Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 134

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) 134

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) 134

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) 58

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) 58

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) 335

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 Re:Socalim is organized psychopathy (Score 1) 335

If you think labor is getting 90%, you are living in fantasy land. $5 worth of materials + $0.50 paid to labor becomes a $200 pair of shoes. Do you really think the lady chained to her bench in wherethefuckisthatistan got 90% of the value of her labor? In a properly free market, do you really think the most odious jobs would fetch the lowest pay?

Labor will capture it's fair share when unemployment is actually 0%. That is, everyone who needs or wants a job has one and if you want labor, you have to convince people to prefer you over their current employer. Meanwhile, corporate profits are way up even as wages remain flat.

Comment Re:This was not a screw-up (Score 1) 354

Are we obligated to have police officer's lives at risk?

Actually, cops are already not supposed to escalate to lethal force unless/until they or a bystander have been placed under such a threat. If the threat became impossible somehow, then they presumably wouldn't be permitted to carry guns.

As for adults without children, they are still expected to get the vaccines themselves except in the rare cases where the vaccine is significantly more risky to adults.

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 362

So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.

Don't be silly! If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google. Or at the very least they would have prepared a suit and "suggested" that iFixit voluntarily withdraw the app.

Given Apple's history, that's exactly what I would expect them to do if they thought they had any chance at all in court.

As for "vigilante", Yes! What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?

As for what I want, I want Apple to enable side-loading and in the process, shed the ethical obligation they clearly have no intention of living up to anyway.

Comment As I think has already been pointed out (Score 1) 166

Taxis are a quasi public service in most regions. The gov't requires taxi drivers to take fares that are virtually impossible to do profitably. Either the fare is so expensive that no rider could afford to pay (Think $300 to get home) or there are no drivers because there's so few fares at that time that the fares don't cover operating costs. You could argue that this is the way it should be, but only if you ignore that reality you like so much. How many of these late night fares are from folks that would otherwise be driving drunk?

The other bit of reality that Uber likes to ignore again rests on the quasi public nature of our civilization. Specifically we base the quality of life on several job perks Uber is actively trying to get out of (Minimum Wage, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Taxes to pay for social services, Business and Drivers Insurance, etc, etc).

Basically, Uber is only profitable when they externalize their costs, similar to what Walmart is doing by paying their employees so little they qualify for food stamps and local gov't's free healthcare. We could tax Uber to make up for this, but it's almost impossible with all the tax shelters unless we're willing to start making direct attacks on our Ruling Class (good luck with that).

Uber will go one of two ways: Either the whole house of cards will fall when people decide they have to uphold their end of the social bargain or an entire generation of workers will be driven into abject poverty by the race to the bottom.

Comment A Phoney Assumption (Score 1) 335

Just toss the phone in the industrial shredder before turning it on.

Just so you know, your phone is almost certainly always on, as long as the battery is in place and holding a charge. The suggestion that you have to "turn it on" has no relation to what the phone will be doing before it is turned on, which is basically anything the software/firmware in place tells it to do. Turning it on means you get to see and interact with the UI, and not much else.

Comment Re:Well now, not surprising (Score 1) 335

Slavery was "the law" for a great span of time as well. It was still 100% wrong. As is the whole misinterpretation of the word "unreasonable" as converting the trivially obvious and quite specific definition of "reasonable" in the fourth to "optional based on any government drone's opinion at the moment."

Comment The Handbag Argument (Score 1) 335

What you are arguing here is that following the constitution is inconvenient for the government in that it makes some part of its job (catching contraband) more difficult.

Now go read the constitution. The entire bill of rights is an exercise in making things more difficult for the government. Can they restrict your speech? No. Doesn't matter if you're calling them a bunch of numb-nutted fucktards. They still can't. There are no exceptions. Can they infringe on your right to bear arms? No. Even if that means you walk into the courtroom with a sword on your hip. There are no exceptions. Can they require you to quarter soldiers in your home? No. No matter what. There are no exceptions.

Now, ask yourself: WTF is going on when a judge - at any level - or congress - says otherwise? It's as plain as day: They are violating the constitution.

There is not one word in the fourth that says, or in any way implies, "except at the border." Including the word "unreasonable", which simply is telling you that any process that does not comply with the fourth IS what is unreasonable. The fourth lays out the precise formula for reasonable:

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Anything else is unreasonable.

Otherwise, the fourth has no teeth whatsoever and might as well not be there at all. Which is straight-up absurdity.

Therefore, no such "at the border" exception actually exists.

Much less in a band of land extending 100 miles into the body of the country.

Backed up the system lately?