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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Galaxy Alpha - We Hardly Knew Ye (Score 1) 47

by Beat The Odds (#48690851) Attached to: Samsung To Discontinue Galaxy Alpha For Cheaper Galaxy A5

The Alpha only recently became available in the US, and it certainly had my eye, being not phablet sized but still a "flagship" class phone and very well built. I'd have been happy to pay the price, but I passed, for one simple reason:


No thanks Samsung. Not having it. Your TouchWiz crapped up A5 can sod off as well.

You don't have to get your undies in a bunch.

There are plenty of launchers that you can use instead of TouchWiz. I Use Nova Launcher Pro on my S4.

Comment: Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists (Score 1) 184

by Beat The Odds (#48581469) Attached to: Are the TSA's New Electronic Device Screenings Necessary?

i have a postage sized mp3 player from china with a tf/sd card slot it boots up shows a menued screen and plays mp3s. a fake phone that has a plastic explosive bomb could easily use a 'fake' power on screen with menu and the menus would be browsable and possibly functional and also be a bomb.

so no this doesn't make airplanes safer.

It's just a little suspicious that your phone looks like this: http://midlifecrisishawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/motorola-first_cell_phone.jpg

Comment: Re:Bogus argument (Score 1) 311

by Beat The Odds (#44065207) Attached to: Are You Sure This Is the Source Code?

"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.

Uh, you must not have worked in a shop that does continuous integration automated builds? Do you really think QA should be handed binaries that you compile and have them trust them?

The problem is that GCC will always give you a different binary every time you compile from the same source. This makes it impossible that the binary you received comes from the source you claim to have used. You can get around this by never receiving binaries from anywhere but the automated build machine but it would still be useful to be able to test that a build that you received was built from the code you expect.

There were several reasons why Apple moved away from the GCC tool chain to LLVM and Clang but one of the abilities of the LLVM stack is that you can actually get identical binaries from the same source compiled on different machines at different times.

You confused my post and gotten it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. But thanks for playing....

The point that I was making is that source code does not always build "exact binaries". Now if someone is giving you both a binary and the source code and claiming that the source produced the binary, there is really no way to prove that one way or another. But at least you know that you can build a binary from the source code and know what is in THAT binary.

Live free or die.