Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:First they came... (Score 1) 358

by WaffleMonster (#48681377) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

If one and only one person is convicted, it's "illegal", no matter how many people get away with it.

Are you saying if one court says "x" is illegal and another court disagrees saying same "x" is legal.... illegal determinations are automatically preferred winning out by default?

What are you saying? I don't understand.

If it's so clear from the supreme court that obscenity is legal, why did Paul Little spend 2 years in jail/prison?

The law is so complex and open to human interpretation it is not always feasible to know what is or is not legal a-priori. Lawyers and judges can and often do legitimately disagree. Hence ability for even relatively pedestrian cases to get pushed all the way to the supreme court for final determination.

Unfortunately not every determination of guilt or legality is correct.

Comment: Re:W3C, please. (Score 2) 189

by WaffleMonster (#48676471) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

Except that both languages and "application architectures" are, so as to speak, both based on usefully constraining the set of valid programs.

Sorry I don't understand what this means. If you design a data schema that can't scale no language selection, amount of clustering, sharding, money or associated BS is going to be of much help... this is just reality.

Only when machines become smart enough to do the designing will this ever change. Computers can do a lot on the margins but ultimately if you want scalability and performance in a non-trivial problem space YOU will have to work for it.

In the long run, though, stuff tends to move into languages, among other things because it allows checking of correctness at the earliest possible moment during development.

What does constraint validation have to do with scalability and concurrency?

Comment: Re:W3C, please. (Score 3, Insightful) 189

by WaffleMonster (#48675953) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

Why shouldn't a language solve the problem of concurrency and distributed applications?

Because this can only be effectively answered by the application?

Language does not enable non-trivial problems to scale out... application architecture enables this and concurrency is of the same coin.

Comment: More worthless languages (Score 1) 189

by WaffleMonster (#48675845) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

In my view presence of domain specific languages throughout data, application and presentation tiers is the source of the platforms power. It's what makes it not suck.

Yes annoying for beginners to have to learn w,x,y and z just to do anything... what is even more annoying is consequences when it comes time to stand up non-trivial systems.

In my view the future of programming will be about the rise of domain specific languages where very little room remains for lies and assumptions generated by glue languages.

Comment: Re:You don't like voicemail? - boo fucking hoo (Score 1) 234

by WaffleMonster (#48670973) Attached to: The Slow Death of Voice Mail

Not the ones I get. Their auto-thing knows that VM is picking up, so it marks it as a failure, and they call twice a day for months.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My comment was made with assumption of a business environment where calls are answered by IVR / secretary.

When incoming calls go direct to VM there is no pain for caller in having a computer try again forever - your certainly right.

Comment: Re:First they came... (Score 1) 358

by WaffleMonster (#48670865) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

Reality proves you wrong. If obscene speech was NOT illegal, then Paul Little wouldn't have been convicted of obscenity.

OR are you arguing that reality is wrong because it contradicts your opinion?

Cherry picking a specific example to establish your case is an interesting strategy.

If I pointed out a case such as Redrup v NY in which obscenity convictions were overturned by the US supreme court then where does that leave us?

Comment: You don't like voicemail? - boo fucking hoo (Score 0) 234

by WaffleMonster (#48663593) Attached to: The Slow Death of Voice Mail

1. Nobody "likes" voicemail. It isn't the point.
I'm a customer of yours and I call you expecting to speak with you.... I've already wasted my time with your IVR and now your not there... you bet I'm going to bleepin leave a message AND expect callback. Fuck you if you don't like it...perhaps you would enjoy having no customers or being unemployed better.

2. VM is the most efficient way to get spam callers out of your face. They know if they are transferred to voice mail there is no hope of getting a callback so 9 out of 10 times they just hang up and save you the trouble.

What really irks me about our "modern" world is the often stunning lack of ability to effectively communicate. Everything out there is shit...

Telephones used to be better until everyone started using Internet gateways to bypass LD/international rates... between the heavy accents, packet loss and latency your lucky if your able to understand a single word out of any given spoken sentence.

Email would be awesome if it at least tried to be secure and there was at least some vague assurance when you clicked 'send' your message would not be randomly disappeared by a rogue bayesian algorithm no human understands.

Mobile SMS is too slow, unstructured and interrupt driven to be a viable alternative.

What we are left with to fill gaps are one-off piecemeal solutions we must expect to not be common to any given pair of communication partners.... so much for "progress"....


The Slow Death of Voice Mail 234

Posted by Soulskill
from the at-the-tone,-please-hang-up-and-send-me-an-email dept. writes: Duane D. Stanford reports at Bloomberg that Coca-Cola's Atlanta Headquarters is the latest big company to ditch its old-style voice mail, which requires users to push buttons to scroll through messages and listen to them one at a time. The change went into effect this month, and a standard outgoing message now throws up an electronic stiff arm, telling callers to try later or use "an alternative method" to contact the person. Techies have predicted the death of voice mail for years as smartphones co-opt much of the office work once performed by telephones and desktop computers. Younger employees who came of age texting while largely ignoring voice mail are bringing that habit into the workforce. "People north of 40 are schizophrenic about voice mail," says Michael Schrage. "People under 35 scarcely ever use it." Companies are increasingly combining telephone, e-mail, text and video systems into unified Internet-based systems that eliminate overlap. "Many people in many corporations simply don't have the time or desire to spend 25 minutes plowing through a stack of 15 to 25 voice mails at the end or beginning of the day," says Schrage.

In 2012, Vonage reported its year-over-year voicemail volumes dropped 8%. More revealing, the number of people bothering to retrieve those messages plummeted 14%. More and more personal and corporate voicemail boxes now warn callers that their messages are rarely retrieved and that they're better off sending emails or texts. "The truly productive have effectively abandoned voicemail, preferring to visually track who's called them on their mobiles," concludes Schrage. "A communications medium that was once essential has become as clunky and irrelevant as Microsoft DOS and carbon paper."

Comment: Exercises in futility (Score 1) 291

by WaffleMonster (#48661483) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

Actively attacking other signals you believe are breaking criminal or civil law in some way should be referred to appropriate authorities to take action. Vigilantism can be fun yet ultimately unproductive... Expecting FCC to bless such behavior does not strike me as a serious proposition.

Open networks with no layer 2 security cannot be "protected" not by lawyers, not by FCC, not by Hotel operators, not by anyone... All who go there are only wasting their time.

If Hotels really wanted to "protect" their guests from evil operators who by the way can exist at any hop they can start by not placing guests at unnecessary risk in the first place.

Hotel lobbying dollars would be much more constructively directed at tech industry for an operationally viable solution.

Only option I can think of that stands any chance of working today is lighting up a virtual SID for each room and handing out WPA2 passwords with room keys valid for duration of your stay.

Comment: Touch screens in vechicles = bad idea (Score 3, Insightful) 123

by WaffleMonster (#48649811) Attached to: "Infrared Curtain" Brings Touchscreen Technology To Cheap Cars

Shifters, signals, lights, wipers, gas, break, hazards, fogs, steering..etc are designed to be manipulated by tactile feedback alone. Likewise my audio system was selected for its ability to be fully controllable via tactile feedback.

Driving is not a "game" .. touch interfaces have no place in a vehicle.

Comment: Getting old (Score 1) 89

Too often when I hear of "researchers" discovering "flaws" turns out all they are doing is demonstrating an obvious result from commonly known properties of a system.

You mean you can just mount that unencrypted drive, change root password, boot up and have full access to everything? Well jolly geeewiz...

SS7 "flaw" is standard operating procedure for Telco's where only meaningful form of security has always been adult supervision.

Not much different from what happens when one or more "adults" setting up BGP sessions turns out to be an immature little brat.

Only difference at least people know the Internet isn't secure and can plan accordingly by plugging in the E2E security solution of their choice.

Have a smartphone and want to replace standard voice codec with an encrypted one? Sorry that's locked away in the baseband.. access denied son.

Attempts to setup globally trustworthy systems have consistently devolved into jokes. Humanity appears to lack necessary intelligence and integrity to pull it off. The best we can do right now is piecemeal E2E solutions.

Comment: Re:Bad for small business owners (Score 1) 394

by WaffleMonster (#48632053) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

You forgot that:

- the connection is permanent, multiple request pipe lined trough same connection
- The page are by today standard variable sized, headers are vaiable sized
- Compression is often used
- AES and most symmetric cipher are block ciphe rand rounded

People pointing out all of the ways my response COULD be wrong or if x, y, z countermeasures taken then my scheme is foiled....and and if you used TOR or something then even your IP would be safe... My central goal here is to communicate Joe Biden's point when asked about telephone metadata collection not to nit pick and dot my j's and cross my 0's.

Lets examine some of the responses..

Well just add padding so they won't know... well ok...who is doing that?

Multiple requests encapsulated in an HTTP 1.1 pipeline or futuristic 2.0 scheme... so what? You visit a page and the chatter stops while your reading it and starts up again when you click something else and follow a different link.

There could be dynamic content and that could render it difficult to discern x, y and z... This could be true or not depending on the site.

Compression - I don't get how this is relevant... When NSA/KGB goes to your site to collect baselines wouldn't the data be compressed or not the same as any other visitor?

- AES and most symmetric cipher are block ciphe rand rounded

With AES your looking at a block size of between 16 and 32 bytes.

Insecure shopping cart comments.. If you have a shopping cart on your website it stands to reason you already have an SSL certificate so the question posed regarding value of HTTPS over HTTP is not applicable - otherwise I agree what you enter on a form is probably very safe from prying eyes when using HTTPS vs HTTP.

Random padding for BREACH mitigation... I'll believe there is someone on earth who cared enough to implement this vs simply disabling compression for *dynamic* assets when I see it for myself. Compression overhead for dynamic content was always of questionable ROI as it is.

Comment: Re:This also means (Score 1) 51

by WaffleMonster (#48631887) Attached to: Extracting Data From the Microsoft Band

We're all holding our collective breath waiting to hear your practical, commercially and technically feasible alternative.

The proper technical solution is to bind encryption with a secure user authentication protocol.

Dump the certs in the trash where they belong and use TLS-SRP.

Technology is readily available and easy to implement.

Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie