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:Semantic games (Score 1) 80

by Z00L00K (#49144687) Attached to: OPSEC For Activists, Because Encryption Is No Guarantee

Opsec is just a procedure you apply.

Invent one procedure that works only for your closed group, it shall only be known to all of you. What the procedures and patterns you have within your closed group will have to be seen as normal variations that to the casual observer don't look outside the ordinary.

A certain variation on how the clothing is worn might be your way of signaling to your group a certain message - or be part of the message when you casually meet.

+ - Invented here syndrome->

Submitted by edA-qa
edA-qa (536723) writes "Are you afraid to write code? Does the thought linger in your brain that somewhere out there somebody has already done this? Do you find yourself trapped in an analysis cycle where nothing is getting done? Is your product mutating to accommodate third party components? If yes, then perhaps you are suffering from invented-here syndrome.

Most of use are aware of not-invented-here syndrome, but the opposite problem is perhaps equally troublesome. We can get stuck in the mindset that there must be a product, library, or code sample, that already does what we want. Instead of just writing the code we need a lot of effort is spent testing out modules and trying to accommodate our own code. At some point we need to just say, “stop!”, and write the code ourselves."

Link to Original Source

+ - What happens when Betelgeuse explodes? 1

Submitted by StartsWithABang
StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "One of the great, catastrophic truths of the Universe is that everything has an expiration date. And this includes every single point of light in the entire sky. The most massive stars will die in a spectacular supernova explosion when their final stage of core fuel runs out. At only an estimated 600 light years distant, Betelgeuse is one (along with Antares) of the closest red supergiants to us, and it’s estimated to have only perhaps 100,000 years until it reaches the end of its life. Here's the story on what we can expect to see (and feel) on Earth when Betelgeuse explodes!"

Comment: Living in Europe (Score 1) 2

I'd say that there's a lot of false claims in that article about slow broadband in Europe.

Do a Google Search for "internet speed by country" and you will see that it's not bad at all in Europe. Some countries are better off than others, but it's not related to population density.

So the linked article is full of hot air and is actually funny for me living in Europe how stupid the claims are.

+ - Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners-> 2

Submitted by legoleg
legoleg (514805) writes "These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadbandâ(TM)s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density," the two wrote."
Link to Original Source

+ - Fake Komodia root SSL certs in use by over +100 companies->

Submitted by Billly Gates
Billly Gates (198444) writes "Lenovo and Superfish are not the only companies who used the fake root SSL certificates by Komodia to spy and decrypt network traffic. Komodia advertises its products including a SSL-digestor to rid the obtrusive thing we call encryption and security. So far game accelerators are mentioned as some have seen these certs installed with Asus lan accelerator drivers."
Link to Original Source

+ - Homeland Security Urges Lenovo Customers to Remove Superfish

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Reuters reports that the US Department of Homeland Security has advised Lenovo customers to remove "Superfish" software from their computers. According to an alert released through its National Cyber Awareness System the software makes users vulnerable to SSL spoofing and could allow a remote attacker to read encrypted web browser traffic, spoof websites and perform other attacks on Lenovo PCs with the software installed. Lenovo inititally said it stopped shipping the software because of complaints about features, not a security vulnerability. "We have thoroughly investigated this technology and do not find any evidence to substantiate security concerns," the company said in a statement to Reuters early on Thursday. On Friday, Lenovo spokesman Brion Tingler said the company's initial findings were flawed and that it was now advising customers to remove the software and providing instructions for uninstalling "Superfish". "We should have known about this sooner," Tingler said in an email. "And if we could go back, we never would have installed this software on our machines. But we can't, so we are dealing with this head on.""

+ - Intel Employee here. Intel says it's for Net Neutrality, but isn't?

Submitted by whistlingtony
whistlingtony (691548) writes "I work for Intel.

I'm not in a position of authority. I work in the Fab. This is NOT my area of expertise, although I care about the issue and try to be informed.

I was pretty bummed to find that Intel was on an letter with other companies against Title II regulation.

I also ran into a little piece on the company intranet about Net Neutrality, and emailed the author. It turns out he is, I believe, Intel's main lobbyist in Washington D.C.

He told me that Intel was FOR Net Neutrality. It seems everyone thinks that we're against it.



After speaking to him via phone and email, I got pretty discouraged. It really feels to me as if Intel is trying to say "Yay! We're for NN!" while doing everything it can to sink real regulation and oversight.

After talking to the guy for a while, It seems Intel believes that Title II regulation will slow growth. In addition, Intel thinks that the FCC has all the authority it needs under section 706, so the FCC shouldn't TRY for Title II regulation.

I think that's hogwash, to be polite. I hope it's the position of this one guy, and not the company? I doubt this though.

Frankly, I think that Intel will do well in a competitive environment. Without Net Neutrality, we WILL have a less competitive environment. I'm afraid of broadband companies strangling the next Google or Netflix because they don't want the competition for their own services. As a stockholder, I think this is a bad move.

I also don't think the Broadband companies will spend less under Title II. Oh, they SAY they will, but of course they do... What else would they say?

Frankly, I think broadband companies are simply afraid of unbundling. Back in the dial up days when most of us got our internet over the phone lines, there was Title II regulation and the ISPs had to lease their lines to competitors at sane prices. This gave us choice and competition. You could go get a mom and pop local company to be your ISP, and their service was AWESOME. I think the entire resistance to Title II is that the ISPs don't want those days again. Comcast has long been one of the worst companies in America in terms of customer service and satisfaction.

I don't know why Intel is following their lead. We should want MORE competition, not less. Why are we doing this?

I looked into section 706, and it seems to lack a LOT of teeth. Our main lobbyist said that the FCC could use section 706, but Title II would be tied up in the courts for a long time.

I read up on court cases from 2014, and the circuit court in D.C. said that the FCC gave up it's authority and that all it needed to do was reclassify to title II and it could have it back. The courts themselves seem to disagree with Intel's position. Section 706 is a mandate to report and vague permission to do something if broadband coverage isn't widely spread enough. It's very vague, and WILL be tied up in the courts.

From the court case...

“Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act. ... We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51).”


I think it's pretty disingenious for Intel to say that we're for Net Neutrality while we try to sink it. I think Intel is lying to people, and I don't like it, as a customer, as an employee, and as a shareholder.

The FCC is voting to decide if we get Title II regulation BACK (We had it before and it was awesome) on the 26th of Feb, 2015. It's coming soon! I wish my company was on the right side here, but it seems they're not.

I wish I could change that, but it seems I can't.

Does anyone have any ideas? Should I be calling for boycott? Should I take to Twitter? Will that help?

I am also a little scared of being too effective. I LIKE my job, and Intel is good to me as an employee. I just wish we wouldn't be saying things are are demonstratively wrong, to ourselves and to the world.

For more information, please read up. This is IMPORTANT folks. The internet is our main communication channel now.




Comment: Re:someone explain for the ignorant (Score 1) 448

by Z00L00K (#49084851) Attached to: Credit Card Fraud Could Peak In 2015 As the US Moves To EMV

It's not the card that contains the PIN on the European solution, the PIN is validated by the bank.

The reason the US has opted for signature instead is because they think people will have problems remembering the PINs.

So this means that if you lose your wallet - tough luck because many shops don't check signature validity.

Add to it the stupidity that if someone matches the signature it's the signature on the card, not the signature on your photo ID.

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.