Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hardware Security (Score 1) 53


It's the same way that the initial solution to people MFing was to put a 2600 Hz notch filter on POTS lines. Then they moved signaling out of band except for the last mile. They assumed that was problem solved since trunks were protected with physical security.

They simply didn't anticipate a day when most of the population had a cellphone and a computer more powerful than their switch and where software defined radio was an actual thing that an individual could make or buy.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 572

by PopeRatzo (#48634045) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.

As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.

Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?

And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.

Comment: Re:Grinch is not a flaw - has no CVE!!! (Score 1) 111

by TheCarp (#48633799) Attached to: Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

It still doesn't take too terribly much to get around minor issues like that. I actually did that as part of a class once where the instructor made all the groups setup guest accounts with a known password and encouraged us to hack eachother's machines.

One group had accidently made /home owned by guest. Whoops. That was some fun figure out how to exploit.
I moved their home dirs (write permission on the parent dir), created new ones (ditto), then dropped a .profile (or whatever korn shell uses, they made us all use it for the class) which would move their bashrc back into place, exec it, and create a setuid shell for me as their user in a .directory owned by guest ;)

Hillariously, they only ever logged in as root so it never worked....that is, until the instructor got on there to prepare the class final project "everyone's system got hacked last night, you need to get back in and find out what they did".... well he found a bit of what I did and thought that the team whose server it was had found out about the upcoming project and gave them an extra hard problem that they were unable to solve lol!

We all had a good laugh about it later lol.

Comment: Re:Grinch is not a flaw - has no CVE!!! (Score 1) 111

by TheCarp (#48633719) Attached to: Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

I think the ONLY interesting point they have is that there are environments where a lot of people have wheel for one reason or another, or where wheel may be even given out by default. In such an environment, then installing this PackageKit software allows anyone to install software.... as expected.

This really is some of the dumbest clickbait disguiesed as a vulnerability that I have ever seen.

Best solution...don't put every account in wheel, and um, don't install PackageKit...unless this is what you want....perfectly reasonable on some systems like desktops.

Comment: Re:Simple answer... (Score 5, Insightful) 359

by TheCarp (#48633547) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
What do you actually expect it is protecting us from?

Do you feel some responsibility to violent gangs like....we created them with bad laws, and now we have to nurture them? Why do you not want legal production in the daylight where product can be weighed and inspected. Where people who defraud their customers or violent thugs who would prey on honest businessmen and their wares can be brought to justice instead of left out in the cold to the wolves....over what?

Seriously....what the fuck justifies arrest and incarceration over pot? What justifies AT ALL interfering with the lives of consenting adults over this flower? I really want to know because in 20 years of being a pot smoker the worst negatives I have seen have all been the result of these stupid laws.

Honest people being robbed and held at gunpoint with no recourse, nobody to call. Dishonest dealers who rip off their customers. Families torn apart, jobs lost, all over... some mad obsession with moralistic laws against what is, at worst, a minor vice.

Comment: Re:Dry Counties? (Score 5, Interesting) 359

by AK Marc (#48632875) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

"I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.

But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.

I don't have any use for bodyguards, but I do have a specific use for two highly trained certified public accountants. -- Elvis Presley