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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:say wha? (Score 4, Insightful) 68

"English translation: as usual, Flash is useless except as a vector for malware, viruses, trojans and keyloggers. Remove Flash from your system."

That's actually not quite true. Flash is a great way to develop simple games quickly and cheaply.

The problem isnt Flash itself (which is on the whole a fine product, used correctly) but the idea of using Flash as a substitute for a webpage, the installation of it as a browser plugin, and the auto-execution of it by the browser. None of that should be tolerated.

It's still possible to get a standalone flash interpreter and only feed it local, vetted files, which is really fine (or as close to fine as lots of other things you do every day, at least.)  But Adobe seems to be trying their best to discourage that and force everyone to use it as an auto-enabled browser component instead. The one way to use the program that causes major problems is also the one way they want you to use it.

Everyone who has been infected as a result of this should really get together and sue these arseholes, because money is the only language they understand.

Comment Re:haven't we learned from the last 25 exploits? (Score 5, Insightful) 68

Excellent advice.

Expect to be flamed into oblivion by all the 'web devs' that cant be bothered to learn how HTML works and rely on this crap instead, though.

The web - the real web, the HTML web, appears to be shrinking at the moment. New content is often hidden behind some kind of opaque app crap for no apparent reason and with no actual webpage for fallback (thanks google!) and old content occasionally gets removed as well. Each time this happens, it makes it even harder and less likely to revive the healthy web we once built with such love and care.

And naturally the people that are making a profit on this crap will just keep right on cranking it out as long as that is true.

The real victims here are future generations, who should inherit that world-wide web, but are set to inherit something entirely different - and inferior in every way (when judged from the users perspective - from the perspective of big Advertising of course the story will be different, but we built this web for humans, not for marketing.)

Comment Re:I doubt the dna stuff will come true (Score 1) 353

"The real problem we are having is not the loss of privacy per se, it's the abuse of private information. Most people are fine letting Onstar know their current location. We are not fine with Onstar telling anyone that information - not the police, not our wife, not our boss. "

It sounds more like the real problem is that people are so stupid they do not realize that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If Onstar has the information, others will be able to obtain it, whether by hook or crook.

If you want your privacy you must defend it consistently, not only when it is convenient and inexpensive to do so.

Comment Re:Christmas is coming early this year (Score 1) 702

That's an interesting insight. I suppose the logic is that you don't want to plug it into the wall to prove it's a working device, because OMG that might utilize the higher current to set off a bomb. (I see no reason why internal batteries couldn't do the same job, with a lot more control at that, but, TSA logic.)

I wonder how they'd respond to my laptop, which is old enough that the battery is entirely dead, and it's not worth spending $150 to replace a battery in a laptop now worth about $50. It works fine when plugged into the wall, and not at all otherwise. (When I do drag it around, I also take an extension cord.)

Comment Re:How do you defeat dogs? (Score 1) 415

And it would only take once for a bright dog to connect "scent of activated charcoal" with "target". They DO make that sort of association.

As to the various things hunters attempt to disguise their scent, I'm too lazy to look for it right now but I recall seeing a study on the effectiveness of scent-disguising potions and amulets, and the conclusion was that they accomplish about the same as any magical potion or amulet.

See also above where I talk about distinguishing one scent from many, as dogs do all the time anyway.

Comment Re:How do you defeat dogs? (Score 1) 415

The fallacy is that the smell of dirty diapers will overwhelm and disguise the scent of the target. The truth is that dogs with good noses (which not all have) are quite capable of sorting out different scents from a multitude (in fact they do this every time they follow ANY scent, since almost everything in the world HAS a scent), and merely covering up the target scent is usually insufficient. Also, they can detect a mere handful of molecules, what any object might naturally ablate. Furthermore, experienced dogs learn that if you lose one scent, you follow an associated scent, in this case the foot track or bodyscent track of the person who hid the bagged target.

I used to live where some prior resident had thrown beer cans around the front yard, but across the years two feet of dirt had blown in over 'em (very fine dirt, very densely packed). I was mystified by the deep narrow holes my dogs were digging, til I realised the goal was an aluminum can, two feet down, which the dogs evidently scented and targeted. (Dogs tend to home in on galvanic reactions and electronics in general, even without training. This is why keyfobs are a fave chewtarget.)

[Pro dog trainer here]

Comment Re:Amazoing (Score 1) 415

And even if dogs could make explicit statements, dogs are like children in that they want to please -- and that includes telling you what you want to hear. If there's more reward for telling you "drugs and disks in that box" than for finding nothing, you betcha the dog will alert, every single time. Dogs can and do "lie".

[I am a pro dog trainer. That detection dogs commonly produce bogus results a la "Clever Hans" is pretty obvious to me... but evidently not to the people training detection dogs. But it does explain why perhaps the most sought-after detection training prospect is the retriever fieldtrial washout, who has already been extensively taught to take direction.]

Comment Re:you need to be on the jury (Score 1) 415

Speaking as a professional dog trainer, this does not surprise me in the least. Nearly all "go achieve that goal for me" training is basically cue-taking, whether the object is to find drugs or to find a shot bird in the field. Drug detection is fundamentally the same as a very short range blind retrieve (a retrieve where the dog is directed to an unseen bird). If I "lie" to the dog and send him for a bird that doesn't exist, he'll still go hunt for it, and so long as he's at least occasionally rewarded for the hunt, he'll continue to perform it. Dogs are optimists.

Comment Re:Got To Be A Ritual (Score 1) 63

"You're a bit too literal."

And you are a bit too soft-headed, at least on this issue.

"Noise pollution," "heat pollution," and "light pollution" also involve an excess of something that naturally occurs in the environment.

And all three are BS terms. Marketing terms, where they verbally associate item X with item Y even though it does not belong, simply because they believe it will provoke the emotional response they want. THIS is real pollution - of the language. This fits in the same bucket with the 'wars' on 'drugs' and 'terror'- it's language being used to prevent, not to facilitate, accurate thinking and accurate communication.

This is where effective manipulation of the population starts, and this is where it needs to be rejected.

Excessive noise, excessive heat, and excessive light are perfectly accurate terms. The 'pollution' variants are inaccurate, marketing terms, chosen to provoke an emotional response in a desired direction. Lies, to speak plainly.

"So it's a bit naïve to claim that just because something naturally occurs in the environment, an excess won't be bad for society (and shouldn't be controlled)."

It would be, except I made no such claim. Go back, re-read my post, as many times as you want. It simply does not say that.

This is how bad you (and it's not to pick on you personally, this is a general pattern today) have had your own head loused up at this point with marketing-inspired BS that you automatically read that claim into what I said, and responded to it, even though I did NOT say it and did not even imply it in any way.

I simply pointed out that CO2 is not a pollutant. And then moved on to my main point. And both the replies I get ignore the main point entirely and respond, not to what I actually wrote, but to some sort of pre-programmed straw-man image of what I *must* believe, no matter that it is completely inaccurate.

Comment Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation (Score -1) 110

"First, what gives with the goofy webpages that try to scroll like pages of a book?"

It's not really a webpage. 'Designers' have never liked the web and love to break it - this is the result. 884 lines of idiocy, full of 'favicons' and malicious attempts to direct my browser to Facebook! of all things, but no actual webpage, not even a fallback apology when viewed with a sane browser, nothing but a title and a blank page.

But to answer your question, what gives? Cranial rectosis. It's an epidemic, and obviously it's hitting google pretty hard right now too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...