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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: More than meets the eye (Score 1) 91

by Loki_1929 (#49194585) Attached to: Anthem Blocking Federal Auditor From Doing Vulnerability Scans

The typical compromise (see what I did there?) when a customer or Federal Government auditor wants to run scans of any sort on your private network is to agree on tools (to be provided by the auditing group if you don't already have them) running an agreed configuration/profile/whatever against an agreed limited scope target list (typically a VLAN or set of VLANs unless that entire network is devoted to just that one customer, which is sometimes the case, though less so these days with public/private/hybrid clouds being all the rage). When it comes to web application and database testing, you'll typically agree on a non-production target list that's a mirror of the production system (with appropriate verification of the two being a mirror outside the automated testing) so as to avoid impacting the production systems. When it comes time to run the tests, over-the-admins'-shoulder monitoring ensures the proper tools with the proper configurations hitting the proper targets is being done and that the output is being handed over unaltered.

Seen this done in plenty of places and 99% of the time, the auditing group is fine with it because at the end of the day, it's getting them exactly what they want; just in a slightly more red-tape riddled way. Meanwhile, the group being audited has the assurance that nothing is running wild all over their network unsupervised. If you don't have anything to hide, you're typically fine with this approach. If you aren't fine with this approach, something else is going on behind the scenes and most of the time that'll be something you're trying to hide.

Comment: Containers.. (Score 4, Informative) 40

by BrookHarty (#49192913) Attached to: Red Hat Strips Down For Docker

I've been using debian vservers in the past, and now lxc. RedHat 7 and its LXC integration is amazing. I use KVM as my hypervisor of choice, so I'm already using virtual machine manager, so now I can manage my LXC hosts with VMM, its really a nice touch.

What really interests me is LXD. LXC containers in a real isolated container that I can just move. Right now, I'm stuck to zipping and moving LXC's directories if I want to move them. I tend to use OS containers stripped down, because I want app/tcp/ssh/nrpe installed, so I can make sure the service is alarmed, and I use ssh for remote management.

Docker tends to be aimed at enterprise usage, if you have lots of single applications appliances, you can roll out and tear down, docker is a great idea.
That is a different use case, so I don't need docker, but docker is built on LXC, so I get that added benefits from support from Redhat. (and Centos7 support)

I'm running an IT shop, so my servers run for years, and I need to be able to manage, and support them. LXC containers is the perfect middle ground for me. LXD is the only thing I'm missing, moving file based containers.

So, I'm happy docker is pushing technology, because the stack it runs on is also benefiting from it.

BTW, I wish Redhat would support LXC VM's on its REHV (ovirt) platform, then I could consolidate even more VM's into single VM's. Guests with bridges with macs are filtered due to IP spoofing rules. Kinda silly when RedHat pushes LXC on 7, but doesn't test LXC on its Visualization platform.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 0) 87

by mi (#49190739) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

Put it this way, Obama can't fire Wheeler without just cause.

He does not need to fire him — he just hired him in the first place. FCC is part of the Executive branch and the commissioners are appointed by the President.

Do you not think, full agreement with the President is one of the job-requirements for the Chairman? It better be, or else the President is not doing his job...

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score -1, Troll) 87

by mi (#49190655) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

WE DONT trust them

Ah, but you do! The well-moderated comment I quoted states, that the Federal Government is the most trust-worthy institution in America...

It must take some special kind of schizophrenia to trust FCC and not trust NSA or the Marshas Service at the same time...

Comment: Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score -1, Troll) 87

by mi (#49190433) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info
If we trust FCC to ensure "fairness" of Internet Service Provision:

If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?

why don't we trust the Marshals Service to be fair as well? Are they being controlled by a different President or something?

Comment: Re:US Man? (Score 1) 242

by mi (#49190357) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail

nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists

Yes, we have so many of them here on /., it is frightening.

regardless of how poor an analogy it is.

Fortunately, it is not poor at all. Own mistakes, that lead one into trouble, are rarely an excuse for those, who cause the actual trouble itself.

It does not matter, whether the "trouble" is rape or unjust incarceration.

Comment: Re:Why do I need a license for ANY car? (Score 1) 346

by Jeremi (#49190119) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Of course! But that's red-herring â" I'm not against driving laws. I'm against the licensing requirement â" which turned the right of free movement into a privilege.

How else would you suggest that society could make sure that people driving vehicles on public roadways have at least some basic knowledge of how to safely operate a motor vehicle? The honor system?

Comment: Re:Why do I need a license for ANY car? (Score 1) 346

by Jeremi (#49189975) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

So, where is that "clear bright line" you claimed existed?

At the boundary between your private land and the public road system.

My whole point is that the right to drive a motorized vehicle on a public road has disappeared while we weren't paying attention. It is not a right any longer. It is a privilege.

It's not clear what the distinction you are trying to make is. What is the significant difference between "a privilege" and "a right subject to safety regulations", exactly? Call it what you want, either way you are allowed to drive as long as you follow the traffic laws, but if you abuse the right/privilege, it can be taken away from you.

+ - How GE used IT to help make buying a turbine as easy as ordering a pizza online

Submitted by Lemeowski
Lemeowski (3017099) writes "GE Digital Energy CIO Venki Rao provides an interesting look at how his IT team developed a highly-interactive retail experience that makes buying a turbine or electrical components not too different from ordering a book on Amazon or getting updates on your pizza from Domino's pizza tracker when you order online. "Why not give customers a great commercial and shopping experience, even if they’re buying a turbine or electrical components rather than a book?," writes Rao."

+ - Developers Race to Develop VR Headsets that Won't Make Users Nauseous

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Nick Wingfield reports at the NYT that for the last couple of years, the companies building virtual reality headsets have begged the public for patience as they strive to create virtual environments that don't make people physically sick. “We’re going to hang ourselves out there and be judged,” says John Carmack, chief technology officer of Oculus, describing what he calls a “nightmare scenario” that has worried him and other Oculus executives. “People like the demo, they take it home, and they start throwing up,” says Carmack. "The fear is if a really bad V.R. product comes out, it could send the industry back to the ’90s." In that era, virtual reality headsets flopped, disappointing investors and consumers. “It left a huge, smoking crater in the landscape,” says Carmack, who is considered an important game designer for his work on Doom and Quake. “We’ve had people afraid to touch V.R. for 20 years.” This time around, the backing for virtual reality is of a different magnitude. Facebook paid $2 billion last year to acquire Oculus. Microsoft is developing its own headset, HoloLens, that mixes elements of virtual reality with augmented reality, a different medium that overlays virtual images on a view of the real world. Google has invested more than $500 million in Magic Leap, a company developing an augmented reality headset. “The challenge is there is so much expectation and anticipation that that could fall away quite quickly if you don’t get the type of traction you had hoped,” says Neil Young

At least one company, Valve, believes it has solved the discomfort problem with headsets. Gabe Newell says Valve has worked hard on its virtual reality technology to eliminate the discomfort, saying that “zero percent of people get motion sick” when they try its system. According to Newell, the reason why no one has gotten sick yet is thanks to Valve’s Lighthouse motion-tracking system, a precise motion-tracking system that is capable of accurately tracking users as they move around a space. In the meantime the next challenge will be convincing media and tech companies to create lots of content to keep users entertained. “Virtual reality has been around for 20 years, and the one thing that has been consistent throughout this is that the technology is not mature enough,” says Brian Blau,. “Today there’s the possibility for that to change, but it’s going to take a while for these app developers to get it right.”"

Comment: Prison vs. refusal of entry (Score 2, Interesting) 326

by mi (#49189399) Attached to: Quebecker Faces Jail For Not Giving Up Phone Password To Canadian Officials

I don't know how it works in the US, but the Canadian government cannot refuse a Canadian citizen entry into the country. That's a very good thing.

If the only destination in Canada, that such a citizen is allowed to go to, is prison, I doubt, many would prefer that to the (hypothetical) alternative of flying back.

Comment: Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens (Score 0) 326

by mi (#49189235) Attached to: Quebecker Faces Jail For Not Giving Up Phone Password To Canadian Officials

The person in question is a Canadian citizen

Thanks, that's informative.

cannot be denied reentry into Canada or sent back

Why can he not? I'd certainly rather return to Dominican Republic, then go to Canadian prison (in winter!).

Has there been an Israeli citizen arrested over such a refusal to open up his e-mail when returning to his country?

Comment: Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offense.. (Score 3, Interesting) 326

by mi (#49189139) Attached to: Quebecker Faces Jail For Not Giving Up Phone Password To Canadian Officials

The practice of Israeli border-guards of demanding access to e-mail of some people wishing to cross into the country is rather disliked by /. and others.

But the worst, that a non-cooperation would result in there would be an interrogation and a flight back to whence you came from. To actually be arrested and prosecuted for a crime over such a refusal is new... Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?

Comment: Re:Why do I need a license for ANY car? (Score 0) 346

by mi (#49189075) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Walking and (to a lesser extent) bicycling are inherently less hazardous to other people

So, where is that "clear bright line" you claimed existed?

That said, there are also regulations governing walking and bicycling

Of course! But that's red-herring — I'm not against driving laws. I'm against the licensing requirement — which turned the right of free movement into a privilege.

You seem to think that if there is a right to do something, then that activity cannot be regulated by the government for safety reasons

My whole point is that the right to drive a motorized vehicle on a public road has disappeared while we weren't paying attention. It is not a right any longer. It is a privilege.

This has nothing to do with whether or not it can be regulated.

Comment: Re:Why do I need a license for ANY car? (Score 1) 346

by Jeremi (#49189029) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?

Which bloodshed and chaos is avoided by making driving a privilege?

To give one example: chronic drunk drivers can have their licenses revoked. After that, they can no longer drive, and therefore are no longer a danger to the public.

But that ease is abuse-prone. We deliberately make it harder for the government to fight other "bloodshed and chaos"

As always, there are trade-offs to be made between freedom and safety. You clearly lean towards the "freedom" side, and that's fine, but society is not required to share your opinion about where the best place is to draw that line.

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.

Working...