Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Really? Quicktime? Seriously? (Score 4, Informative) 320

Valid question. I used to install Quicktime... 4? On my Pentium 2 MMX 200mhz computer back in the mid 1990's so I could watch movie trailers on Apple's website in middle school. That's the last time I installed Quicktime that I can remember. I'm honestly curious what purpose it serves today? Is it a web browser plugin or what? I haven't even thought of Quicktime in YEARS.... let alone had a reason to use it...

My understanding is that versions of iTunes prior to 10.5 required Quicktime. Quicktime has always been more than a video player -- it's an entire multimedia framework, with APIs for doing a whole host of multimedia playback, editing, and conversion capabilities. It was the main multimedia framework for Mac OS X up until 10.7 (Lion).

iTunes would have used it for both media playback, as well as for transcoding video from various formats/sizes for various Apple devices (iPhone, AppleTV, etc.). Newer versions no longer require Quicktime so far as I'm aware -- however, this article is about people who aren't keeping their software up-to-date, so it wouldn't be surprising to learn that they're still running older OS's and older versions of iTunes.


Comment Re:Well if its anything like the US... (Score 1) 220

Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't the Canadian Charter include a stipulation in it that essentially says, "The government can ignore any of these rights if they so choose"?

That's the short version.

The longer version is somewhat more nuanced. No Government or government agency can just willy-nilly ignore someones Charter Rights, and then declare "Notwithstanding Clause!". The cause pertains to legislation in specific. So which you could pass legislation that violates certain Charter rights (but not all of them, which I'll get to in a minute), you can't just randomly violate peoples rights on a whim, and use Section 33 as a defence.

Section 33 also only pertains to very specific rights, and not all of them. Namely, those in Section 2 (Fundamental Freedoms), Sections 7 - 14 (Legal Rights), and Section 15 (Equality Rights). Not covered are Sections 3 - 5 (Democratize Rights), Section 6 (Mobility Rights), Sections 16 - 22 (Official Languages), or Section 23 (Minority Language Education Rights).

Further to all of that, Section 33 specifically states that any such legislation automatically ceases to function after five years. A Parliament or Legislature may re-enact any such legislation that is about to expire; any such re-enacted legislation has the same five year expiry date. Thus any legislation that goes agains the Charter has the opportunity of being repealed by democratic means (as Parliament and Legislature are limited to five-year terms under Section 4, which is one of the sections that cannot be overridden by Notwithstanding legislation, if the people have a problem with Notwithstanding legislation, they can vote in a new government int he next general election to repeal or let it expire).

Not specifically stated in the act (but upheld by case law) is that a government can only apply Section 33 to legislation it has the authority to enact. Thus, for example, in the year 2000 the Alberta Legislature tried to use Section 33 to make same-sex marriage illegal in their province; the Supreme Court held that the legislation was null-and-void as only Parliament has the authority to enact legislation pertaining to marriage. This of course, could also work the other way -- the Federal Government wouldn't be able to use Section 33 to invalidate something under Provincial jurisdiction.

It is also important to note that at the Federal level, no Federal Government has ever used Section 33; indeed, previous Parliaments have sworn that they will never use it. That doesn't have any real protection in law, of course -- but to do so would be political suicide.

None of the above should be read as my endorsing section 33. I don't. I understand the political expediency that caused it to be (at the time it seemed like it was add Section 33, or not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all...), and I have a pretty good handle on its legal standing and the politics surrounding it, but like a lot of Canadians I would like nothing more than to see it repealed. We are fortunate that it is rarely used by the Provinces, and has never been used by the Federal Parliament, but an even better long-term protection would be to scrap it altogether. Unfortunately, doing so requires agreement from the ten Provinces, and as we know from experience, you can't open up Constitutional negotiations to change anything like this without everyone coming out of the woodwork demanding that all of their changes be discussed (and accepted) as well.


Comment Re:Their biggest problem... (Score 1) 227

Smaller ad networks might not be able to, but Google probably could. Imagine if Google ran their ads, with encoded scripts and links, through their other domains at random. Your only choice then would be to completely block Google, which would break many sites that use their hosted scripts and content, or put up with some ads. Google hasn't done this yet because an anti-adblock arms race would be both costly and a public relations disaster. It's not yet worth it for Google to push the nuclear button on ad blockers, but that day may yet come if things keep going the way that they are.

Except that, unless you only use a HOSTS file (which is the easiest thing to work around in terms of ad blocking), modern ad blockers don't solely block based on host. You can also block based on HTML tags, IDs, and classes. Sure, you can always randomize these on page loads, but you risk breaking a lot of things, and it would add extra server computation to serve out a page (to the point where for someone like Google, it might become more expensive to serve ad pages than you make in revenue).


Comment Their biggest problem... (Score 4, Interesting) 227

When it comes to the Internet, the biggest problem they're going to encounter is that there is nothing in this world that advertising improves .

I've sat and tried to think of anything that advertising actually improves (in my mind at least). About the closest I can seem to get is movie trailers before a movie. And that's it. And I don't see how that would apply to websites.

There is no advertising anywhere that improves the web experience, thus users will always have an incentive to block it. It uses end-user and ISP bandwidth, so it actually costs the consumer (and everything in-between) for its delivery.

Anything that costs me money which detracts from the overall experience, even by a tiny bit, is going to get blocked when there is an easy technological means to do so. There is absolutely no way Google or anyone else can change that -- being less annoying is still infinitely worse than not being present in the first place.


Comment Re:All of you fail (Score 1) 161

LED's, arrows on the floor. smartphone, arudino, flip book, GPS...all fail

My grandfather suffered from Alzheimers in his final years. Even though he had been a military court reporter throughout WWII, and had worked in an office of a chemical plant for his entire career after the war, in his later years anytime the phone rang, he would pick it up and toss it in the garbage. Anytime my grandmother needed to use the phone, she had to go fish it out of the trash.

Years later, when I was working on my MSc., my research supervisor came to us with an idea for a device just like the OP wants to create. He had no experience with people with dementia. I related my grandfathers story. He was never able to secure funding, and the project eventually fell through. Unfortunately, I think he felt that with sufficient funding and enough research, his idea for a handheld device to help the elderly with dementia would have eventually worked, and our relationship was never quite the same again. But I had experience behind me -- my grandfather was an educated man who had used telephones his entire career, but couldn't operate one in his final years (and I am talking about a landline, and not a cell phone), and out of frustration and confusion would just dump it in the nearest waste bin. If you had given him some fancy and expensive electronic device that made unexpected sounds and flashed meaningless text and colours and such at him, it would have very quickly wound up in the exact same place.

The parent is correct. A time may come when we are of that age and our memories start failing that our long experiences with touchscreen smartphones will make such a concept tenable, but we're at least 20 - 30 years out from being at that stage yet. And I suspect that it will be some form of more invisible technology that will rule the day in the end, such as technology built into the environment. Until that time, you need a flesh and blood person to provide aid and guidance. Parent poster is right. There really is no substitute here.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 258

Thanks for the insight, however. I was curious as to why you'd work so hard to protect something that's really not a whole lot in the scope of things. As it appears you're still employed there's also that whole reputation thing. Somehow, I have a fine reputation and I'm generally a prick in some ways. Well, more of a hermit who doesn't really like a whole lot of drama. I imagine that my view is biased due to my history and how I am able to process things today. Again, thanks.

No problem. The only thing I'd add here is that I did in the past have a job that required security clearance. While I don't have any data relating to that job anywhere, I do keep certain security practices somewhat out of habit. It also doesn't hurt to keep up with some of the state-of-the-art and best practices.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 258

After reading your comments down to this far, are you a kiddie porn collector or something? What do you have that you're so worried about?

I don't have any illegal (or even immoral) activity to be worried about, which is certainly why none of this has ever been an issue.

A big part of the way I run my passwords stems purely from workflow. I decided several years ago that I wanted to beef up my online password security for systems that don't accept 2048+-bit keys (so pretty much every website I use that has a login component), by ensuring that each one has a unique, nearly as long as possible random password. I wasn't going to be able to memorize these for the large number of systems I have access to, so I had to adopt a workflow for generating random website passwords, and store them in an encrypted keychain where they could be easily retrieved in a manner where I didn't even have to see them. I didn't do this because I have anything to hide, but because I do what I can to ensure security, and that if one password is somehow cracked or stolen, it won't affect any more than a single system.

Of course, you don't have to have anything you would think would need hiding to be denied access at the border. For example, this Canadian woman was denied at the US border because of prior clinical depression (how US border officials even knew caused quite the storm of controversy, as they had been given illegal access to medical records). Now I've never had depression, but if they can block you from entering for that, then maybe they could get wind of that bad hangnail I had the other week and decide not to let me in the next time I travel on business.

If I had a more specific reason for guarding my privacy, please be assured I wouldn't discuss it with you publicly here on /.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 258

So you don't plan to use your e-mail while you're traveling?

Fair enough, but then why bring your computer at all, if you can't do anything with it?

If I was a border agent and you were telling me all this, I'd find it rather hard to believe that you brought your computer, that can't log into anything and you don't have the ability to do so. I think I'd hold you for awhile until my experts could have a crack at your machine and see if a week in detention might change your mind.

A fair question, which has a perfectly valid answer.

If I'm travelling on business, I'll ensure I have my work e-mail available. I have a separate laptop that I use purely for work purposes, and is setup against my workplaces Exchange server. That e-mail address is only used for work related purposes; it's not the e-mail registered against personal services like Facebook, or my banking, /., etc.

So if some border official wants to go through my work e-mails, they're going to have the lawyers of a multi-billion dollar American corporation to deal with. I'm perfectly fine with that. They won't have any access to any of my personal accounts or details, and I won't be able to give it to them.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 258

They can make you reset your passwords.

Just because you don't know your Facebook password doesn't mean you can't login, it just means you need to reset it.

The keychain doesn't help you with that.

Except that my e-mail passwords are also long, random strings that I don't know, and password resets typically are sent to your e-mail. Those e-mail passwords are stored in my keychain, so it does indeed help with that. If I can't get to the password reset e-mail and link, I can't reset my password.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 258

Well, they would the keychain then. Do you think they're stupid or what?

That's why (when I'm travelling at least) I keep the keychain out of their jurisdiction. Proper law enforcement agencies can go through proper channels, and can see if they can get a Canadian court to issue a warrant to get it. Best of luck to them.

As for everyone else, well, without physical access to the keychain, they're out of luck.


Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 4, Interesting) 258

It is interesting to see the current results with over 40% in "Sorry I can't help, but I just can't recall any ..." but I expect most of these people will not realize how much pressure you may get from legal authorities to release your password. Chances are most of you would crack after you have legal authorities pressing you. Why? because you don't need to be criminally prosecuted for your life to be made miserable. Especially if you don't have anything incriminating, it will be easier to give the password show that you don't have anything and just go on and change your password. Now this isn't fair and we should have legal protection against officials for even asking the question, but real life, if you are going to stand up for your rights, there will be consequences you will have to face. If you have the bravery to do this, good for you. But in reality most of us do not have the bravery that we think we do in such a poll.

That depends on how you assign passwords in the first place. Myself, I've hit a point now where nearly all of my passwords are uniquely auto-generated, and dumped into my keychain. I never even see them directly -- the process is pretty much automated. I didn't generate them, thus I don't know them.

Thus, if for example I were travelling and a government official or someone in a dark alley wanted to know my Facebook password, I can't help them. I don't know it. They interrogate me or hit me over the head all day and night long, and they aren't going to get anything. This is why, when I travel to the US, I don't take my keychain with me.

Now local authorities who can force me to sit down at one of my primary computers to unlock the keychain are a different story, and not one I could do a whole lot about. At a minimum, they could certainly compel the keychain password out of me and do it themselves. The key (no pun intended), however, is they need the keychain in the first place to do this.


Comment Only in the US then? (Score 1) 223

Amazon doesn't offer their Instant Video streaming service in Canada at all, so their reasoning doesn't stand up here in Canada. Will they also be preventing sales of Apple TVs and Chromecast units to Canadians?

Maybe someone just needs to point them to the Chromecast and (new) tvOS SDKs so they can whip up their own Amazon Instant Video apps instead?


I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright