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


Forgot your password?

Comment: What platforms would those be? (Score 1) 241

TFA said: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."

I'm curious what platforms those might be.

The only one I'm (slightly) familiar with at the moment is Replicant, which is an all-open port of Android - with support for a limitied - and (thus?) somewhat pricey (when even available)- handful of platforms.

("All-Open" being defined as "Functionality dependent on binary blobs we don't have open source replacements for is left out of the distribution. You might get it working by installing proprietary modules. But we think that's a bad idea / counterproductive / reduces incentive for people to MAKE open source replacements, so we don't recommend it or provide instructions." i.e. do a web search for somebody who figured out how to do it if you want, say, the front camera, WiFI, or Bluetooth to work and forget about GPS for now. (v4.2 on Samsung s3))

Now I think that's the right approach. And I'd love to see more support or help for the project.

But are there others? If so, what are they?

Comment: Re:Measurements (Score 1) 390

by lgw (#49624203) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

So which one is a "software development engineer"? It's all the same job, modulo seniority. Banging out code is the core of it, to be sure, but it's not what most of us spend our time doing, unless you throw in "design" and "testing" into "programming" - which is fine, but then we're back into people skills being part of it.

Comment: Re:works differently in the states. (Score 2) 241

by ScentCone (#49623433) Attached to: USBKill Transforms a Thumb Drive Into an "Anti-Forensic" Device

Why do you need a source for something that happens constantly.

Because everyone knows you're selling a myth that it "happens constantly." That's why you can't point to a list of examples of it happening "constantly" and instead go right for the race card in order to distract.

Comment: Re:Single shop most likely (Score 1) 296

by arth1 (#49623311) Attached to: Single Verizon IP Address Used For Hundreds of Windows 7 Activations

You put too much faith in the accuracy of the geographical guess of where the IP is. My static IP address is listed being in a shed around two blocks away from where my ISP is, and around 40 miles away from where I actually am. My dynamic IP address is listed around 5 miles away from where I am.

(But thanks for the correction of the IP address to .30 instead of .20)

Comment: Re:this already exists (Score 1) 241

Thing is, someone wiping their drive isn't evidence of a crime. At the same time, various evidence of a crime--Internet connections, behaviors, associates--isn't going to get you a conviction, at all. When you put these together, you get a different picture: we have a highly-circumstantial pattern of behavior that may or may not prove the suspect was a criminal, and the subject panicked and destroyed the thing that may have but was not certain to contain hard evidence proving that this behavior pattern was indeed linked to criminal activity. From all these inferences, we can strongly infer that the suspect was destroying evidence of some crime, for which we have a good outline of what that crime very well could be.

When you hear quacking, there may be a duck, or a TV. If you find feathers, there may be a duck, or a pillow. When you hear quacking and find feathers all over the fucking place, there is almost definitely a duck there somewhere, even if you can't find it; any other explanation involving there not being a duck is a bigger leap of logic than there being a duck somewhere in the area. US courts recognize these types of connected vague images, and overlay them until you develop a sufficiently clear picture that is sufficiently unlikely to be something else--which, really, if you find a dead body and a murder weapon in a bloke's house, all you have is a pretty fucking strong inference to go against an alternate theory of the mafia framing the guy, so it's the same thing: he's only probably guilty, but we're pretty fucking sure.

Comment: Re:Hmmm Tasty Whale Tongue (Score 1) 47

Were you trying to say:

"LOL, nei, (th)að var ekki augljóst að "here" ((væri?)) Ísland og að (th)ú værir íslensk. En ((??????)) Google Translate get ég látið eins og hálfviti á tveimur tungumálum. Ef gert er ráð fyrir auðvitað að Slashdot ((sé ekki að flækja Unicodeið?))"

That is:

"LOL, no, it wasn't clear that here is Iceland and that you were were Icelandic. But (????) Google Translate I can come across like an idiot in two languages. If one assumes of course that Slashdot isn't screwing up the Unicode"?

Comment: Re:this already exists (Score 2, Interesting) 241

Which opens you up to all kinds of high circumstantial evidence prosecution. Evidence that you may have been involved in a crime coupled with a psychotic behavior in which you put your computer data at severe risk to handle an unexpected seizure? If they have weak evidence showing your involvement in a crime, the corroborating behavior provides circumstantial evidence supporting their weak evidence; either by itself may be inadmissible.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.