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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Ciphersuite Negotiation (Score 1) 72

by Opportunist (#49192181) Attached to: FREAK Attack Threatens SSL Clients

Again, any algo considered secure today may be rendered useless by a discovery tomorrow. That's the nature of cryptography. Time and again we have seen that what we considered "unbreakable" (within reasonable time) offered some side channel attack or an implementation flaw (or worse, as in SSL3, a design flaw that CANNOT be patched) that turned it into a useless waste of computing cycles.

You cannot "promise" that whatever protocol, implementation or procedure you offer will be secure for the next X days/weeks/years with absolute certainty. Hell, given what went down within the last 12 months, anything could blow up tomorrow.

But until it does, it is secure. Security is a bit like a scientific theory. Sound and solid and true and real... until someone comes in and proves it wrong.

Comment: Re:Free roaming sounds nice... (Score 1) 45

by Opportunist (#49192121) Attached to: EU Free Data Roaming, Net Neutrality Plans In Jeopardy

Free roaming SOUNDS nice, but it's not really a good idea for the average person.

Face it: Telcos will want to retain their revenue. One way or another. And if roaming is cut, something has to pick up the slack.

And now ask yourself who would benefit from calls across Europe costing the same as domestic calls. Hint: It ain't gonna be you with your 2 weeks vacation abroad.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 5, Insightful) 86

Actually, I would say we can't trust law enforcement these days ... because when law enforcement cites a corporate NDA to not be able to tell us how they're using software which is designed to violate your constitutional rights ... law enforcement is fucking lying to you.

Law enforcement is consistently trying to hide what they do, consistently saying the law means what they say it means, and consistently ignoring the constitutionality of what they do, and colluding to commit perjury by hiding the truth about how they found certain information.

When law enforcement stops caring about the law ... it's time to stop treating them with trust or respect.

Pretty much all law enforcement these days feels it operates in a special magic bubble.

The rest of us say "fuck that, follow the low, or be charged under it".

General warrants, probable cause, free from unreasonable search and seizure ... these things tell me most people in law enforcement are committing treason.

So, no, we cannot fucking trust law enforcement. Because they are no longer trustworthy.

Comment: Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens (Score 1) 321

Why can he not?

Because, as much as our current government wants to think so, there is no legal basis to deny a citizen re-entry.

Certainly not on a whim. Certainly not at the discretion of a border guard.

I suspect this is true in a lot of places, because the UN has rules about making people effectively stateless.

Governments would typically have to demonstrate a lot of things in order to say "this citizen can no longer come here" ... and they'd probably be stripping of you of citizenship to send you back to your country of birth.

A natural born Canadian citizen? Good luck trying to deny them entry to Canada.

The fact is, there is no legal precedent in Canada for this, and it comes from increasing government overreach and redefining policy without any court backing.

Border agents should require some level of suspicion or proof to do this, not arbitrary whim of an asshole with nothing better to do.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 219

by Opportunist (#49190355) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill

People lie. People lie under oath. Why the fuck should the waiter care about the perjury? There is nobody who could prove him wrong. And it only increases his credibility because, hey, who'd imperil his liberty over something as trivial as just keeping his job?

You would neither be the first nor would you be the last innocent person behind bars because it would have inconvenienced someone to tell the truth.

Comment: Re:Hmmmm! (Score 1) 455

by gstoddart (#49190311) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Of course, the problem with that is taking a corporation on face value when they say "our product is safe, we promise, and until you can prove it is we assume it is".

Because, let's face it, corporations are assholes, and injecting genes into a plant which have no natural way of getting there ... and assuming that is safe in the long term isn't based on anything meaningful.

It's based purely on "we have no evidence to show this is safe, but we bought off politicians who agree with us that we'll let you guys be the guinea pigs".

Comment: Here's a suggestion for a verdict (Score 4, Interesting) 162

by Opportunist (#49190275) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

Anyone found in willful and deliberate violation of the GPL showed that they have no interest in copyright or its protection. Hence they implicitly and irrevocably agree that they will not pursue anyone violating their copyright.

That should take care of this pretty quickly. You don't even have to look for GPL violations in products anymore, corporations will do that for you in the products of their competitor, hoping to kick them out of the market that way.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 3, Interesting) 162

by gstoddart (#49190207) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

They're a for-profit corporation, who see this as their bread and butter technology.

All you need is an idiot CEO to say "I want this" and an asshole lawyer to agree with him.

Are you honestly expecting principle, logic, and honesty from this?

It's a corporation looking out for its own interests. If that means fucking everybody else over or coming up with your own interpretation of the law? So be it.

I expect nothing less from this kind of situation.

Comment: Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens (Score 1) 321

To actually be arrested and prosecuted for a crime over such a refusal is new... Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?

Did you know that in America they can, and do, the exact same fucking thing?

You want to fix this? Take it up with the governments and corporations who make up the New World Order. The rest of society apparently doesn't get a vote on the topic.

Your rank and file Canadian has no more ability to do anything about this than your average American or Israeli.

But if your government is one of the ones doing this crap ... then shout about that first. And if you're cheering when your government does it to people from other countries .. then STFU and stop pretending to be superior.

Sadly, I fear governments, security, and borders are increasingly becoming more and more draconian and acting like police states. Which means most governments are being ran by assholes and shortsighted morons.

Comment: Re:Custom ... nipples? Actual custom nipples? (Score 1) 60

by gstoddart (#49189471) Attached to: Inside the Weird World of 3D Printed Body Parts

You know, you are 100% correct, and that literally didn't occur to me.

I was thinking purely voluntary nipple upgrades, and was baffled.

Don't forget, it's easy to forget stuff like this .. most of us take nipples for granted, and don't focus on their existence very much.


Comment: Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 343

by cayenne8 (#49188541) Attached to: Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?
I'm a little puzzled at the ascertains to begin with, with reference to actives you would require a self driving car for....?

Per the article:

"Self-driving cars promise a future where you can watch television, sip cocktails, or snooze all the way home"

I mean....geez, aside from the sleeping part, that's not that uncommon now for REGULAR cars. The console screens are pretty easily bypassed to allow watching video anytime, and well...it isn't that big a deal to pour a cocktail for the road, hell, that's why folks try to catch as many of the plastic Mardi Gras cups here during carnival season, so that you have a sturdy disposable "to-go" cup to make a beverage for the road with when leaving the house......

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)