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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Security needs work (Score 1) 155 155

Its astonishing to me that this thing still doesnt do a sandbox. They keep adding stuff like video chat, great, but if you can spend time on that you can find time for getting the sandbox in. They have been talking about the sandbox for years. Implement it by default already and if for some reason a plugin a user is incompatable allow the user to select to go back to single process. There is no reason why the sandbox should have taken this long. Yes you have go to a multi process model but it shouldnt be THAT big of a job to take years.

Comment: Problem ignored. (Score 2) 599 599

A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.

Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.

Comment: Re:Interesting person (Score 2) 284 284

I would also like to add that my previous comments regarding the loss of free speech in our society was about civility and issues regarding etiquette rather than exclusively the law. Obviously, etiquette and law are different things, I do lament the loss of the ability to openly profess ones views generally in a society, regardless as to the legal status and condition around such speech issues. On the gay wedding cake issue, I can see there is a problem there and the denial of service is not something I agree with.

Comment: Re:Interesting person (Score 5, Insightful) 284 284

Apples and oranges. there is a tendancy to compare a speech issue to what the law actually is regarding a non-speech issue. The gay wedding cake issue is not about speech, the baker didnt deny the gay couple any free speech rights. The baker was also not playing cop, businesses generally have a right to refuse services (not that I am wholly in agreement with this), and there are exceptions to that, the case concerns how far those exceptions go. About the issue regarding legality of acts in relation to speech, For instance, you have every right to suggest that say, driving 200 mph on residential streets should be legal, that its not legal does not mean your free speech rights have been violated to hold your own opinion on this matter. Free speech does not give you the right to do things that you can use your free speech rights to advocate should be legal. Its important with the wedding cake issue, was that they were not refusing service to all gays for any service, only the cake which was being used for the weddings. Obviously, to refuse service to gays for say, table seating in a restaurant, is a situation with different circumstances. Not all christians support the idea of refusing service to gays on the issue of providing a cake, basically becuase many christians have a view that its not our position to judge them, even though it is against the tenants of the religion. Not all christian denominations oppose gay unions, either, if you are gay there are several Christian denominations to choose from that would accept you and hold your ceremony. The people that were pressing these buttons on the gay wedding cake issue had plenty of bakers who would bake a gay wedding cake for them, they actually went from baker to baker to find one who one who would refuse to do it so they could then castigate them. Personally, I do not agree with refusing to make a wedding cake for gays, if I am running a business and someone comes to me wanting a lawful product or service I would not deny it to them on account of their sexual preferences. It is my view that gay marriage should not be legal, you cannot just change the definitions of words. I am supportive of civil unions for gays that give them the same benefits, they can call it a wedding if they want but thats not what it should officially be titled on paper. Yes, its about definitions of words, words do mean things, you cannot call a cat a dog and just change those definitions willy nilly, the very definition of marriage is a union between man and women for the purpose of producing children, it is important that Marriage mean something and have a clear definition for the function it is mean to encourage, to be something that is to promote family values as this is a critical bedrock for a civilization.

Comment: Re:Interesting person (Score 3, Insightful) 284 284

People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".

Comment: Re:We've known that mountains 'float' for a long t (Score 4, Insightful) 95 95

All of the earth crust floats. Mountains are higher because the rock beneath them is lighter, hotter, or thicker than elsewhere. Continental crust does not subduct because it is the result of island arc subduction related magmatism which produces metal poor rocks due to fractional melting, producing a rock that is lighter than mantle. Oceanic crust is mafic and contains more metals, is more dense, and has similar composition to the mantle, so it tends to subduct easily. Good we are covering basic geology 101 for the benefit of all here.

Comment: Firefox needs to focus on pathetic security (Score 0) 371 371

While they keep on adding stuff like this which is okay, it seems like they neglect security. Firefox's security is pathetic when it ought to be a top priority.

While this is great, shouldnt Firefox finally get around to doing something about having a real sandbox on Linux on par with what Google Chrome has had for years? I mean come on, Google Chrome has had this since 2013 and yet it still on Firefox's to-do, while somehow they can manage to find time for all of this other stuff. Maybe they should work on getting the sandbox first and then work on these other features after that? I think security should be the #1 priority. Firefox has added a million other things over 2 years but someone cannot find the time to get the sandbox working. This is very serious as a sandbox is necessary, and essential, with a code base as large as Firefox it has been shown that there is usually some memory error that creeps in somewhere. The sandbox makes is to that even if they can take over a process, thats as far as they can get as the rendering code does not have access to kernel surfaces for things it does not need.

Because of the lack of sandbox, Firefox remains pathetic, the worst and most insecure browser that now exists. Even IE has a sandbox now, so Firefox is even less secure than IE. Yes IE, has had its CVEs, but so has firefox, but the sandbox is essential, due to the fact that it protects you at least to some degree in that time between the bug being implemented, being found and then finally repaired.

Comment: Re:Giving up privacy and control over data (Score 2) 276 276

I should add, desktop apps dont take away your ability to put your documents on a server if you want to share the data, what it does assure that the data will not be uploaded in any way unless you specifically authorize it, otherwise its only stored locally. If someone wants to put some data on a server, they can take the data produced by a desktop application and use their own server or another service to put the file online. This allows people to only upload data that they want to share, rather than upload everything and preserves all of the aformentioned rights of using desktop programs on a computer they own and control, of not having to store data online that does not need to be stored online and having complete control over their software and being able to modify it as they see fit, if they use an open source program like LibreOffice.

Comment: Giving up privacy and control over data (Score 4, Insightful) 276 276

Richard Stallman covered this subject in detail, it is important reading: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

I am surprised this would even be asked here. The fact is, if you care about security and privacy, you dont want to use anything other than desktop apps. You want to avoid anything such as Google Docs for your normal letter writing and so on. One area of confusion is that people have problems drawing a distinction between which is where you share things that you want other people to see, versus a tax spreadsheet that no one else should see. With the social networking the material is sort of not private anyway and you want to share it so little is lost by putting it on a server farm, and it is necessary that it be shared with others so the server farm facilitates the communications.

With a desktop application where you are working on tax spreadsheets or working on other things that will not be shared, there is no need to put it on a server some place else, so why do it? In so doing you give up a huge amount of potential privacy, increasing the technical possibilities of a possible access of the material on the server farm by other entities.

Using this cloud stuff you lose control of your data. The cloud provider could pull the plug on the service at any time (and it happens, look at Google Code and Geocities and the vast store of information that was lost with that).

Using the cloud for office apps is basically not necessary for what you are doing, since when you are writing a document for local use, or working on spreadsheet data, there is no technical need to use a cloud service to do this, and by doing so you endanger privacy and your control over the data.

Whats really going on here is an attempt for large corporations to nickle and dime you and monetize you, perhaps by the minute, to use their software, while if you use an open source desktop app, you have unlimited use of the software for as long as you need at no charge.

Secondly, open source is all about users being able to control, modify, run and expeiriment with the code they use, and being able to read it. Using apps on a server farm takes away the users control over the software they use, as it does with taking away users control over their data.

Avoid Software as a Service like the plague.

Comment: Re:Seems the "industry" may be correct about this (Score 3, Informative) 328 328

Many of the concerns about the safety of fracking relate to the drill shaft and riser pipe that comes up from the pay dirt, through the groundwater supplies, to the surface. When the riser pipe is installed, a drill shaft is made and the pipe is inserted into it, there is a space between the pipe and the wall of the drill shaft that is supposed to be filled in with cement. If the cement flow is blocked for whatever reason, the annular space may not be filled in, you will end up with an open channel that could run for thousands of feet between the pay dirt and the groundwater supply. Since you cant really see if the cemented went okay, its many thousands of feet underground, its hard to tell if this is happening. When the high pressure drilling fluids are injected, they would easily flow right up that channel into the groundwater supply. They say in the propoganda that there is many thousands of feet of impermeable rock between the pay dirt layer and the groundwater, but this doesnt mean much as you just drilled a hole through it all.

Comment: Re:Correlation != causation (Score 1) 328 328

They are pumping this stuff by the thousands of gallons into the ground. But, no, it must be something other than fracking, anything but fracking.

Even though its used by cleaners, doesnt mean its not toxic, many things are toxic which are found in consumer applications, even lethal.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening