Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Blind as a Bat-Man (Score 1) 59

I wish I could see the difference between a regular display at and 4k one. 8k is just too damn many pixels.

I should have listened to my Ma when she said not to sit so close to the TV screen, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman was too much to resist.

Comment Not a substitute (Score 1) 16

It's not a substitute, it's a complement.

A truck goes exactly where you need it to go, not some hub somewhere where you have to send it out by truck for 100 more miles anyway... You simply cannot do that with trains.

Even though freight trains will still be around because of massive hauling capacity, you would STILL need a robust trucking infrastructure just to handle the "last few hundred miles" needs.

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 200

One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.

I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book again. They, in turn, have a customer who is more likely to buy, because (shock) they're actually showing me things I want.

But when I leave the site, all knowledge of me, goes with me. Now, when I'm visiting, say,, that crap does not -- can not -- follow me around.

Now, say someone visits the Kindle store using my URL. I thoughtlessly pasted it into an email to them or something, and off they go. One thing will happen, and another might. First, they get Python and science fiction suggestions for the personalized part of their advertising experience. If they buy from those suggestions, no harm done. But second, they may buy something else, such as a stupid vampire book. Later, I come back, a vampire book is presented to me, I hop to my clickable prefs, am hopefully offered the opportunity to unclick "vampire books" or whatever, and off I go.

Is this so bad? Right now, my SO and I use the same Amazon account. I like, as stated, Python and SF. She likes mysteries and cookbooks. So I see those. All the time. It's not the end of the world. What's missing here is the ability to tell Amazon that I am not her, and for our shopping experiences to be differentiated.

I suspect -- I'm just guessing -- that if the limits of how the site knew what you wanted were set the way I suggest, they'd be a lot more careful to show you what you wanted, because it's one of the only avenues left to better the targeting of their advertising.

Anyway, again, just mulling it over. Maybe it truly sucks as an idea. Your thoughts on how to get out our shared cookie/scripting nightmare are?

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 200

The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.

No question it's more work.

But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.

It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating, data-stealing crap from WeFuckCustomers, Inc.

As I said, it's just an idea. Seems like we're in need of some ideas, though.

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 200

Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads?

...problem solved.

Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.

Comment Perhaps... (Score 1) 200

Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.

You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.

Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever

All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.

As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.

If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.

No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.

It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.

If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.

Comment the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 200

The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.

Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.

Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?

Comment Re:The great nation ... (Score 2) 76

You don't even need a big hammer. The combination of some easily-obtained drugs, any solid surface, the secret-holder's fingers or other body parts, and just a small ball peen hammer will fully suffice to access any data, or the password to get at said data.

XKCD explains it in a nutshell.

Comment Re: Did we learn nothing from Snowden? (Score 1) 76

If you want to keep something private, store it somewhere that isn't connected to a network.

And encrypt it. And prevent others from physically accessing it. And never carry any media or printout from said that machine outside the physically secure area in which it is installed. And never, ever, mention any of this to anyone.

There's no such thing as a "secret" when two or more parties know. When one party knows, that's a secret. When two or more parties know, that's just gossip -- you have completely lost control of the information.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 347

Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."

No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.

The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.

Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.

Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.

Comment Why is any of that a problem? They are apps. (Score 1) 254

Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data.

Pretty much nothing you mentioned would be accessed by general users much on the web; mostly through apps where the advertising (if any) is not blocked.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman