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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:don't believe his lies (Score 2) 129

devices sold, designed for consumers in the US have to be wiretap, plain text and voice recording friendly.

No, they don't. Encrypted phones are used every day by the US government itself, as well as numerous businesses. Consumer-facing products such as FaceTime, FaceTime Audio, and iMessage are readily available today, are used by tens of millions of people, and are designed with end-to-end encryption that prevents wiretaps from taking place. Comparable products exist for other platforms. What you just said is an outright fabrication.

Moreover, the Constitution's Fourth Amendment grants "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not grant the government the right to deny us security on the basis that they may one day have a reasonable cause for a search or seizure. They're left to figure out how to get access on their own, despite our right to be secure. If I put my papers in a safe, that means bringing in a safecracker, not legally obligating all safe manufacturers to put defects in their safes that make them less secure. If I put my stuff in my car, that means bringing in a locksmith, not legally obligating all car manufacturers to put defects in their safes that makes them easier to break into. And if I put my data in a smartphone, that means bringing in a hacker, not legally obligating all smartphone manufacturers to put defects in their phones that makes them easier to access.

In this particular case, I wish the government the best, but the suggestion that we shouldn't have the right to secure our smartphone because that same right can be used by criminals to hide wrongdoing is no different than suggesting that we shouldn't have the right to free speech because that same right can be used by criminals to incite wrongdoing.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 1) 573

Sort of. But electricity isn't a sufficient analog for the resources web ads are consuming. Extending your analogy (to the point of breaking) so it better matches the reality of the web, it'd be like complaining about TV commercials because...
1) Every time one airs, a representative from the ad company tried to superglue a note to your house so they could remember you.

2) All TV commercials are accompanied by a large package pushed through your mail slot. Inside is a small person. He'll hop out, look around your home, take some notes, and use your mailbox to send his notes back (without asking your permission, of course). Sometimes he has a live critter with him that will stay behind to infest your home.

3) Without it being obvious they're doing so, some ads will cause your home to suffer brownouts, preventing you from getting anything else done.

4) Some commercials secretly count against your monthly limit for how many episodes your cable provider allows you to watch each month, after which you'll need to upgrade to a higher plan. You can't tell which ones count against your limit until they're over.

In case it's not obvious, I'm referencing:
1) Cookies and other identifying traces left behind
2) Tracking/reporting and malware
3) Poorly optimized ads with 100% CPU utilization
4) ISP data caps being thrashed by background video ads

Given how much time, energy, and, yes, electricity you need to waste to deal with those things, I think it's reasonable for anyone to complain about web ads eating up resources. TV ads are not even remotely similar, as they are today.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 3, Insightful) 573

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

This is like entering into a cage fight and then complaining about getting hurt. Noone makes you go to an ad-supported website and read their content.

That's missing the point quite a bit. People don't walk into cage fights, clueless as to what's about to happen. There's informed consent. Not so with web pages. In fact, if I load a Wired page, not even they know what ads I'll see or what sort of malware they might be serving up, since they've offloaded that responsibility to third-parties who, as a group, have proven themselves untrustworthy (e.g. Forbes malware recently). Today's Web is like an endless hall of doors with barely-useful labels. The only way to find out what's inside is to open a door and step in. There's no consent. Just regret (see: goatse...actually, don't).

Ad blockers restore informed consent. They give us the ability to say, "We're unwilling to pay the price you're asking". If sites want to deny us service because of that, that's how things are supposed to work. After all, if two parties can't settle on a price, there shouldn't be an exchange of goods or services. More importantly, however, ad blockers allow us to specify what we DO consent to. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major ad blockers are configured to permit first-party ads by default. If sites like Wired are willing to take responsibility for their ads and trust them enough to host them on their own servers, I'm fine with viewing them. My ad blocker will let them through. We'll both be in consent.

Until then, it'll block the ads they're serving up from third-party ad vendors, and if they want to deny me service because I'm blocking them, that's fine.

Well, "fine" inasmuch as it's a boneheaded move that'll bite them in the ass in the end, but still, it's their ill-fated choice to make.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

What "unwashed masses"? Wired's readers are primarily people like us. That's why they're having this problem to begin with. You'd be correct if Wired were a straight-up general interest site, but it's not. It's a tech site aimed at people who are more likely to be using ad blockers. As such, they should plan their business model in such a way that they don't alienate their primary readership. What they're doing here is decidedly not that.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

Oh, hmm. I really should have chosen my words better, since they don't say what I intended and I can see why you think I missed what he was saying. Mea culpa. I get where you're coming from now.

Rather than saying "blocked", I really should have said "isolated" in the sentence you quoted, since that was the point of his that I was attempting to address (as I hopefully made clear in my last comment). I was trying to suggest that if the script is actually "isolated" (irregardless of the means), then it won't be able to phone home, at which point they can tell the difference. And if the script isn't isolated to that degree, then what's the point of isolating at all? After all, it clearly isn't accomplishing anything.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

So the extension should just hijack every request for system information? There are plenty of legitimate uses for that information (e.g. responsive CSS, loading "retina" images, hardware acceleration, etc.). Arguably, the vast majority of uses are perfectly acceptable. And system information isn't the only way that they can track you. There are regular cookies, Flash "supercookies", HTML5's local storage, and the list goes on, all of which can be used to store session IDs or monitor you across a broad swath of domains if done correctly. They can correlate your information across a variety of domains easily with techniques like those. Which leaves us right back where we started: you either need to enable or disable the whole thing. Whitelist or blacklist.

Moreover, even if you did successfully confound those system info attempts at getting information regarding you, you're still allowing those scripts to engage in other, potentially malicious activity, whether it's putting those various forms of tracking on your system, loading malware, wrapping your entire page in an invisible frame that they control, etc.. Setting up a playground for potentially malicious scripts to play in is just asking for trouble, and the problem is significantly more difficult than you give it credit for.

The point is, legitimate scripts are legitimate and should be given appropriate access, while illegitimate ones are illegitimate and should be denied ANY access at all (even to CPU cycles) since they'll abuse anything they can get. The only way to manage that is via full denial, not via "isolation".

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

Someone didn't read what they were replying to.

How did you get that from what I said? I directly addressed his assertion that they can't tell the difference and that this is a simple matter of isolating them by pointing out that the very act of isolating them is sufficient to tip them off to the fact that there's a difference.

Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? Or misread what one of us said? If you think I misunderstood what he said, I'd welcome any constructive feedback, but as it stands, I just don't get where you're coming from.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

unless you think they're sending your viewing habits straight to the NSA.

Which basically boils down to the "why worry if you've got nothing to hide" line of illogic. Moreover, it ignores the fact that if you're allowing third-party scripts to run, they can simply inject additional images all over the place, not to mention acting as vehicles for delivering malware. If you don't recognize that third-party scripts are a bigger problem than the images themselves, then it's doubtful we'll ever see eye-to-eye. Images are a problem, to be sure, but they're not THE problem.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

Sure, but what's the point of that? Just run uMatrix and block all third-party images by default if that's all you want. The image is just part of the ad, however, and it's the least offensive part, since it rarely delivers malware, tracks you in a meaningful way, or sends back system information on you like cookies, scripts, and iframes can.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 573

The "jail" you're describing has already been implemented in a number of different ad-blocking extensions, but when you jail an ad (including its scripts) like that and prevent it from sending info back, they'll know you're blocking and can then block you from the site. That's the point I was making. And if you're not preventing them from phoning home, then what's the point?

Comment Re:Oops (Score 5, Interesting) 573

There's a very important fourth option that they neglected to mention, yet is entirely in their control: stop delivering ads they don't host and haven't vetted.

If a company is willing to vet their ads and host them on their own servers, it's unlikely I'll go to the bother of blocking them, especially since I no longer need to wonder about who's getting my data, and I can read just one privacy policy to find out how my data is being used. By default, however, I block everything from third-party servers, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Comment Re:Energy in? (Score 1) 142

Don;t forget that internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient, returning maybe 40% of the energy input in work output.

You only, for my car, need to fill with 16 gallons, so that 534+/-kW only results in 213+/-kW of useful work.

Note the Tesla Model S battery is rated at 85kW, and range is estimated at 265 miles. My Impala would seem to be half as efficient as a Model S. I can see that.

So a 40kW charger can recharge my car to full capacity in what, 5 hours? And that 16 gallon equivalent gets me at least 360 miles, as my car is terribly inefficient beyond even the IC engine limitations?

No, the limitation is the battery. It doubles the cost of the car in small, 'affordable' vehicles. The premium for higher-priced vehicles is tolerable even without subsidies.

Fix batteries, or more correctly the storage, and things make sense. If I could get 100 mile range for a 5 hour charge, and do so with a mechanism that is safe to use in hard rain, disconnects automatically, prevents theft, and is reliable in the 5 year term, I'm in. And that's my home charger. At work they could, maybe, build those covered spaces we love in Arizona and the tops are solar cells harvesting the fusion reactor (Sun) output we largely fail to leverage now.

Dorman is selling Prius packs for just shy of $3k ($1.9K-$900 core). I should be toting up the cost of a motor, drive train, controller, charger, and accessory drive, and buy an '04- Ralliart with a blown motor/trans and a good blend door. Or a Saab with a good convertible top, the subframe just screams for an electric conversion. Delete the exhaust, ECU wiring, fuel piping, etc, and this is pretty doable. Finding a spot for the battery pack

Conversions are possible. Even better platforms exist, though I'm not interested in a Metro or Echo.

Comment Re:Energy in? (Score 1) 142

And why doesn't this make sense for carbon 'sequestration'? Even though it isn't sequestration.

Creating a somewhat closed loop of CO2->CH3OH->(2CH3OH(l) + 3O2(g) --> 2CO2(g) + 4H2O(g)) seems, superficially, like a win. The inputs, probably the required energy, make you question the economics of the process. So let's think.

Carbon sequestration is always expensive. Paying credits and such is a game that really doesn't reduce carbon anything but makes us^H^Hthem feel better. Costs to change processes etc are all reflected in pricing of products and services.

But while a CO2-Methanol loop still might cost, it may mitigate that cost enough to be viable.

And if it is implemented cleverly, at the source of the CO2, even better than extracting it from the atmosphere, probably.

Now to make ti actually work.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.