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:Consumers win (Score 1) 191

by BitZtream (#49150787) Attached to: Lenovo Saying Goodbye To Bloatware

Have you tried to get a Windows machine without Windows Media Player?

Whats that? No?

Can you just delete iTunes, which is not integrated with the system and removing it from the system is just a simple matter of deleting the application?

You're seriously trying to compare iTunes to the bullshit that comes on any given Windows machine? That makes you look really really ignorant and/or stupid.

Comment: Re:Consumers win (Score 1) 191

by BitZtream (#49150769) Attached to: Lenovo Saying Goodbye To Bloatware

If you weren't so cheap, you could have been buying computers not covered in crap for years. Apple has never sold computers with crap like that on it.

The problem is, you want to pay $100 for a $2000 device and ignore the consequences.

Lenovo hasn't actually done this yet, and when they do, they won't be the first.

Comment: Ignorant premise, living in2 timezones is hard (Score 1) 128

by BitZtream (#49148927) Attached to: Adjusting To a Martian Day More Difficult Than Expected

when you're trying to pretend you're in both places at the same time.

Your trying to say its hard to adjust to the Martian day ... while still living on Earth and being adjusted to the Earth day.

Thats fucking retarded to say the least. 40 minutes isn't that big of an issue any more than changing a SINGLE timezone is ... when you aren't still trying to stay on the old schedule as well.

Rover drivers have the problem of living on Earth, working on Mars ... THATs the problem, not the actual extra 40 minutes.

Comment: Re:Legitimate use for 3D printing (Score 1) 54

by BitZtream (#49147905) Attached to: Researchers Create World's First 3D-Printed Jet Engines

compromised somewhat by the existing manufacturing technologies available.

Yea, like strength of materials ... guess what you're not getting out of something 3d printed ...

This is a stupid place to use 3d printing.

Its fine research for other things, but turbines aren't so low a volume that it makes sense to print them. They are pretty trivial to make using traditional methods and are easy to make reliable using traditional methods. It is FAR easier to make a safe turbine than it is a V8 internal combustion engine like in most cars, which is why so many aircraft use turbines (excluding situations where piston engines simply don't work)

Comment: Re:is it an engine or a display model? (Score 2) 54

by BitZtream (#49147881) Attached to: Researchers Create World's First 3D-Printed Jet Engines

Which actually means ... they haven't produced a 3d printed turbine. They've produced a model of one. Higher quality than I can produce, sure, but not one thats actually any more useful than one I can produce.

This is a really good example of a stupid place to 3d print something, you're not going to get the strength you can get in traditional manufacturing techniques, its going to cost way more and you'll never find anyone with a clue about mechanical engineering trusting his/her life to one.

Comment: Re:Quality of the solution. (Score 3, Interesting) 145

by BitZtream (#49147853) Attached to: Invented-Here Syndrome

Do you want to keep up with the world around you?

I was having a discussion with a programmer who is 50 (I'm 38) the other day about the time when you used to be able to write an OS entirely by yourself, and how we both miss that time. It wasn't trivial, but the OS was that small, it could be done. Remember, Linux is just a kernel, not 'an OS', and Linux hasn't been the work of one make for 20 years at this point (Not trying to discount what Linus has done, but he has help :).

Today, if you want to be able to produce useful software with sufficient features for most purposes, you can't write it all yourself. Well you can, but you'll be the last person to bring your 'whatever' to market/public view and they'll be 20 others that have more features and more shiny than you because they relied on some other libraries. A single person isn't making Windows 3.1 or newer in any realisticly useful time frame. Windows 95 is well beyond the scope of one person.

Even a good modern text editor isn't going to be written from scratch, you've just not got the time to write all the basic editor features and things like a regexp engine. Yes, you CAN, but not while staying relevant.

Sure, there are places where you can get by without dependancies or MUST have no dependencies. Embedded work and Cryptography are two things I have experience with where re-implementing the wheel isn't uncommon due to various constraints placed on you. Note: Not reinventing, reimplement

With that said ... I'm writing an OS by myself. It will never do anything impressive and no one will ever use it, but it will exist and has already taught me why I hate the x86 processor line in about 18,000 different ways :)

Comment: Talk versus Action (Score 0, Flamebait) 182

by BitZtream (#49144183) Attached to: Facebook Puts Users On Suicide Watch

People who are going to actually commit suicide don't talk about it on Facebook, they do it, these people are rarely on Facebook in general. Yes, you hear about some kid once in a while that kills themselves and it gets blamed on Facebook 'bullies', but if someone typing some words causes you to off yourself, you weren't going to last in the real world anyway.

People talking about it on Facebook just seek attention and don't have the courage or conviction to actually do it, nor do they actually want to do it.

Comment: Re: Hard to believe (Score 0) 162

by BitZtream (#49144163) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine

Add to that the browser is heavily integrated into the win32s code and you're in for a coding nightmare.

No, it isn't, and it never has been. You utterly fail to understand the 'integration' issue with IE.

IE itself can EASILY be removed from a system. Delete the EXE, done. Its been that way ALWAYS. Even during the court battles.

What you'll have a harder time doing is deleting the trident rendering engine, which MANY applications depend on because it provides a standard interface to providing a HTML renderer. File Explorer renders HTML in process ... using the Trident renderer. It doesn't have Trident code in it, it uses the trident ActiveX ... just like everything else. Just like many third party apps that wanted to include HTML, because MS made it drop dead easy to include an HTML renderer in an application.

The whole 'separate the browser from the OS' lawsuit was bullshit from the beginning. The IE ActiveX was fairly well documented, Netscape could have trivially made a compatible control that used the Netscrape engine, but the Netscape code was REALLY SHITTY, its a system issue they have which is why Firefox is crap to this day in so many ways.

They were never going to be able to develop for changes as fast as competing browsers with that model and they knew it.

Funny, you've not been paying attention recently have you, they've been doing pretty good. Of course, unlike other browsers who aren't integrated into everything on the system, they do have to consider that they might break everything on the system when doing code changes, unlike say ... chrome or firefox who just tell you to go fuck yourself and upgrade everything that uses them, regardless of the fact that you might not have the ability or source code to do so ... oh what? You're not using entirely open source software, well then you should definitely go fuck yourself, right?

Just for reference, Apple does essentially the same thing with WebKit on OS X/iOS

As long as they stay dedicated to working with web standards

You do realize that IE 11 more closely adheres to W3C standards that any other rendering engine, right?

Microsoft is a monopoly abusing bunch of pricks who need to be taken out back and shot, but pretty much everything in your post is wrong and easy to verify that its wrong.

Comment: Re: Hard to believe (Score 0) 162

by BitZtream (#49144157) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine

There was no firefox with navigator code. It was written from the ground up without it for various copyright reasons. There are some other bits not related to rendering that uses older code from the netscape days such as the NSS library.

The netscape code died with the failed re-write before they went OSS and started over.

And to be clear, being that they kept those same shitty developers, Firefox has all the same crappy code problems as Navigator did. Its slow, bloated and unreliable because its devs care exclusively about the 'new shiny' rather than making an application that doesn't suck ass.

Comment: Re:Said this 14 years ago. We need to replace E-Ma (Score 1) 299

by BitZtream (#49144037) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

I'm an expert, and I never even managed too.

No, you aren't ... because:

E-Mail needs a complete redo/replacement with hard asymetric encryption and zero-fuss key handling and exchange built in as a core specification.

Its called S/MIME, look it up, expert.

Not all messages need to be encrypted, thats stupid. If you think Fidonet was so awesome compared to SMTP then I'm 100% certain you don't know jack shit about how fidonet or SMTP work under the hood, and I can safely assume this because you also make no actual example of why fidonet is 'better'.

Let me go ahead and quote official fidonet policy, which basically says using encryption is not allowed and that everyone along the path SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO READ EVERY MESSAGE:

2.1.4 Encryption and Review of Mail

FidoNet is an amateur system. Our technology is such that the privacy of
messages cannot be guaranteed. As a sysop, you have the right to review
traffic flowing through your system, if for no other reason than to ensure
that the system is not being used for illegal or commercial purposes.
Encryption obviously makes this review impossible. Therefore, encrypted
and/or commercial traffic that is routed without the express permission of
all the links in the delivery system constitutes annoying behavior. See
section 1.3.6 for a definition of commercial traffic.

Thats from http://www.fidonet.org/policy4...

Comment: Re:I use GnuPG (Score 1) 299

by BitZtream (#49144003) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

My GnuPG public key is on my web site (www.andycanfield.com). It is not on any "KeyServer"; I don't believe in key servers, that's just another layer that the hackers can break and the NSA can subvert.

... and so is your website, which is trivial to just MITM, making your PGP key less useful than S/MIME from the instant you started using it, and harder to use for everyone else as well.

The important thing is that PGP is a ***standard***. Any idiot can come up with something better, but he can't make it a standard, so my correspondant on the other end of the wire can't use it.

Uhm, this story is about the fact that no one uses PGP, which means your correspondent on the other end of the wire probably can't use it. Paying attention to the world around you might be helpful.

Comment: Re:git blame (Score 1) 299

by BitZtream (#49143999) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

Blame Google for not implementing it in Gmail -- Then they wouldn't be able to get ad revenue and user metrics from their "free" email service.

Someone doesn't understand how gmail works. I have used PGP with gmail, works fine. Oh, you mean you want Google to be able to read your email and display it on a web page ... while at the same time not be able to read your email ... okay then .....

Blame MS for not integrating it into Outlook, but why would we expect MS to actually want security in any of their products?

Because its a crap system to make user friendly. You can, of course, buy a plugin that does it just fine.

Blame Mozilla for the creaky plugin and cumbersome import/export publish keys interface in Thunderbird, and support for SMIME over GPG by default.

No, blame PGP for this, this is a PGP problem, not a plugin problem. The PGP philosophy is what makes this a problem, and its the same reason you're unaware of the fact that Outlook plugins exist. The entire PGP system is difficult to use on purpose, thats why it sucks.

Blame the users mostly for not giving a fuck about encryption.

No, I won't. Most users have no reason to care about encryption, most messages simply aren't that important, which is why the post office does its job just fine without encryption. Just because you think everything needs to be encrypted doesn't magically make it true. Are you a doctor? No? Do you blame yourself for failing to do medical procedures that aren't entirely automated because thats what you're saying here.

I can tell you this much: Fuck publishing ANY open source software without signed and verified GPG signatures.

Right, because then when you go verify the key by looking at a key thumbprint on an HTTP server ... you know the thumbprint hasn't been tampered with ... right ... oh wait ... you don't. Key distribution with PGP is a joke because you have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to verify keys unless you are trading them physically with people directly. The instant you exchange your PGP thumbprint by looking at some website thats not encrypted or authenticated, you've already fucked up, you're just too ignorant of whats going on to realize it

Lets assume the website uses HTTPS ... in which case, your trust depends on a CA ... which means ... it can not possibly be any safer than S/MIME certs from that CA ... and is likely less secure because you've introduced a whole new chain of places for mistakes to be made.

PGP is intentionally broken by design.

And GPG is just a horrible implementation/bad copy of old PGP so lets not pretend like we're not talking about PGP here just because you're probably not been alive long enough to know what PGP is and that GNU did not create the universe.

Grow up, get a clue, your attitude is exactly what PGP sucks ass.

Comment: Re:Same error, repeated (Score 1) 299

by BitZtream (#49143949) Attached to: Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course

S/MIME does not rely on public key servers any more than PGP does. Technically less so since most clients come with some level of existing trust for certain certificate vendors. You can also include/distribute you own signing cert public key, making it pretty much exactly like the crap that is web-of-trust. The whole idea that 'web-of-trust' is usable is the exact reason PGP will never take off. Unless you are physically exchanging public keys with individuals you are susceptible to MITM attacks since you have many possibilities to fake it along the way.

Basically everything you said about S/MIME applies to PGP and in some cases doesn't apply to S/MIME.

CAs are NOT a single point of failure when you use more than one, which is perfectly acceptable and works in any client I've dealt with. You do not have to use a public CA even, every ActiveDirectory installation has limited CA capabilities built in, and installing the CA server is click next next next finish assuming you're using a version of windows that is licensed to do so.

PGP doesn't get used because its more obnoxious to use than any security it buys. 99.999% of the population don't want to dick around with encryption just because you think your ultra-distributed, no central authorities anyway crap is the way to go ... except wait ... PGP public key servers ... whats that? A less secure system than CAs for various reasons, it is certainly impossible for them to be any more secure than a CA from a technical perspective.

Assuming safe key distribution, which is harder with PGP than S/MIME, then it is technically just as secure. Unfortunately, its fucking obnoxious to use for many reasons, so normal people who don't care about dicking around with software written by developers who don't give a flying fuck about usability, its not even in consideration.

The PGP argument is that individual people can setup trust webs, securely ... more so than they can use the public CA system that S/MIME uses out of the box. This is simply wrong. Techies can do it, everyone else isn't going to because they aren't techies or they don't care, and then when one moron in your awesome little web of trust fucks up, the whole chain is compromised. So do you trust Mark's grandmother to do secure key exchange and not get backdoored? If you do, you're a moron.

Comment: Re:file transfer (Score 0) 435

by BitZtream (#49143897) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Old PC File Transfer Problem

Don't order it, go to your local computer repair shop.

You'll pay more on shipping if you order it than it costs at your local over priced repair shop.

The new machines lack LPT ports? WTF kind of machine did you buy without an LPT port? A laptop, sure, a desktop? You have to look hard, even today to find a machine that doesn't have a printer port.

With a printer port you could bother to buy lap link, or find any one of various OSS apps to do the same thing over LPT.

If he's asking slashdot, he hasn't looked and in that case I again refer to the local repair shop since if he's unable to Google for the basics, he's probably not qualified to do the transfer in any sane way either, certainly not taking the hardware apart.

Comment: Re:There's fragmentation on iOS too... (Score 4, Informative) 135

by BitZtream (#49141023) Attached to: Who's Afraid of Android Fragmentation?

As more and more devices of varying features and sizes have been released by Apple

Yea, its totally the same, there are a handful of different iOS device sizes ... compared to well over 100 that I'm aware of for android during the same period of time.

It hasn't been until recently that Apple has given developers the tools to create views that don't need to know the specifics of the device it's running on, thereby avoiding silly checks like
if(device == IPHONE) {....} else if(device == IPAD) {....}

I've been a developer since the day you could sign up ... if you have checks like that for view size, you're doing it wrong. Apple has provided tools since day one to do so when it comes to size, like just using the proper NIB/XIB, hell the project wizard does it on project creation if you tell it your creating a universal app.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics