Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Mixed feelings... (Score 4, Insightful) 591

Ultimately I believe that the court ruled incorrectly here. The way this should have been handled is that the court should have ruled based on the law as written. The thing is, if our political system wasn't so messed up it would have never reached the supreme court. Congress would have simply fixed the law itself to clarify the actual intent and life would have gone on. Although it is pretty clear what the intent was in this circumstance I think it is dangerous to allow for that broad of discretion for the judicial branch.

Comment Re:2 factor authentication would have. (Score 1) 142

Two factor and split responsibility for admins: i.e. the nuclear launch methodology.

Encrypt the database and split the keystore password between multiple groups. i.e. group 1 has the first 10 characters, group 2 the next 10, group 3 the last 10. Then you need at least collaboration between the three groups to access the dataset in its entirety. Make the data accessible via a UI that is limited in scope for record retrieval and auditable. Then encryption would have been the answer to their issue.

Comment Re:Just block them (Score 2) 130

You don't know how the software is being used. Maybe it is Apache's commons-net which has a vulnerability in the FTP client while my software only uses the SMB client. Maybe the next revision up has API changes that break compatibility.
In the ideal world everything would be kept up to date but time is a finite resource and if there is not a compelling reason to update it seems silly to waste time on it.

Comment More context needed (Score 1) 128

Without additional context I would say "So what?".

Questions that need answering:
- Can end user change the default password?
- Do installation best practices from manufacturer dictate to change the default password?
- Who performs the installation and maintains the devices?

Without answers to these it is hard to say whether the issue lies with the manufacturer, the reseller or the end user.

Comment Re:Missing the point. (Score 2) 330

I don't disagree that gas cars have certain disadvantages but Teslas would meet probably (and I am just throwing this out there) 95% of driving needs. They have a range of 200-270 miles per charge which doesn't cover the cross country trip but is certainly good enough for the daily commute and even a ~4 hour trip to out of state friends house. If the Tesla was $10,000 I bet that 50% of cars on the road would be a Tesla.

There is only two driving trips in the past three years that a Tesla would not worked well for with my family. Maybe we would have one gas car and one electric, although at $10,000 I would just use the money saved to fly us instead.

Comment Who is this for? (Score 1) 110

I am having a hard time coming up with anyone that could take advantage of this. I would love gig coverage in my area. Even then, 80% of my internet activity happens on wireless which will not even come close to using 1Gbps let alone 10Gbps. On my wired connections, I occasionally hit my max of 50Mbps but, in most situations, the far end is still a limiter.

Large / medium business, sure. But a household of 4-6 people? Every one of them could be watching their own 4k content while simultaneously downloading isos and video chatting and still couldn't even come close to saturating the link.

Comment Re: Possible solution (Score 1) 204

The VPN thing in and of itself doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that the route it takes is the same. Internet routing, in general, is handled as best route not least congested route. If your direct route to Netflix goes through a congested peering point while the VPN connection has clean routes to you and netflix then the quality could certainly be better.

Comment Re:Possible solution (Score 1) 204

Except that your analogy does not at all describe the situation...

To put it in your terms, it is more like your sub shop has a bike delivery person and I have a delivery person. For no additional cost my delivery person will meet your delivery person half way. Occasionally this means that extra time will be taken in order to facilitate the hand off. Now, my delivery person goes to the sub shop and offers, for a fee, to guarantee that they will always deliver the sandwich the whole way in a timely manner.

I am not ignorant. I know there is dirty dealings going on here. But the ISPs do have some valid arguments in is not a one sided argument. Net neutrality does not mean that everyone gets as much bandwidth as they want. It just means that packets and not treated unequally and are subject to the same congestion regardless of type or content. Like I said in my initial post, if they are treating the packets differently that is something I do not agree with but if we are simply talking a peering argument than the ISPs just need to work it out.

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"