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


Forgot your password?

Comment Why all the desktop stuff? (Score 2) 20

I know that Solaris did have a workstation presence at one point; back when each vendor with a pet Unix had a line of workstations to run it, usually on their pet CPU architecture; but it seems very, very, strange that they'd be focusing on desktop features at all(especially if they don't have the resources to do them properly; especially with web browsers outdated and/or broken is worse than nothing).

You certainly hear about cool stuff that Solaris has; and others either lack or have only by virtue of pulling from Solaris(Dtrace, Solaris Containers, ZFS, probably some others); but 'desktop experience' sure isn't one of them. Especially when 'the desktop' also tends to imply needing workable support for a variety of desktops and laptops of various degrees of unfriendliness, it seems a strange place to put any resources.

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 144

Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads? www.facebook.com facebook.com

...problem solved.

Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.

Comment Perhaps... (Score 1) 144

Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.

You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.

Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever

All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.

As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.

If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.

No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.

It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.

If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.

Comment the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 144

The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.

Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.

Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?

Comment Re:The great nation ... (Score 2) 60

You don't even need a big hammer. The combination of some easily-obtained drugs, any solid surface, the secret-holder's fingers or other body parts, and just a small ball peen hammer will fully suffice to access any data, or the password to get at said data.

XKCD explains it in a nutshell.

Comment Re: Did we learn nothing from Snowden? (Score 1) 60

If you want to keep something private, store it somewhere that isn't connected to a network.

And encrypt it. And prevent others from physically accessing it. And never carry any media or printout from said that machine outside the physically secure area in which it is installed. And never, ever, mention any of this to anyone.

There's no such thing as a "secret" when two or more parties know. When one party knows, that's a secret. When two or more parties know, that's just gossip -- you have completely lost control of the information.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 336

Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."

No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.

The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.

Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.

Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.

Comment Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved (Score 4, Insightful) 84

that's actually the problem with most technology

nuclear for example

i haven't a single doubt that we have the technological means to maintain nuclear plants forever without a single accident

but what we don't have is the social and political means to do that

money is always being cut, indefinitely, and the people making that decision are not exactly technically proficient. the incentive to cut costs form the general public and bosses who want to trumpet cost cutting trumps all other concerns, because other concerns, no matter how vital, are simply not understood. combine that with a technical person that responds with anger and arrogance at the idea of vital safety mechanisms being underfunded, the manager will simply disregard him or her as a person with a personality problem, and then disasters happen

people who champion nuclear, especially on a website like this, understand the technology well, and are correct when they announce we never have to have a nuclear accident ever again due to technological issues

but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

and then people who champion nuclear get angry at people like me, and accuse us of not understanding the technology. oh we understand the technology is wonderful. but it is you who doesn't understand humanity

the imperative on cutting costs and doing as little effort as possible is always trumping all other concerns. always. and people like this wind up being the managers, not the underlings. they can't be fired, they do the firing

incompetence is a force that destroys everything. sober up and accept that

Comment A Phoney Assumption (Score 1) 336

Just toss the phone in the industrial shredder before turning it on.

Just so you know, your phone is almost certainly always on, as long as the battery is in place and holding a charge. The suggestion that you have to "turn it on" has no relation to what the phone will be doing before it is turned on, which is basically anything the software/firmware in place tells it to do. Turning it on means you get to see and interact with the UI, and not much else.

Comment Re:Well now, not surprising (Score 1) 336

Slavery was "the law" for a great span of time as well. It was still 100% wrong. As is the whole misinterpretation of the word "unreasonable" as converting the trivially obvious and quite specific definition of "reasonable" in the fourth to "optional based on any government drone's opinion at the moment."

Comment Re:Bacteria spread via the air (Score 2) 84

I'd be curious to know if the design of these cooling towers(unfortunately, results for 'cooling towers' tend to be heavy on the really big ones used by power plants, which aren't terribly relevant except sharing certain basic principles of operation) would allow for UV sterilization.

The idea that you can actually 'disinfect' something in the real world, outside of a cleanroom or high end operating room, for more than a few minutes to hours is mostly a polite fiction. Any sort of real world plumbing arrangment is going to be hosting assorted biofilms and other incredibly durable bacterial reservoirs more or less inevitably. As the massive success of modern sanitation systems has proven, you can get water 'clean enough' for the more-or-less-healthy to stay that way; but if you actually need to exterminate almost all the bacteria, you are picking a whole different fight.

If, though, you only need to ensure that the contents of the droplets emitted by the cooling system in operation are reasonably disinfected, intense UV in the outflow ducts might be able to do that, and UV isn't high energy enough to do too much violence to metal parts(plastics/rubber/etc. can be trouble; but you won't be commiserating with nuclear reactor operators over radiation embrittlement issues.)

Comment The Handbag Argument (Score 1) 336

What you are arguing here is that following the constitution is inconvenient for the government in that it makes some part of its job (catching contraband) more difficult.

Now go read the constitution. The entire bill of rights is an exercise in making things more difficult for the government. Can they restrict your speech? No. Doesn't matter if you're calling them a bunch of numb-nutted fucktards. They still can't. There are no exceptions. Can they infringe on your right to bear arms? No. Even if that means you walk into the courtroom with a sword on your hip. There are no exceptions. Can they require you to quarter soldiers in your home? No. No matter what. There are no exceptions.

Now, ask yourself: WTF is going on when a judge - at any level - or congress - says otherwise? It's as plain as day: They are violating the constitution.

There is not one word in the fourth that says, or in any way implies, "except at the border." Including the word "unreasonable", which simply is telling you that any process that does not comply with the fourth IS what is unreasonable. The fourth lays out the precise formula for reasonable:

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Anything else is unreasonable.

Otherwise, the fourth has no teeth whatsoever and might as well not be there at all. Which is straight-up absurdity.

Therefore, no such "at the border" exception actually exists.

Much less in a band of land extending 100 miles into the body of the country.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 336

Dude, I hope you never write ANY software, because you demonstrated a complete failure to understand a very simple algorithm:

Reasonable is this: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Unreasonable is anything else

Otherwise the whole fourth is optional based upon the opinion of the searcher which is both absurd and, ironically enough, unreasonable.

The bill of rights is not a list of "well, if you think it's reasonable" items. It is a list of absolute restrictions on government power.

Case (or any other kind of) law: Any law that is unconstitutional, no matter what level it is formulated at, is unauthorized. Because the constitution is what authorizes government, from the top down. It doesn't matter if said law is made by congress, or the result of some the sophistry of a judge. If the constitution says they aren't authorized to do that, then they fucking well aren't authorized to do that, and they are acting criminally and furthermore have discarded all personal honor, as they have sundered their oath of office.

And as we all well know, "I was following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.

Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes, work never begun.