post-breach was not meaningful at 90, 180, and 360 day post-breach periods.

-In regression analysis, use of the number of accessed records, date, data sensitivity, and malicious versus accidental leak as variables failed to yield an R2 greater than 16.15% for response variables of 3, 14, 60, and 90 day return differential, excess beta differential, and rolling beta correlation differential, indicating that the financial impact on breached companies was highly idiosyncratic.

-Based on returns, the most impacted industries at the 3 day post-breach date were U.S. Financial Services, Transportation, and Global Telecom. At the 90 day post-breach date, the three most impacted industries were U.S. Financial Services, U.S. Healthcare, and Global Telecom.

No Responsibility

By mentil • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

That means executives responsible for IT budget aren't financially impacted by their security budgeting decisions. One could make their bonuses affected by security breaches, but then that might just lead to cover-ups of breaches rather than disclosure, particularly if the disclosure laws don't pierce the corporate veil.
I'd like to see how effect on stock price correlates to effect on profitability, particularly years down the road when the associated breach lawsuits play out.

Of course it doesn't.

By Rick Schumann • Score: 3 • Thread
All the people who control the majority of the wealth have it all safely tucked away in offshore accounts that nobody is going to hack into (if not for reasons of technical insufficiency, then for reasons of knowing damned well they'll be found dead within 24 hours if they even try), and they don't give a damn about all of us peasants, the government, or anything else, so of course why should they care?

Trump Signs Surveillance Extension Into Law

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
President Trump took to Twitter this afternoon to announce that he has signed a six-year renewal of a powerful government surveillance tool. "Just signed 702 Bill to authorize foreign intelligence collection," Trump tweeted. "This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election. I will always do the right thing for our country and put the safety of the American people first!" The Hill reports: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which the Senate voted to renew with a few small tweaks this week, allows the U.S. to spy on foreigners overseas. The intelligence community says the program is a critical tool in identifying and disrupting terror plots. But the broader surveillance law, which governs U.S. spying on foreigners, has become politically entangled with the controversy over the federal investigation into Trump's campaign and Russia. Some Republicans have claimed that the FBI inappropriately obtained a politically motivated FISA warrant to spy on Trump during the transition and on Friday, Capitol Hill was consumed with speculation about a four-page memo produced by House Intelligence Committee Republicans that some GOP lawmakers hinted contained evidence of such wrongdoing.

Yeah...

By Lunix Nutcase • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Just signed 702 Bill to authorize foreign intelligence collection," Trump tweeted. "This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election.

Are people really dumb enough to believe this? It’s just as bad as it ever was and still allows warrantless surveillance with pretty much non-existent oversight.

Re:Yeah...

By alvinrod • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Probably not, but I think a lot of people are just numb to it by now, and to be honest there's no chance that Clinton wouldn't have extended this either so we were getting this shit sandwich regardless of who was elected.

Re:Yeah...

By slew • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Just signed 702 Bill to authorize foreign intelligence collection," Trump tweeted. "This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election.

Are people really dumb enough to believe this? It’s just as bad as it ever was and still allows warrantless surveillance with pretty much non-existent oversight.

Of course it isn't the same. It may be not quite as bad, though according to this summary... But if you are against warrant-less intelligence collection in general, well, it's nothing new in that area, so from that point of view, it is basically the same.

Facebook Will Now Ask Users To Rank News Organizations They Trust

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Facebook is doing a very un-Facebooky thing: It's going to start declaring that some news sources you see in your Facebook feed are better than others, and act accordingly. But Facebook being Facebook, it's going about it in the most Facebooky way possible: It's going to rely on users -- not the super-smart people who work at Facebook -- to figure out which of those sources are better. Mark Zuckerberg says the move is part of an effort to prioritize "news that is trustworthy, informative, and local," within the network and suggests that there will be more announcements to come. The one he describes today will prioritize what kind of news sources pop up in your Facebook News Feed, and will reward ones that Facebook thinks are "broadly trusted," based on user polls, so it can "build a sense of common ground." Facebook is also using today's news to refine last week's roll-out: Zuckerberg says the previously announced changes will reduce the amount of news stories people see in their feed to 4 percent, down from 5 percent.

Re:Easy. I'll use all my logins

By ShanghaiBill • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there.

Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.

Very bad idea

By DaMattster • Score: 3 • Thread
Many people out there don't use the space between their ears for an by kind of critical thinking. So they're apt to believe anything they read and rank something that is blatantly false as trusted ... The old I read it on the internet so it must be true syndrome.

Democracy is the new system for fact selection

By OrangeTide • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

We now can select our facts by majority opinion.

Next we can take down science as it is a social construct with a bias toward western culture and straight white men specifically. We instead can have a plurality of accepted "facts" and have equally valid viewpoints that we label as science. Instead of logical arguments, a western concept that reeks of colonialism, we can operate based on consensus building and equal time for all sides. Democratic science and culturally sensitive "facts".

Total bullshit of course, and perhaps an early signal that society is descending into madness.

Re:Easy. I'll use all my logins

By aliquis • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.

Everyone else does it and we're even forced to it. We're not allowed in the other medias so .. what's the obvious and only solution?

It's so fucking sad, mental and hillariously non-hillariously destructive that the freedom-hating socialists get away with making claims like "we need to start treating each other with respect!" as an answer to arguments with a harsh tone (note: It's not a counter-argument) after having called us racists and nazis for decades. Yeah.. About that: No. They should be called socialist-bastards, freedom-haters, communists, all of it the whole time and in a negative fashion and easily fend of just because their anti-individual enforced collectivism ideas isn't acceptable whatsoever.

It's just another way of trying to shut people up. Like always. And then they will be like "our opinion is that of the majority, haven't you noticed? You don't see or hear any other now do you?!" - as if.

Re:The Daily Show

By scatbomb • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
... that's pretty sad. Also, there's wonderfully circular about Facebook's proposal.

1. Users read news on network A

2. Users use information they read on network A to decide which network is "trustworthy" (network A of course)

3. Network A becomes "trustworthy"

What could possibly go wrong?

Linking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Boing Boing and EFF Tell Court

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader shares a report: The popular blog Boing Boing has asked a federal court in California to drop the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against it by Playboy. With help from the EFF, Boing Boing argues that its article linking to an archive of hundreds of centerfold playmates is clearly fair use. Or else it will be "the end of the web as we know it," the blog warns. Late last year Playboy sued the popular blog Boing Boing for publishing an article that linked to an archive of every playmate centerfold till then. "Kind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time," Boing Boing's Xena Jardin commented. Playboy, instead, was amazed that infringing copies of their work were being shared in public. While Boing Boing didn't upload or store the images in question, the publisher took the case to court.

What is a number?

By El Cubano • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

The summary got me thinking about "what is a number?" I have heard that argument that you should not be able to patent software because that would be equivalent to patenting a mathematical formula. An image, or song, or any other digital representation of anything, though, is just a number. Can I copyright a number? What about the number 7? The number 5,725,783,997,523? What about 2^4357393-1?

If I can't copyright any of those numbers, then why/how can an author copyright an electronic composition, or how can a musician copyright a digital recording of his or her work, or how can a photographer or artist copyright a digital image? Can a movie studio copyright their CSS decryption key so that they can issue takedown requests under the DMCA? Can I only copyright a number if it is sufficiently large and unique? Can the most recently discovered Mersenne prime be copyrighted?

I am not trying to be obtuse. I am genuinely interested in how people think about this rather complex and interesting issue.

Linking should never be considered infringement

By Jody Bruchon • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
To use an analogy (those always work well, ha) there's a huge difference between saying "this is how pipe bombs are constructed" and "we encourage you to use pipe bombs on people" but linking isn't even that; linking is "here is where you can find a page that tells you how pipe bombs are constructed." To put it another way, it's the difference between giving someone a drug dealer's number and actually dealing drugs. It is insane to consider linking "copyright infringement" especially since the place linked to is completely out of control of the linking party. This song and dance has been played out before.

Re:If only Google would act for the good

By Jody Bruchon • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
They have done this before and it was quite successful...and quite humiliating for the people that tried to put Google into a bent-over position. It's a classic case of someone's hubris blinding them to reality; they need Google a LOT more than Google needs them.

Re: I'm torn on this issue

By hackwrench • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
Show us on the doll where Boing Boing hurt you.

Re:What is a number?

By Jody Bruchon • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
It is not the numbers themselves, but the arrangement of those numbers that is copyrighted. The same logic applies to a book (or even your essay on how you discovered that un-copyrightable Mersenne prime). The components of the book (words, letters, symbols) are not copyrightable but the specific arrangement of thousands of those words into a book certainly are. Words, symbols, numbers, a graph of a mathematical function are all trivial and cannot be copyrighted, but putting all of those together in a particular manner creates something far more unique and meaningful than the individual bits.

If you want to extend your analogy to its logical conclusion, ALL things are made up of atoms and all of those are made of subatomic particles, none of which can be copyrighted, so by your proposed standard literally nothing can ever be copyrighted because all things are made up of subatomic particles.

I hope that was helpful.

Top Bug Hunters Make 2.7 Times More Money Than an Average Software Engineer

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader shares a report: A survey of 1,700 bug bounty hunters registered on the HackerOne platform reveals that top white-hat hackers make on average 2.7 times more money than the average salary of a software engineer in the same country. The reported numbers are different for each country and may depend on a bug bunter's ability to find bugs, but the survey's results highlight the rising popularity of bug hunting as a sustainable profession, especially in less developed countries, where it can help talented programmers live a financially care-free life. According to HackerOne's report, it pays to be a vulnerability researcher in India, where top bug hunters can make 16 times more compared to the average salary of a software engineer. Other countries where bug hunting can assure someone a comfortable living are Argentina (x15.6), Egypt (x8.1), Hong Kong (x7.6), the Philippines (x5.4), and Latvia (x5.2).

How much do the Top Engineers make?

By jellomizer • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I mean this is an Apples vs Oranges comparison there.
You can take the top of nearly any (professional) profession and compare it to the average of others and you see that the best of the best makes more then the average guy does.

Another stupid comparison article

By ilsaloving • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

So the top bug hunters make more than the average software engineer? Well slap my ass and call me a cantaloupe!

What about top software engineers compared to average software engineers? What about A-list celebrities vs stuntmen?

I know! How about we compare the top strawmen vs average strawmen?

To everyone complaining about the comparison...

By king neckbeard • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
To everyone complaining about the comparison between the top of bug hunters and the average software engineer, you are clearly missing the point. They aren't trying to present a meaningful comparison of two fields, they are trying to paint a statistically inaccurate picture of luxury in order to flood the market and drive average wages down. C'mon, is this everybody's first day on /. or something?

Some stats.

By 140Mandak262Jamuna • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
58% of bug bounty hackers are self-taught.

37% of white-hat hackers say they hack as a hobby in their spare time (not their primary job).

About 12% of hackers on HackerOne make $20,000 or more annually from bug bounties.

Over 3% o bug hunters are making more than $100,000 per year.

1.1% are making over $350,000 annually.

13.7% say bounties earned represent 90-100% of their annual income.

India (23%) and the United States (20%) are the top two countries represented on the HackerOne platform, followed by Russia (6%), Pakistan (4%), and the United Kingdom (4%).

Nearly 1 in 4 hackers have not reported a vulnerability that they found because the company didn’t have a channel to disclose it.

US companies have paid over $15 million to bug hunters via HackerOne in 2017.

US bug hunters racked over $4.1 million in bug rewards, while Indian white-hat hackers earned over $3 million.

"Websites" was the overwhelming winner to the question of "What is Your Favorite Kind of Platform or Product to Hack?" with a 70.8% score.

"Money" was not the primary motivation for getting into bug hunting. It ranked only fourth.

XSS was the favorite vulnerability white-hat hackers liked to search for.

(Clipped out some slashvertisement pitching something called burp suite. )

my career plan was to be an average developer

By j2.718ff • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

I was planning to be an average developer, but I guess I'll become one of the best bug hunters instead. Because as an average software engineer, I assume that I'd be way better than average at finding bugs than someone who's already made that their career.

Tim Cook: 'I Don't Want My Nephew on a Social Network'

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
Tim Cook, speaking at Harlow college in Essex, shared his views on the limits on technology and social media he feels should be imposed on kids. He said: "I don't believe in overuse [of technology]. I'm not a person that says we've achieved success if you're using it all the time," he said. "I don't subscribe to that at all." Even in computer-aided courses, such as graphic design, technology should not dominate, he said. "There are are still concepts that you want to talk about and understand. In a course on literature, do I think you should use technology a lot? Probably not." The 57-year old chief executive, who took the reins at Apple after the death of Steve Jobs in 2011, said the company cared deeply about children outside the classroom. "I don't have a kid, but I have a nephew that I put some boundaries on. There are some things that I won't allow; I don't want them on a social network."

Re:narcissism

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

"I don't subscribe to that at all.", the 57-year old chief executive, who took the reins at Apple after the death of Steve Jobs in 2011, said. "But what I do subscribe to is Apple Music. 40 million songs. Zero ads. And at $14.99 / month for the family plan, that nephew I made up can jam out or whatever kids do too."

Re:narcissism

By Rhacman • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
Maybe it's like how Dale Gribble lets John Redcorn teach his son Joseph about Native American stuff. John Redcorn has expertise in that area and Dale can respect that.

Re:narcissism

By jellomizer • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Because it makes sense to suck up to rich Uncle Tim who doesn't have a next of kin.

Re:This is worrisome

By ilsaloving • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

While you are technically correct, the problem is that these social networks are used overwhelmingly for socially negative reasons.

It was supposed to be used for people to be able to connect and discuss. Instead it's used for profiting, large-scale social manipulation, and even outright hate. SM has taken the natural human fear of "being left out", and abused it to such an incredible extent that people en masse are getting burned out and simply walking away.

There are lots of ways to accomplish what social media was supposed to do, but without being forced to expose yourself to all the negative aspects.

I personally have given up on facebook, twitter, and well, pretty much all of them. It's just too much. I'm much less up to date with how my friends are doing, which is unfortunately, but I also feel a heck of a lot less overwhelmed by the world too.

For similar reasons I've also stopped watching and reading news. It's very rarely relevant to me. If there wasn't a local incident, they'll fill up the time with remote incidents instead, so that you are constantly bombarded by a steady stream of "look how utterly shitty the world is".

Being bombarded by negativity from all directions *will* take it's toll on you, even if it doesn't seem like it at first.

Weird relation for bosing, but hey...

By poofmeisterp • Score: 3 • Thread

..thoughts are thoughts. I don't want to see bad things come to people, either, but I don't know what's good or bad for them; I know only from my perspective.

Here's why I'm bothering to post a comment...

My girlfriend has severe social anxiety (so do I, so pot-kettle). Anyhow, I gave up Facebook years ago because I noticed how people that were former high school friends (good friends) would come back into town from a far-away place they now live. In the case of the one I'm thinking about, they fly all over the world rather randomly because of their career, so visits back "home" aren't frequent. When they would come back into town to visit parents/holiday/etc, they would post about how much they would love to hang with me and catch up on stuff (and can't wait to do it!) I would wonder, then, why that person would be leaving town because vacation time was over, and they didn't bother to make an effort to see me for even 5 minutes. I would look on Facebook and see this long stream of posts about their drinking and hanging with hot girls (pictures included of the drunken embraces and "fun").

Repeat this, like, around 10 times (vacations where they were back in town and expressed great interest in hanging with me, same outcome). I got the picture (no pun intended at all). I noticed that others were maybe interested in seeing me or talking with me, but it was mostly posts about their horrible days at work, stupid prices on things, random thoughts about their relationship that swayed from great to horrible to great to horrible to, cross-links to "funny" things or "statements that warrant a movement"... yeah. I got to seeing before long that I was basically looking at peoples' personal self-imagery they wished to express to the world. Others were calling for sympathy, etc. None of them wanted to leave the screen or phone they were posting from, though, unless it was getting them something to immediately satisfy their wants.

After a while, I deleted the Facebook account and don't miss it in the slightest.

Back to girlfriend. She is socially anxious and doesn't like being in crowds of people. Also doesn't like trying to join in on conversations where she hasn't quite heard 80% of it, so there's not much to say to get involved. She doesn't get welcomed in for conversations because she's not a drama enthusiast (playing into others' drama). However, she is a socially-minded person and wants to be part of groups or admired. She also expresses admiration toward others on Facebook to feel indirectly reverse-rewarded. Here's the kicker; we don't really do much. She spends most of her time off of work on Facebook, scrolling through posts and laughing at the simplest humor that a 5th grader laughs at, and having eyes glaze over as she's looking at others having "fun". This "fun", of course isn't anything but public-facing imagery, but she's living vicariously through these people and mentally becoming part of their lives and activities because she gets to see their forward-facing info and pictures. A friend posting a 100,000th-removed forward/cross post of something that's scary or "bad for you" becomes a huge deal like it's the one person them self warning her of these things and she needs to research them and try to alter her lifestyle to shape around the thing that's ultimately nothing but someone's boredom post of randomly collected information compiled into some big warning or statement about how bad things are *gasp for air*.

I look at myself not giving a damn about other peoples' Facebook lives, but really caring about them when I see them face-to-face or have nice conversations on the phone with them. The conversations we have don't even touch on the crap that's posted on their Facebook account. It's almost like two different people, or like I'm talking to the debugging code or the work going into the code; Facebook gets to see the constantly-changing alpha releases, respectively.

I love life without Facebook. What I don't like is seeing people so caught up in it that they don't know what to do with their life (or their day) if the 'net isn't accessible, or their device(s) die.

I can only sort of agree with the article's subject matter in a way that has some empathy, but draw a line between it and my actions. What I mean is that I don't want to see my nephew growing up attached to a handheld device, neck forming bent forward, and unable to function for 5 minutes without a severe (what we used to call) ADD episode of not being able to follow reality in front of them, but looking for the source of the "reality" they want to receive. I guess I like reality and discussing, versus seeing a bent and customized version of reality's description and depiction "tailored for me" in a way that I just can't pull away from it because it's so damned "ever-encompassing" and "satisfying of my curiousness".

I like to go outside without a phone and look at life.....and, you know, live it without "help" or interference.

Buying Headphones in 2018 is Going To Be a Fragmented Mess

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
Vlad Savov, writing for The Verge: At CES this year, I saw the future of headphones, and it was messy. Where we once had the solid reliability of a 3.5mm analog connector working with any jack shaped to receive it, there's now a divergence of digital alternatives -- Lightning or USB-C, depending on your choice of jack-less phone -- and a bunch of wireless codecs and standards to keep track of. Oh, and Sony's working hard on promoting a new 4.4mm Pentaconn connector as the next wired standard for dedicated audio lovers. It's all with the intent of making things better, but before we get to the better place, we're going to spend an uncomfortable few months (or longer) in a fragmented market where you'll have to do diligent research to make sure your next pair of headphones works with all the devices you already own.

Re:Don't buy...

By Shotgun • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

I can buy a great sounding pair of headphones for ~$20 with a 3.5mm jack

Which is why they're being pushed out by the big players. Bose can't charge $1,000 for a decent set of ear buds, so they have no incentive to make them. The market has been sufficiently covered by Chinese manufacturing. The only answer is to make something proprietary that you can charge ridiculous dollars to license.

Re:Five headphone connectors

By b0s0z0ku • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
The public cares more about what advertisers tell them is cool than what's functional. Otherwise, we'd all be driving Volvo 240s :)

grrr. audio snobs ...

By swell • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

My brother is an audiophile. I can't imagine he'll ever use Bluetooth headphones. But I, OTOH, can accept reasonable sound quality. Bluetooth works with all my devices effortlessly and the quality of sound is better than any of the speakers on those devices.

Most nights I'll watch a TV show or movie with my headphones, especially if they are from the UK in accents that I struggle to understand- they are much more clear on the 'phones. When I'm on a bus or train or waiting for someone at the county jail, the BT 'phones are a blessing, giving me quality content while filtering external noise. The obvious headphones discourage people from trying to talk to me too. Perhaps the biggest blessing is NO WIRES pulling and getting tangled everywhere. And I'm not an audio snob who has to hear the latest pop music with super high quality electrostatic headphones. So brother- take your ancient 3.5mm jack and shove it!

No it wont.

By Qbertino • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

The inventor of modern headphones still is quite conservative about their lineup and they still build some of the best in the industy. If you only look for expensive fidgety mainstream junk, you're in for trouble. Don't.

For best cost/performance ratio I recommend the Custom 1 Pro +. ... Yeah, admitted, that name does suck. Then again they are genuises at headphones and a little low profile on marketing - who cares? And, yes, it's a regular headphone with a nice and neat 3.5mm jack, as it should be. Made in Germany, btw., not some chinese sweatshop. If that should mean something to you.

You're welcome.

Re:Five headphone connectors

By Pascal Sartoretti • Score: 4 • Thread

Old stereo equipment back to the early 1980's had this jack.

Mmmmh, no. In the 1980's, stereo equipment had a 6.35 mm jack connector, as had my Revox headphones. During the transition to the new 3.5 mm jack, we had to use dongles. Just like an recent iPhone needs a lightning dongle for the audio jack.

The problem today is not that a new standard is coming, but that I can't figure yet what is the safe choice for the next 5-10 years. Until then, I will stick to the 3.5 mm jack and dongles.