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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I don't understand ad blockers (Score 2) 161 161

But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free.

Because of drive-by downloads.

Last year the ad network of a non-trivial Norwegian site was hacked, and they started serving malware which targeted Java. If the user hadn't updated Java fairly recently, they'd get infected without any user interaction.

The malware was designed specifically to target the largest bank in Norway. This bank required Java for their login procedure (they no longer do, took them long enough).

So, if the user visited this site with a vulnerable Java runtime, and then logged in to this bank later to pay some bills, the malware would send the money elsewhere.

Since the malware was running on the local machine, it could bypass the two-factor authentication (password+token) required when transferring money.

Comment: Confused (Score 1) 175 175

The guy is confused. Art != looks good.

Just look at paintings, in comparison van Gogh was a pixel artist while Rembrandt made proper high-definition 3D, yet both have made works that are considered great art.

When people complain about pixelation it's because nearly everyone cares about what looks good and not about good art.

Comment: Re:And probably infinite (Score 1) 235 235

The real mystery though is how the universe could be very nearly flat (without being exactly flat). Such "fine tuning" is clear evidence we're missing something quite fundamental.

The observable universe has to be sufficiently big for a planet like us to form, so that puts a lower bound on it.

But if the size of the whole universe really is random, then it seems likely that it's far larger than the observable, no?

Or are there any theoretical upper bounds I'm not familiar with?

Comment: Re:Such is C (Score 1) 264 264

What I remember is that it featured a rather eye-watering construction of two overlapping switch statements (?) which was syntactically legal, but perhaps shouldn't have been

Are you think of Duff's Device? It overlaps a switch with a do-while loop:'s_device

Comment: Re: How about basic security? (Score 1) 390 390

Because it's not big enough to number all our hosts?
I can reach the hosts that have v4 over v4, but not the ones that don't.

You said it wasn't a big issue that you cannot contact v4 from a v6 address, because one can simply use v4 to connect to v4. Yet you also say we need v6 because we don't have enough v4 left.

See the issue now?

Comment: Re:IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful o (Score 1) 390 390

Oh, did you mean "NAT as it existed before we ran out of IP addresses"? Well, that's why we need IPv6, now when we are talking about NAT, it includes carrier-grade NAT.

If you're behind a carrier grade NAT then fiddling with your own router config won't help much will it. That's the part I quoted and objected to.

Comment: Re:IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful o (Score 1) 390 390

NAT mostly works, but it turns a lot of things that should 'just work' into a need to fiddle around with the router config.

I don't see how. Either you keep essentially all ports open to your public IP at all times (bad idea), or you need to open ports on demand.

The latter requires the same fiddling around with the router config as with NAT, assuming UPnP isn't used. If UPnP is enabled it's not an issue with NAT either and the whole point is moot.

Comment: Good results (Score 1) 276 276

Without good results, it doesn't really matter about the bells and whistles. I use a search engine to find information, so it better do that extremely well. For example, I just couldn't stand using DuckDuckGo (aka Bing) because of this, and went back to Google. Bing consistently failed to find information the information I wanted, while Google had it on the first page.

So, after your engine returns as good or, ideally, better results than Google, you can start thinking about other features.

One feature I'd really like is to be able to tweak my result set. Something like if I search for "AC DC", I get a bunch of results about the band "AC/DC". That's not really a bad result given the input, but in this case I was after an explanation for the electrical terms.

So I'm thinking some ability to mark one or more of the results I don't want and say "not pages like this", and it would cull those talking about the band, in a weighted manner. Or some other way to help me find the information I want when I search for some ambiguous terms.

Comment: Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score 1) 325 325

It's called false advertising and Pearson may be left holding the bag if the allegations are true and hold up in court.

That might well be. But it's also very poor project management of the school district not to do a pilot test before running off buying a billion iPads. The pilot test would identify the current problem and leave them with say 1200 iPads and not 120000.

Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.