Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Start menu usage dropped in lieu of what? (Score 2) 269

by FrankSchwab (#48028979) Attached to: Microsoft's Asimov System To Monitor Users' Machines In Real Time

Some people use shortcut keys to launch applications. Some don't.
Some people put icons on the desktop. Some don't.
Some use the menu. Some don't.
Some use the task bar. Some don't.

I don't use shortcut keys.
I put icons on the desktop for apps I use once a week.
I use the start menu for apps I run seldom (like IE).
I pin daily apps to the task bar.

I guess the only point is that people aren't binary - with multiple ways of doing things, different people have different weights that they apply to each method to help them do things the way they work. Many of them don't use exclusively a single approach.

One of the big failings of Windows 8 was ignoring this, and forcing a single, completely different way of working on people.

Comment: Re:Probably the home router... (Score 1) 574

by FrankSchwab (#46288773) Attached to: Whatever Happened To the IPv4 Address Crisis?

No, what I'm describing there is a standard consumer router that implements NAT. The Address Translation step itself is what blocks access to the ports on my machine, not any kind of stateful firewall, so yes the address translation step helps me. It may look something like a stateful firewall, but that's not it's design goal nor it's intended function, so I certainly wouldn't rely on it to be a good one.

Comment: Re:Probably the home router... (Score 1) 574

by FrankSchwab (#46282953) Attached to: Whatever Happened To the IPv4 Address Crisis?

Please stop arguing that NAT gives you a security advantage. NAT in and of itself does not provide any additional security.

Sure it does. Does it provide perfect security? Nope. Are there better security solutions? Yup. Is it better than not using NAT? For most people, yup.

Example: I run a Windows box behind a Cable Modem and NAT router at home. Being a Windows user, I have no idea what ports are open for connections on my machine, and I don't care. You simply can't attack port 21, or 23, or 25, or 137, or 445, or whatever, on my Windows box unless I set up a mapping on my NAT router (which, being a Windows user, I don't know how to do). Any susceptibilities resulting from having those ports open simply aren't accessible to the broader internet.

So, yes, security is better with NAT than without. But, no, it won't prevent users from connecting to services you don't want it to. Neither, in general, will your solution, given a sufficiently determined user. So does that mean that your solution has no security?

Comment: Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (Score 1) 535

by FrankSchwab (#46156099) Attached to: US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality

In many cities in the US in the '70s and '80s, cable companies were given a state- or municipal- granted monopoly on cable TV for 20 or more years to guarantee a return on the 10's of millions of dollars it cost to wire up the city. This was seen as a GOOD THING as everyone could then get soft-core porn from HBO that they couldn't get from OTA broadcasts. Legally, no other cable provider was allowed to install infrastructure. Prior to that, the Phone Company (there was only one at that time) had a legal monopoly on installing and operating phone lines within most cities.
Fast forward to today, and you find that there are only two possible providers of Internet service within a city - either the Cable company, whose infrastructure was installed when they had Monopoly status, or the Phone company, whose infrastructure was installed when they had Monopoly status. There is little financial incentive for a third party to spend 100's of millions of dollars to install new infrastructure, when the incumbents have proven themselves perfectly capable of dropping prices through the floor to guarantee failure of the upstart, then raising prices back up again.
In my town, during a building boom a few years back, it was common for developers to auction off the rights to wire up the neighborhood they were building to either the cable company OR the phone company - one of them paid to become a de-facto monopoly in the 100 unit community. Not a government monopoly, but one that's just as disturbing.

Comment: Useless (Score 1) 31

by FrankSchwab (#46103253) Attached to: Asteroids Scarred By Solar System's Violent Youth

Reads like a randomly-generated generated scientific paper - take a sentence from this paper, then a sentence from that one. Some of it reads like it was sent round-trip through Google translate.

I was unable to glean a single coherent thought from reading this article. Why was this submission even accepted?

Comment: Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

by FrankSchwab (#46059853) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

and are giddy about the possibility of bringing suit against people who so much as linked to a GPL'd library

Wow. Citation please?

Every case that I've heard of that got anywhere near a court involved a company that had been approached many times, in many ways, and asked to respect the license of the code they were shipping. And the respect never occurred.

Do you have any links to any reports where this wasn't the case?

Comment: Re:Good. Attics & closets waste $30 bulbs. Dim (Score 2) 767

by FrankSchwab (#45958533) Attached to: Incandescent Bulbs Get a Reprieve

You do realize of course, that the wall switch and dimmer for your fan/light fixture can be replaced, without replacing the fan?

Really? Please come to my house and do so.

First of all, I've only found one fan module that doesn't support dimming. Works fine in my Hunter ceiling fans.

In my Hampton Bay fans, not a chance. The motor drive is on the same PCB as the light control, and there is no room in/near the light kit to even consider mounting the aftermarket module.

Frankly, if anyone has a solution that doesn't involve "remove and replace ceiling fans", I'm all ears.

Comment: Re:I beg to differ (Score 2) 385

by FrankSchwab (#45863319) Attached to: Isaac Asimov's 50-Year-Old Prediction For 2014 Is Viral and Wrong

And I'd say that the war in Iraq had far less of a point than Vietnam. I believe that good people bought into containing the spread of communism, and felt that war was the only way to do so. For Iraq, I've found no narrative that makes sense, other than raw exercise of presidential power in furtherance of corporate interests.

System going down at 5 this afternoon to install scheduler bug.