Forgot your password?

Comment: This is actually a very bad idea, if true (Score 2, Interesting) 118

This actually decreases security. Browser caching is strictly necessary to make the web work fast, disabling it for HTTPS means discouraging websites from using secure connections for anything where it's not strictly necessary (like money). And $DEITY knows we live in a world where every website should be secure by default. You wouldn't use telnet even for a completely non-sensitive server, so why accept unencrypted HTTP to post on slashdot or anywhere else?

Comment: Re:Scaremongering (Score 2) 118

A shared computer should not let users see other users' private files (and browser caches are most definitely not world-readable). This is what happens with Android multi-login, Chrome OS and traditional Linux distros. I'm fairly certain the same is also true for Windows and Mac OS X.

If I temporarily let someone use my computer with my account, I sure as hell keep an eye on what they are doing, because the thing contains stuff about me that's much more sensitive than anything that paypal or my bank will ever know.

Comment: It wasn't "rooted" (Score 1) 205

by YA_Python_dev (#43575683) Attached to: Google Releases Glass Kernel Source Code

"Rooting" means exploiting a security flaw to get root privileges in a device that is designed to prevent users from doing that (e.g. the iPhone or the Android phones sold by some US network operators).

Bootloader unlocking and root access was available and well documented on the first Android device designed by Google (the Nexus One), simply by running the command "fastboot oem unlock".

The same command worked on the second Android phone by Google, the Nexus S, and all subsequent devices, including tablets: Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and Nexus 10. Unsurprisingly it also works on Glass.

It's just a well know feature of all the devices created by Google. Details:

Google's documentation on how to "root" your Android devices:

Comment: How things work in Italy (Score 5, Informative) 137

by YA_Python_dev (#43226607) Attached to: Microsoft, Partners Probed Over Bribery Claims

In Italy, like the rest of the EU, public money must usually be spent through transparent public contracts awarded to the lowest bidder that satisfies all requirements.

To make sure that Linux or LibreOffice don't cause problems the trick is very simple: they put e.g. "Windows 7" or "Microsoft Office 2010" in the requirements and pretend to have open competitive bids by comparing offers from different resellers for Microsoft software.

Another common trick is to let the situation degenerate until it becomes an emergency. At that point the law allows contracts to be awarded directly to a company arbitrarly chosen by a politician. This explains "emergencies" that last decades like the garbages crisis in Naples.

Comment: Re:Blast in time (Score 1) 403

by YA_Python_dev (#41353259) Attached to: The Linux-Proof Processor That Nobody Wants

Jazelle has been gone for years. None of the Cortex series include it. It gave worse performance to a modern JIT, but in a lower memory footprint. It's only useful when you want to run Java apps in 4MB of RAM.

Are you sure? ARM advertises it as part of all architectures from ARMv5 to ARMv8:

Comment: ARM is not RISC and x86-64 is not CISC (Score 5, Informative) 403

by YA_Python_dev (#41353155) Attached to: The Linux-Proof Processor That Nobody Wants

Getting back on topic: the last ARM architecture, ARMv8, is far from what was called "RISC" back in the '70s. E.g. it can run instructions of different sizes (16 vs 32 bit), it has 4 specialized instructions for AES, registers with different sizes (32, 64 and 128 bits), instructions for running a subset of the Java bytecode, a rich set of SIMD operations and specialized instructions for SHA-1 and SHA-256.

Similarily the architecture supported by the new Atom chips (which is AMD64/x86-64 BTW, IA32 is only present for backward compatibility) is almost universally run on RISC-like processors that have instruction translators. Considering that the increased density of the x86-64 instructions usually allows to save more cache transistors than the ones required for decoding the instructions themselves, I think that the power consumption differences that we see are more due to the implementation and different traditional focus areas of ARM vs Intel/AMD than inherent differences in the instruction sets.

Comment: Re:HTML 4.01 button for browser (Score 1) 395

by YA_Python_dev (#40729013) Attached to: HTML5 Splits Into Two Standards
You seem to think that HTML 4.01 is a subset of the HTML (a.k.a. "the standard formerly known as HTML5"). That's not the case, HTML 4.01 is a completely different and incompatible HTML dialect. When I say incompatible I mean that 4.01-compliant browsers (which obviously don't exist and never did) would not be able to correctly display ANY of the following website: slashdot, Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, BBC, CNN, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many, many others. If you want an HTML 4.01 browser, you can't just limit existing browsers to a subset of their functionality, you have to write one yourself because 4.01 was so utterly broken and incompatible with the actual web that exists in this reality that no browser vendor ever implemented it. Even lynx is more similar to HTML than to HTML 4.01 when it comes to parsing web pages, otherwise it would be completely unusable. HTML 4.01 was promoted to a "standard" only because the W3C rules at the time were very lax, with the current rules that require two independent complete implementations, it would still be a "working draft".

Comment: Quite the opposite (Score 4, Insightful) 395

by YA_Python_dev (#40728965) Attached to: HTML5 Splits Into Two Standards
The web browser interoperability in the last few years (after IE6) is a product of the WHATWG standard, that started in 2004 (it wasn't called HTML back then). Just an example: HTML 4.01 doesn't specify a way to parse HTML that actually works and doesn't specify at all how to handle errors. The result is that every browser had a slightly different and incompatible parsing algorithm. Let me make this clear: no browser ever implemented HTML 4.01. Not a single one of them. Because HTML 4.01 was extremely buggy and unmaintained. It caused the IE6 era. The HTML5 draft on W3C is less buggy but still severely incomplete, stopping making major changes just means that all browsers vendors are completely ignoring the HTML5 from W3C and going instead for the HTML standard that's actively maintained and updated.

Comment: Back on topic, the editor of both docs wrote this: (Score 5, Informative) 395

by YA_Python_dev (#40726441) Attached to: HTML5 Splits Into Two Standards

Ian Hickson is the editor of both docs (he's actually the editor of the main HTML standard, the WHATWG one; the draft hosted by the W3C is really nothing more that an old and incomplete copy that nobody among browser vendors takes seriously).

He explained very clearly the past and current situation:

And, yes, the WHATWG has done an excellent job so far, bringing much needed features to the web and creating an era of faster and more interoperable browsers. If they had just waited for the W3C we would still be stuck with HTML 4.01, IE6, Flash and other plugins.

Also this is not a new development, HTML (from WHATWG) has started gradually leaving the HTML5 (from W3C) behind a long time ago. Where the two differ, all major browsers (including IE) either already follow HTML or plan to. See this post from more than a year ago:

When people talk about HTML5 features in browsers and websites, they actually refer to the HTML standard. The HTML5 "working draft" on the W3C website doesn't even support the old 2D canvas API, which is implemented by all browsers!

Comment: Re:Oh good.. spying only on those overseas people (Score 2) 121

by YA_Python_dev (#39612759) Attached to: U.S. Government Hires Company To Hack Into Video Game Consoles

But why do get the strong feeling they meant to say 'after PCs now consoles too'? Am I reading too much between the lines here?

Quite the opposite: you're reading too little.

They're interested in game consoles because they already have the capability to hack into PCs, just like every other script kiddie on this planet.

Never trust an operating system.