Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:NYC != Alaska (Score 1) 226

by The Cisco Kid (#49343829) Attached to: Russian Official Proposes Road That Could Connect London To NYC

London to "avtodoroga Kolyma, Magadanskaya oblast', Russia" (which is the furthest East I could get google to give me driving directions to from London) is just shy of 8000 miles.

Fairbanks AK, (furthest West google would recognize) to NYC is just over 4000 miles.

I was able to estimate the distance between Fairbanks and that Russian location at 2000 miles.

So, 8000+4000+2000 = 14,000 miles.

Comment: The fact that ONE fiber cable cut (Score 1) 133

by The Cisco Kid (#49152519) Attached to: Vandalism In Arizona Shuts Down Internet and Phone Service

would completely cut off an entire region as large as that, shows that whoever is in charge of engineering this stuff simply doesn't understand how the Internet is supposed to work, and has no motivation to ensure it keeps working.

Any pipe carrying traffic for that large an area, should have had multiple alternate/redundant paths - miles away, in different pipes, connecting via different peering points. The Internet is not meant to be a hierarchy or a pyramid - its supposed to be a spiderweb.

Comment: A better option you might not have considered (Score 1) 327

by The Cisco Kid (#49036093) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Panic Button a Very Young Child Can Use

Perhaps your wife could wear some sort of device (bracelet, etc) that itself would be capable of detecting that she was having a seizure, that could be setup to trigger whatever notifications were desired. Here are a few things I found alone these lines:


Comment: Re:bank I use ... allows (weak passwords) (Score 1) 271

by The Cisco Kid (#48996201) Attached to: Why Gmail Has Better Security Than Your Bank

I have a somewhat related issue.

Google has my cell number anyway (they forward google voice calls to it), but they INSIST that the initial verification to setup 2factor be by SMS/text, which I have blocked on the cell itself. Maybe that is to verify its a cell, and not a landline.

Comment: Re:bank I use ... allows (weak passwords) (Score 1) 271

by The Cisco Kid (#48996183) Attached to: Why Gmail Has Better Security Than Your Bank

And aside from my other reply, what if you don't HAVE a cellphone?

There is a disturbing trend toward providing a cellphone number being a requirement to obtain various kinds of goods or services, especially in various online forms, without any allowance for an individual to specify that they do not own a cellphone (or perhaps any phone) and therefore do not have a number to provide. The form designers seem ignorant of the fact that sometimes the 100% accurate and valid answer to "What is your cell phone number?" is "I do not have one" and design the forms to be incapable of accepting and processing that answer.

Even in cases where someone DOES have a phone, sometimes the 100% accurate and valid answer to "what is your number?" is "none of your damn business, its private, you don't need to call me and even if you think you do I don't authorize or enable you to do so".

Comment: Re:bank I use ... allows (weak passwords) (Score 2) 271

by The Cisco Kid (#48996143) Attached to: Why Gmail Has Better Security Than Your Bank

Can't work for me.

I have a celI rarely use text, so paying $15 for a chunk of texts I'll never use is stupid.
I'd allow pay-per-text, but only if I only had to pay to SEND - I refuse to pay per-message for someone ELSE (perhaps spammers) sending to me.
As a result, I have texts/SMS through my cell carrier BLOCKED.
Instead, I use google voice for the one or two people I *occasionally* have to send or receive a text from.

Heck, I don't even use my direct cell number for calls - I consider the number disposable, and use the google voice number instead. If I have to switch cell carriers, no mess giving people a new number - only one or two direct family members, for use in the very rare instance where there was an emergency AND google voice was down.

So this is completely useless to me - trying to use the GV number for the 2-factor would be problematic since I have to have access to my google account to be able to see those text anyway.

Something which helps protect against someone else accessing my account is great, but it absolutely has to first have an absolutely failsafe way of ensuring that *I* never lose access to it. Printed-out codes can be lost, as can cellphones and dongles.

Right now my solution is to have a very good password which I absolutely remember. I suppose if I were to ever lose my memory that could be an issue too.

I don't know what the solution is. Clearly neither does google or anyone else.

Comment: Re:Too bad google's own search doesn't turn up any (Score 1) 121

by The Cisco Kid (#48248321) Attached to: Google Adds USB Security Keys To 2-Factor Authentication Options

Oddly, while it still does not find any security keys, that same search now gives me two results - one for a pet door, and another for a pet carrier. I doubt either of those is compatible with google's authentication system.

If something is ONLY available through amazon, its not available.

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov