Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:As it should be (Score 1) 234

"Sacrificing upload to gain extra download makes perfect sense when the person at the end of the line does far more downloading than uploading"

Two false postulates concealed here.

First that upload and download can be totally separated. Common misunderstanding. The way the internet works, all traffic is bidirectional - even if you are coming as close as possible to 'pure downloading' you are still using your upstream for traffic management. So while a certain amount of asymetricality can be tolerated, as long as the usage cases are very narrowly limited, even with all those caveats it can still amount to fraud. At least, if you are paying for 100mbit download but given so little upload allowance that you could not use it, you would probably call it fraud (when and if you caught on.)

But that is relatively minor in comparison to the second, which is that the internet is designed and should be used as a peer to peer network. It is not a broadcast network, and it was not designed to replace TV or facilitate more intrusive advertising. Asymmetrical bandwidth caps are thus seen correctly as direct attacks on the Internet itself - attempts to limit customers, to prevent them from truly and fully joining the Internet, since the cable companies prefer to keep making their monopoly rents instead of having to compete for our dollars.

Comment Re:As it should be (Score 1) 234

"When you're talking DSL or Cable, it's a different ballgame, due to the frequencies in use."

Uh, no it's not.

The frequencies in use? What kind of BS is that?

The frequencies in use do not care which direction the traffic is going in. I suppose I just hallucinated having SDSL for years?

Comment Re:Angler PC malware? (Score 0) 122

"You are trying to say that users needing to type chmod +x ./latest_flash_player_youtube.sh , is sufficient protection to prevent end users from running things they shouldn't.... "

I did not actually say that, but it is probably true. Most users are either a) smart enough to realize they do not actually want to do this or b) not actually capable of pulling it off without help (hopefully, from someone who belongs in category a).)

However that is NOT what I was saying. The exploits we are discussing rely on Win32 executables, NOT SHell scripts. Even if the user manages to slide in between case a) and b) somehow, setting an executable bit on a win32 application will not magically make it work on *nix. You would need to also install WINE and do some intricate configuration magic with it before this would work.

"Ransomware is not prevalent in Linux, but again, it is absurdly naive to think that it couldn't"

Notice I explicitly agreed with you that it could be done.

"Again, end user education is key, regardless of OS. Implying to under-informed users that OSX is magically secure against cryptoware, is a recipe for disaster."

Yes and no. Certainly end-user education is key, regardless of OS. And certainly it's true that no OS is magically secure against malware. And I think it's correct to say that the OS does nothing to prevent it. But that's looking at it backwards.

What OSX, and *nix systems in general, should get credit for is not that they *do something to prevent infection* but that they do *less to facilitate infection*.

Of course, the same things that make Windows an extraordinarily easy target for malware also makes it an extraordinarily easy target for more legitimate programming as well.

And that, ultimately, is why it was designed that way. Developers, developers, developers! Windows is ultra-friendly to developers, it goes out of its way to make life easy for them, and guess what? A subset of those developers make malware. And the same things that makes Windows easy for one set of developers makes it easy for the other.

OSX actually deserves some kudos because it *does* make development a little harder here and there, for the benefit of the user. And while saying OSX is 'virus-immune' would be clear BS, saying that it's an effective way for a technically challenged computer user to dramatically reduce their risk of being infected is actually true.

Linux can be deployed to even better effect on the security front, of course, though I would not recommend it for the technically-challenged unless said user has a friend or family member to help with setup and ssh in occasionally to administer it.

Comment Re:Angler PC malware? (Score 1, Informative) 122

"It is good to be proud of your operating system of choice, but it is smug to think that Linux/OSX/BSD/Solaris will do anything technical to protect from such an attack."

Well unless you have configured your *nix box to automatically privilege and run windows executables somehow, using a real OS is probably sufficient to stop this attack.

Is it conceivable that a very similar attack could be written specifically for your OS of choice and do the same job? Yes, it's conceivable, that's right. But it's not in evidence.

More generally, regardless of OS, this attack wont even trigger if your browser is configured sanely. The exploit kits and injectors all rely heavily on javascript. Make sure it is disabled and you have not only defeated this exploit before it even got started, along with all the others, but you have also taken a positive step towards making the web readable again!

Comment Better things to do with these invoices (Score 1) 113

"I've also had the snail mailed fake invoices from them, which I can only suppose is an illegal use of the whois database. I guess their strategy is to land these on the desks of overworked administrators who are more likely than me to rubber stamp them and pass them along for payment. Me? I always put them in the shredder."

You are too kind.

At the very least you should return to sender.

But much better! Take it to your local postmaster general. Report it as mail fraud.

Comment Re:Local testing works? (Score 0) 778

"Gotta love libertarian logically fallacious reasoning. Calling something a name constitutes an argument, apparently."

Projection. Unlike you, I made an argument. Which you carefully inch around without facing.

"Quality of life is not an entitlement and is only possible through joint investment from every member of society."

First bit of sense you've posted, though I am sure you will misinterpret it and make more nonsense out of it given time.

"Why do Americans continually ignore the examples of Scandinavian and German public education"

Who does that?

You do that.

I actually lived in Scandinavia and noted with approval that the school system in the country where I was at is nearly exactly what Libertarians have been proposing in this country for many decades.

As to Germany? The Prussian model is where US schools started. Even the Germans have moved on and improved, while the US sticks doggedly to Fichtes baby.

Really, you should educate yourself before you spout off. You're embarrassing yourself, or at least you would be if you were capable of shame.

Comment Re:Local testing works? (Score 0) 778

"Which is what we call TAXES."

No, they are different things entirely.

Here's the test - can you decline to pay the fee, and therefore to use the service? No? It's a tax.

"Libertarians that oppose the notion of a fair minimum wage is using slavery."

Total BS, typical socialist mind-rot. "Fair" and "minimum wage' do not fit together, first off. What is fair can only be determined by consensual transactions arrived at in a competitive environment. Minimum wage laws outlaw consensual transactions with the goal of preventing a competitive environment. They are opposites, they do not go together.

"And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system."

More nonsense. Education is critically important, yes, which is exactly why we need a competitive market for it, rather than a monopoly state-run Prussian school system. We want to pay for the former, and quit wasting money on the latter.

Comment Re:completely subjective (Score 2) 100

"Money certainly has no intrinsic value in nature."

Money does not exist, as such, in nature. It's a characteristic human adaption - a symbolic medium of exchange allows sharing of information resulting in more efficient economic decisions. It's no exageration to say that it is foundational to civilization, at least as important as the mastery of fire or the wheel.

Comment Re:Pairing? (Score 1, Insightful) 236

"Too bad the PowerPC machines *couldn't run the damn games* or the requisite MS Office suites for students and business people to use them."

Too bad people insist on relying on brittle opaque binaries instead of real software. Real software can be ported and recompiled, allowing its users to migrate freely between architectures - from MIPS to Alpha to PPC to x86, for example - quite freely.

Comment Re:Which alternative exists? (Score 0) 34

Can you really have so much trouble understanding the difference between WEALTH and INCOME?

Let's try a water analogy. One lake has 10million gallons of water in storage, and at the moment has no water flowing into it at all. The other is essentially dry, with a mere 500 gallons available. It is receiving water at a rate of 500 gallons/hour, however it is currently releasing 498 gallons/hour to satisfy downstream obligations.

Which of these two lakes controls more water?

Comment Re:Which alternative exists? (Score 0) 34

"The platforms that I see Ron Paul preach about the most often all share the common connection of reducing the tax burden of the top earners"

Yes, EARNERS. People that work for their money. They should get to keep more of it. THAT is something libertarians both left and right agree on.

What you claimed was "The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money."

These two things are not the same thing. Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

The people with the most money are the ones that have effective control of; first and foremost, the Federal Reserve, the large banks, and the companies that receive the bulk of our 'defense' and 'law enforcement' budgets. They may or may not have high income - one does not need income when one controls capital.

What you are doing is conflating the guy that's out there working his tail off to be the best in his field, draw a salary proportionate, and desperately hoping to retire in time to enjoy raising a family; with the guy that can and does buy and sell Senators and has never had to work for a living.

The other side of Pauls platform is about reducing the power of the Fed, reducing the power up for grabs to regulatory capture, reducing the resources devoted to corporate welfare. That's how you actually do something about the people that have it all.

Punitive taxation on incomes is easy for them to evade, and only hurts the innocent.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...