Forgot your password?

Comment: There was no hack (Score 4, Informative) 35

by MobyDisk (#47931551) Attached to: eBay Redirect Attack Puts Buyers' Credentials At Risk

The article is completely overblowing this, borderling lying. Ebay was not hacked. The BBC should be ashamed and take the article down:

EBay has been compromised so that people who clicked on some of its links were automatically diverted to a site designed to steal their credentials.

But the image caption says the truth:

A listing for an iPhone 5S contained code that resulted in users being sent to a scam site

Those are *completely* different issues. A link is not a hack! The article goes on to make up more garbage:

He [the security researcher] said that the technique used was known as a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack. It involved the attackers placing malicious Javascript code within product listing pages.

Posting a link is not an XSS attack. And a link is not the same as Javascript.

The article says "a security researcher" but they never say the persons name or credentials. I bet there was no researcher. It sounds more like a friend of one of the reporters saw this scam link, Googled some search terms and came-up with "XSS" then suddenly became a security researcher.

Comment: Do Geeks actually watch this show? (Score 3, Insightful) 87

by MobyDisk (#47929197) Attached to: Interviews: David Saltzberg Answers Your Questions About The Big Bang Theory

I've only seen a few episodes of TBBT, but I didn't get that there was anything geeky about it. Do geeks actually watch the show?

The first episode has a hot girl meet a couple of nerdy guys who predictable run into her burly ex-boyfriend. In the next episode, said hot chick finds some reason to take a shower in their apartment, and hilarity ensues. It seemed more fanservice than geekdom. There characters were just "Revenge of the Nerds" style over-the-top archetypes of geeks. This is probably typical of sitcoms since realistic people just aren't as funny as exaggerations.

This interview was the first time I had heard of the series as being for geeks or by geeks. It is good that some mainstream writers take their material seriously.

Comment: Re:Why Do You Accept This? (Score 1) 214

by Tronster (#47929091) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

We do this too; we have a "producer" (akin to a manager in the non-game software development) in the stand up. If someone takes an inordinate amount of time or goes off topic, the producer snaps the stand-up back on track. If a pattern of this occurs, they'll talk to the individual after the meeting to work out a solution.

I agree with those who talk about FDD being a cultural problem as the arrangement outlined above could transpire poorly if the standup meetings repeatedly derail and/or the manager has horrible soft skills when requesting a developer to be more succinct.

Comment: Re:Comcast says this never happened. (Score 1) 417

by MobyDisk (#47926241) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Fair enough. Some interesting material I came-up with while searching on this topic:
1) In 2013, Comcast proposed a system where Comcast does the monitoring:
2) Comcast actually stood up for it's users against a copyright troll.

Comment: Confusion over TRIM (Score 3, Interesting) 60

by MobyDisk (#47921505) Attached to: Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

To deal with the added write amplification, Tanguy said Micron increased the TRIM command set, meaning blocks of data no longer required can be erased and freed up more often

Did they mean "implemented" rather than "increased?" Or did they mean that they added something new to the TRIM command?

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 1) 169

by MobyDisk (#47921147) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

If the return on investment doesn't exceed the cost of setting up the licensing and distribution rights, it won't happen.

That part seems logical. But I am amazed that "licensing and distribution" would be so expensive that it would exceed the value of millions of people viewing their content. That sounds like the companies are becoming inefficient. Their own internal paperwork is so complex and expensive that they can't deploy their own product. Ouch, that's really wacky.

Even then, it has to exceed costs by a high enough amount, otherwise the entities involved will focus their efforts on something else that's more lucrative

I get that. I work for a company that decided to can a perfectly functioning and completed product because the regulatory requirements for a particular region cost $10 million. Now, they know it would make more than $10 million, but they only had $10 million to spend in that fiscal year. So they spent it on a product that would make more. To all the people on that project, it seems like a really weird decision. But you only have so much working capital.

I echo your sentiment about the "global economy." By default, a licensing agreement should apply universally to all geographies. If I build something on the internet, it is available to everyone by default. I must go out of my way and spend extra money to make it not work for some people based on their location. In this case, the content providers stunted their own sales to the point of creating a black market. (The people using VPN to access Netflix are essentially a black market. Or gray market if you prefer since they aren't doing anything illegal.)

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 2) 169

by MobyDisk (#47921021) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

I wasn't looking for a distilled answer. I really wanted to know what specifically is the problem. If the licenses are locked-up by exclusive agreements with existing broadcasters, then I can understand the problem. Netflix might only be able to solve that by buying out the broadcasters. I wonder if the broadcasters could let the content providers break the contract, in exchange for some agreement. Or if they can sub-license the rights back to Netflix, and profit as a middleman.

Q: Why does this code not work?
Distilled answer: Bad programming.
Answer I wanted: Line 27 doesn't allocate enough memory.

Q: Why can't I stream The Simpsons?
Distilled answer: Licensing and greed.
Answer I wanted: Viacom has an exclusive licensing agreement that expires on March 21, 2018

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 1) 169

by MobyDisk (#47918797) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

I get that Netflix won't launch in Australia without licenses. So why don't they have licenses? Why can't they get them?

The only substantive answer I've heard so far is that the companies sold decades-long *exclusive* licenses to someone else. That might tie into your statement "And whatever agreements it did sign so far likely don't become active until Launch Date X." So the implication is that they *can* get licenses, but they won't kick-in until someone else's exclusive license expires? And why was this different in Australia?

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.