Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: HOSTS file (Score 2) 411

Windows Firewall, by default, allows all outgoing connections. In order to block an outgoing connection you have to specify exactly which one you want to block. How do you do that if you don't know which program is making the connections? What if Windows Update adds something that you don't even know exists?

Why ask these questions if you have already given the answer yourself? You simply change the firewall profile from its default setting to block all outgoing connections except those specified by a rule. This is not a missing feature from the Windows Firewall.

The big problem is that installers and services that run as admin can add their own entries to the firewall without notification. Steam does this for its own client and for any games that it installs. If it can't access the Internet for any reason, the client adds another entry for itself into the firewall. I eventually added another administrator account for the Steam service to run as and then denied it access to the firewall with the registry editor.

That's works for a third-party program, but Microsoft services could always bypass the security if they wanted. This isn't a limitation of the firewall per se, but rather a consequence of us not trusting the OS that actually provides the protection in the first place.

Comment Re:If Only (Score 4, Insightful) 118

You're kidding, right? How often do we have to chant the mantra that climate is not the same as weather. The climate models may suggest that we will see in increase in precipitation, but that doesn't mean that in one specific location that there will be more rain. Also, there are other localised factors with droughts.

None of what was in that article is enough to make the claims that all the models have failed. I also don't understand the point of the article. If 97% of the scientists agree that man has a hand in global warming, it doesn't mean that they agree on all the details. Nor does it mean that any disagreement within the community is proof that the whole thing is a big fat lie.

BS. 'Big Oil' is a red-herring to divert attention away from 'Big Government', whose grants and funding tend to force researchers to become, in effect, lobbyists for political activism in order to 'pay the rent'.

And that is even more BS. There is no proof that there is any "Big Government" that is attempting to control the scientific community, especially when 50% of those people in power are actively against the idea of climate change. Whenever you hear of political interference with the scientific process, how often is it some left-wing conspiracy to force the hand of scientists compared with conservatives attempting to shut down institutions that do research into climate change? Where is the evidence of this giant conspiracy, other than far-right pundits speculating as if it was fact?

Comment Re:If Only (Score 3, Insightful) 118

...such rigor were required of Climate Science.

And now the onus is on your to back up what you say and prove that such rigor isn't required of climate science, or that the results are being significantly skewed because of their funding source. Just because what the science says does not match your gut instinct is not proof. Just because it could happen is not proof; we need evidence of inconvenient funding sources being omitted from research, or a meta study showing differing results depending on how the methodology is described.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that most climate scientists have done a good job of keeping corporate interests away from their research. If a scientist wanted to ensure future funding and be free of political interference, then they would take the easy path of downplaying global warming. No scientific research organisation has been defunded or disbanded because they gave evidence that contrary to man's impact on the environment.

Comment Re:That's stupid (Score 5, Insightful) 417

Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.

When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.

It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.

Comment Re:Whatever you do... (Score 1) 109

How could you have been reading slashdot for a decade and not know what Kali is? You need to get out of your hole every once in a while.

Seriously? Do you know how many distros are out there? It is not one that I have needed to use until now because frankly I don't have the patience to wade through each one once I had found one that worked well enough for me.

Your attitude is similar to those who howl at people who ask questions in forums, telling them to RTFA. You blame people who aren't as interested in Linux as you are. That is the epitome of what is wrong with open source software.

Comment Re:Whatever you do... (Score 2) 109

...whatever you do, don't give us any fucking clues as to what the features of interest might be or why we might be interested in this particular distro.

They told you in the summary what was important; that it had rolling updates.

But seriously, that it absolutely true. I used to hate companies that insisted on having a mission statement on their websites, but it is something that is essential for the myriad of Linux distros and other open source projects that waste the front page of their websites with the change log. "Great, I know what has changed, now what is the program about?"

In this case, their front page does give a simple explanation of the purpose of the distro; that it is a "penetration testing platform". I guess if you don't know what that means that the product isn't meant for you. But how useful would it have been to have those three words in the /. summary?

They also have a fairly simple features page.

Comment Re: Meanwhile, in Canada (Score 1) 155

Why, then, is it not available for Windows 10?

It's coming over the next few months, but it seems that there is more to making a localised version than just understanding the language(s). They are obviously attempting to do more with the product on the desktop than they did on the phones.

I suppose it's understandable that they delayed it. If they made a crappy version available with plans to improve it later, then people would test it with their new Windows 10 setups, find it to be worthless and never touch it again. That said, I'll be turning it off if I do end up upgrading to Win10.

Comment Re:Proposed solution is more sexist (Score 4, Insightful) 388

That's just what I came here to say. I walk around in the absolute minimum amount of clothes, and yet am still forced out of the office sometimes when someone goes into the meeting room and cranks up the controls. When I have to stay in the office during those times, I have to fight the urge to fall asleep. Today, the air-con stopped working and we all froze; but the productivity didn't fall because of it.

I still can't figure out why people feel the need to be warmer inside when it is cold outside. I don't dare warm clothes in the winter when going to work, because I know that I will burn up when I get inside. Instead, I wear layers of clothes, with my summer clothes underneath for when I am at work. Don't people know how thermostats work? You don't need to give hints to make it warmer by turning up the dial; if the cold outside has made the temperature go down in the building then the temperature controls will keep heating until it goes back up. It's not like it goes into overdrive and heat faster just because you push it to the max.

Finally, who actually thinks that people set temperature controls based on studies done in the 1960s? More often it will just be set on what seems reasonable by the person who operates the controls.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 413

howcome i read she wants all homes solar powered by 2027?

You didn't. You read that she wants to have 33% of all energy from renewables which is enough to power all the homes. This was not about the ludicrous notion of attempting to segregate domestic and industrial power and then wholly supplying one if those networks with renewable energy.

The headline was misleading, possibly in an attempt to turn the people who only read the headlines against the idea. I guess it is a good lesson of why you shouldn't just read the headlines.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 413

I know what you mean, although at least this is a story about one side making a proposal to combat climate change. It's better than hearing more stories of yet another research organization having their funding cut in a bid to muzzle the scientific community and stifle the debate.

But if it all counts for nothing because neither side can agree then this proposal will just be one big waste of time.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 4, Insightful) 413

Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.

If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.

With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 4, Insightful) 413

Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.

While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".

It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 413

And nothing will be changed, resolved, or decided.

When does anything on /. get changed, resolved or decided? We are fortunate that the world isn't run by the comments on forums like here.

Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 299

You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.

There is a reason why the same people keep cropping up shilling for the large corporations with their anti-climate messages. Often those scientists turn out to be talking outside their fields of expertise, like physicists and geologists (hmm, what are the chances that a geologist works for a mining company?). In fact, some have managed to become "experts" in climate change now after having also been "experts" in health back in the days when they would attempt to debunk the links between smoking and cancer.

This whole unfounded notion that climate scientists are just greedily in it for the money is just a lazy way lobbyists attempt to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. You can't argue with the science, so you attack the scientists. Seriously, what has it got to do with a story about additives for making feed more efficiently digested by cows. Farmers are very serious when it comes to any improvements to how they can make to how they do their business. Would you have belittled the scientists if this has simply been a story about feed efficiency to reduce the amount that you need to feed cows and improve nutrition? Why is it only because this has an aspect regarding climate change that you cynically paint those involved a greedy liars out to suck taxpayer dollars.

When this story never mentions costs or government involvement at all, why is the most prominent response from the climate change deniers about "oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending"? It is simply the usual denier FUD that gets trotted out when they have nothing useful to say about the science. It's pathetic!

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker