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


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

Comment: So what (Score 4, Insightful) 91 91

Seriously, if you have enough cash and connections to even think about starting a company, or even doing one of these new-fangled "startups", then you're better off than 95% of the country and better of than 99% of the world.

So what? You still have a problem to deal with. Doesn't matter if you're fortunate or driven or whatever to be in the position with the skill-set to drive a startup.

In serious circles (C-level employees, attorneys, doctors, academic faculty, anyone with a security clearance) psychological treatment is still heavily stigmatized. That's dumb. Psychological treatment should just be a fact of life--someone's getting treatment, that should be fine. If it's not, you encourage them not to seek treatment, in which case you have people with *untreated* psychological problems in positions of power.

If you have any pull in your org, you should be advocating for making these things okay. Not as a top priority, but as a significant one.

Comment: Re:Non-technical people making technical decisions (Score 1) 113 113

So, take it from someone with over 20 years in IT. When you outsource technical functions you need to have your technical people vet the contract and you need to keep them to monitor and make sure that the company, you are outsourcing to, does their job.

The reverse lesson is also true. When you make vendor/purchaser agreements or service agreements on which a lot relies, you should have your lawyer vet the contract. (A lot of the time people don't and wind up with how-the-hell-did-we-agree-to-this down the road). If it's for the sale of goods, make sure your lawyer knows and understands the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as it applies in your state. A lot of them don't.

Comment: They made a fortune (Score 1) 113 113

For this model to work you need a benevolent entity running the fiber network. Verizon runs a highly profitable wireless internet network which in many cases competes against high speed fixed internet. It is in their interest to kill fiber to the curb not keep it going. This might work if you spun off the fiber business or handed it over to a traditional utility like ConEd or National Grid. But then those electric utilities would probably end up using internet service to subsidize keeping the old electric grid going as that business enters its death spiral.

Think about the fortune they must have made in the financial district after the hurricane. I heard from someone who works there that the flooding took most of the hard links offline for IIRC months as infrastructure needed replacement (and drainage), most people switched to wireless and connections got slower and slower...

And while I haven't run into a problem with verizon techs in particular, I know cable guys up there can be pretty damn competitive, by which I mean blatantly telling you shit and lawbreaking. Cutting or disconnecting competitors' lines in apartment buildings and telling you fiber won't work because fibers break all the time, that kind of thing.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that... (Score 3, Insightful) 23 23

I wish them luck. Security is less of a "can't" thing as opposed to a "not worth the trouble" item.

The fundamentals are widely known, and were in place for ages -- use private WANs (although settling for Private IP MPLS networks is better than nothing) for traffic that should not be on the Net, use basic firewalling, run an IDS/IPS.

On the system level, SIEM is a big thing. Had Sony had AD policies that alerted if passwords were being guessed and locked accounts (even if the lockout time is just 1-5 minutes), the intrusion would have been mitigated.

Yes, the enterprise stuff is costly, but on the SOHO/SMB level, one can easily use a PC as a decent firewall, either using Windows Server 2012 and RRAS or a UNIX and its innate routing capabilities. There are open source tools (snort, nagios) for IDS/IPS work, and for logs, Splunk, SolarWinds, or GrayLog.

Next to will, there is the fact that competent computer security people are rare. For every clued person, there are at least ten suit wearing chatter monkeys who are willing to sell some "solution".

I still wonder if the answer is something similar to the Great Firewall of China, but this is a double-edged technology. However, the good side is that it could be used to break international botnets as well as block known malware origination sites via IP until the IP owner cleans their mess. This way, there are far fewer attacks actually hitting sites inside the US, and it would force intruders to compromise domestic machines. Of course, the bad thing is that it could easily be a censorship tool, just like China's version.

Even a UL stamp for sites that do parameterized SQL injection would be an improvement over today's utter lack of standards. Add to that a browser-based warning for sites without a UL stamp and you've reduced XSS attacks.

Security is so bad that small improvements can make big differences.

Comment: No way (Score 3, Interesting) 512 512

I can't help it, and maybe it's my imagination and perception bias, but to me it seems to be that as soon as a new version of Windows is approaching or even out the door, the old version starts to slow down considerably.

Correlation is not causation. The guys at MS are professional engineers--they may have different philosophies or coding styles or project priorities than you do, but they're not slowing things down in order to make you buy the next product. You're much more likely to run into that with a local guy or a disreputable company. And you might not like MS, but they haven't been a disreputable company for decades. Even if they had an inclination to be (and they don't), they're too big in the business-to-business space to risk their reputation.

What happens is your systems get slower as they get older, other systems get faster, you install more stuff, your drives fragment a bit, you add extra hardware, maybe you get malware you don't know about, etc...

Comment: Try turning off superfetch (Score 4, Informative) 512 512

Running Windows 8 on non-SSDs, I just found performance went up incredibly when I turned off the superfetch service. There's some sort of bug where it gets to 100% disk usage after a while if you're not restarting every day or two. (Sleep isn't enough). Slows the whole damn system down and task manager and resource monitor just show that you're using the pagefile, making it tricky to track down.

It might not be a problem with SSDs, which have very different read characteristics.

Comment: Re:SCOTUS Decisions often based on reality (Score 1) 591 591

Even if the guy who wrote the sentence is saying otherwise? I don't think it's so clear cut in this case, but hey, it is what it is now.

Frequently, yes. It's politics, and people tend to lie. And even while that would technically be evidence of the drafter's intention (albeit after the fact and with a strong motive to lie), it wouldn't necessarily reflect the intent of the legislature in passing the law.

Comment: Re:Are we too quick to act on social media outrage (Score 1) 369 369

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!

People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin.
People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully.
But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.

People have the right to free speech, but unfortunately that does not extend to free speech without consequence from your employers. The employer isn't firing you because of anyone's right not to be offended, they're doing it because keeping him around keeps them in the news cycle and makes it be one of the first things you see about them when you look them up. Like the girl who got fired for poor-judgment tweeting about white privilege and not getting HIV.

Comment: Malum Prohibitum (Score 2) 103 103

Screw you, Statists, get back to enforcing the malum in se — you know, the kind of thing, that is illegal because it is wrong.

For a modern state to function, you need both kinds of law. Failure to pay taxes is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited), but without paying taxes you don't have cops.

Comment: SCOTUS Decisions often based on reality (Score 5, Interesting) 591 591

availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result

In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.

Yes. In the real world SCOTUS looks closely at what impact their decision will have. "not based on the law itself" is a ridiculous criticism--they are being *asked* what the law is, and part of deciding what the law is when there is any ambiguity or potentially counterintuitive result is to figure out what are the consequences if the law is way X vs. way Y.

That's why SCOTUS often considers "administrability" when they are making decisions. It's a fundamental part of how the court operates. Would you rather they kill people Congress didn't intend to kill or that they say "this is a typo and in the context of what you are doing, it's pretty damn clear you would have intended this to mean X if you had bothered to read the law you wrote."

There is zero ambiguity here in terms of what Congress intended; it's clear that a law was poorly drafted. This is a not a maybe-they-meant-Y situation, this is a "hey, they accidentally used a sentence that probably says Y."

Comment: There Are More Rooms than People (Score 2, Informative) 937 937

The banks already own literally multiple homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in the USA

Interesting figure. Where'd you get it?

It looks like Amnesty International:

Coincidentally, there are 116M housing units in the US, median size say 4-5 rooms. If you had one person per room in every house, we could house everyone easily--318 million people in the US vs. 464M rooms. But the market isn't doing that.

Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.