Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Dice Holdings has written off Slashdot Media at the close of 2013-> 3

Submitted by moogla
moogla (118134) writes "Apparently Dice.com could not make Slashdot work they way they wanted to; with a murky plan to tap into the Slashdot-reader community to somehow drive attention or insight into other Dice Holdings properities, they've burned through

$7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media

and have only started to realize some improvement on related sites. With ad revenue declining and not expected to pick up (read: everyone who uses Slashdot uses adblocking softwarwe), it appears that the Slashdot stewardship experiment by Dice Holdings has been a financial failure. Since the site has been redesigned in a user-hostile fashion with a very generic styling, this reader surmises Dice Holdings is looking to transform or transfer the brand into a generic Web 3.0 technology property. The name may be more valuable than the user community (since we drive no revenue nor particularly use Dice.com's services)."
Link to Original Source

+ - Slashdot BETA Discussion-> 60

Submitted by mugnyte
mugnyte (203225) writes "With Slashdot's recent restyled "BETA" slowly rolled to most users, there's been a lot of griping about the changes. This is nothing new, as past style changes have had similar effects. However, this pass there are significant usability changes: A narrower read pane, limited moderation filtering, and several color/size/font adjustments. BETA implies not yet complete, so taking that cue — please list your specific, detailed opinoins, one per comment, and let's use the best part of slashdot (the moderation system) to raise the attention to these. Change can be jarring, but let's focus on the true usability differences with the new style."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Use public DNS (Score 3, Informative) 181

by Jon Stone (#45836127) Attached to: How One Man Fought His ISP's Bad Behavior and Won

If a DNS reply passes DNSSEC validation, I can be confident the response is what the zone administrator wanted it to be and it hasn't been tampered with. DNSCurve provides no such assurance.

Widespread DNSSEC and client-side validation would kill OpenDNS's business model, which revolves around tampering with DNS responses. DNSCurve continues to allow them to do this.

Comment: Re:As long as they didn't influence it, it's OK (Score 3, Informative) 566

by Jon Stone (#41500801) Attached to: A Suicide Goes Viral On the Internet

There is also the question whether this video will influence more people to commit suicide. The Samaritans have a section on their website explaining how to report and dramatize suicides responsibly.
http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide

Comment: Re:Privacy Concerns (Score 2) 244

by Jon Stone (#40248427) Attached to: After Launch Day: Taking Stock of IPv6 Adoption

Remember - we're comparing IPv4 with NAT against IPv6.

Yes the ISP allocates the IPv6 prefix, but then again with NAT every source packet has the same IPv4 address. The real difference is that with IPv6 every single request can be given a different source address. If the source addresses are picked randomly from the /64 pool then it should be impossible to identify individual hosts within the /64 based solely on IP address information. As you rightly point out there are other effective ways of doing this already, but that's not an argument against using IPv6.

Comment: Re:Privacy Concerns (Score 4, Interesting) 244

by Jon Stone (#40247879) Attached to: After Launch Day: Taking Stock of IPv6 Adoption

I've never understood this concern. With IPv6 I have, say, 2^64 addresses to use. I could use a different source IP address for each and every HTTP request I send out. Even at 1000 requests a second we'll all be long dead before you had to reuse a source address.

IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible.

Comment: Re:We don't need this law! (Score 5, Insightful) 199

by Jon Stone (#39836501) Attached to: Bill Banning Employer Facebook Snooping Introduced In Congress

Facebook are willing to sue. They don't want people to do this either. It devalues their service (even if the users are the "product", they still need to provide something of value to attract users).

Facebook probably wants to be able to charge companies for access to potential employees' data

Comment: Re:Part of this is because of US Export Restrictio (Score 2) 139

by Jon Stone (#39011573) Attached to: Southwest Airlines iPhone App Unencrypted, Vulnerable To Eavesdroppers

Does the operating system not provide the SSL libraries? Or do you actually have to code the encryption routines into each application on iOS?

I would have thought the export restrictions would only apply to the SSL libraries, not the application that uses them.

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...