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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:The Entire Subject Article is Wrong (Score 1) 352

I'll have to check it out, but just for reference, PuTTY can save session logs or configuration parameters and there is a command line associated program psftp for an sftp client along with a handful of other handy things in the suite.

Personally though, I prefer KiTTY for the transparency and system tray options. For a GUI SFTP/FTP/FTPS/Whatever client, I use WinSCP.

Comment Re:The message in question: (Score 1) 572

I mentioned my frustration at having to learn a new way to manage my systems along with my acceptance that times change and knowing my skills have to be updated in turn. I mentioned this to someone who admins a system we use and he said that he appreciates systemd.

I replied, "oh, so you're the one!"

I don't feel like I have the expertise to judge the fundamental issues for or against systemd. I do feel like it's in the best interest of an admin to learn how to use the systems likely to be encountered, regardless of personal preference.

Comment Re:I don't get this (Score 1) 56

Good points. I'd add these:

  • Phones have PINs or passwords or fingerprint access protections
  • A phone may have several, even dozens, of financial institutions as sources to pay from (I have a half dozen cards, most of which I'm not usually carrying)
  • Phone based payment systems can add multiple layers of authentication cards can't
  • A picture of both sides of your card are sufficient for internet fraud, but not with phones

Comment Re:I don't get this (Score 2) 56

While this is true, the problem is that it's still often normal to hand your card to a clerk rather than inserting it for a chip transaction. Even where that's not the case, it wouldn't take much for someone to use cameras to gather the information necessary to use EMV cards fraudulently online.

Comment Re:Priorities (Score 1) 150

Disclaimer: While educated speculation, the following is still speculation and therefore this is not libel.

Do you know why the new Windows phones won't work on Verizon despite having all the necessary hardware? It's because Verizon has decided to not authenticate those phones, in essence blocking a completely capable phone from their network. They get away with it because nobody cares about Windows phones. I mention that to highlight the power the carriers have over the manufacturers and OS companies.

You wouldn't believe how much of a pain it is to get Cyganomod on my phone, and it's because my carrier is one of the ones that included everything they could to prevent customers from having the ability to really control their phone. Other people with the same phone I have, but with a different carrier, have no trouble at all.

Apple can dictate terms to the carriers, because people will switch carriers to get an iPhone. That's the only company that has ever succeeded in dictating terms. The carriers have a lock-in by controlling the phone and they don't want to lose that. The only exception is Apple and Apple is just as bad, if not worse, about locking you out of controlling your phone.

Google does not have the muscle to force carriers to go along with built in OS updating capability and it's hurt them time and time again.

Comment Re:Is this really an issue? (Score 1) 318

I heard a suggestion the other day. Someone speculated that content providers should distribute the desirable content through the same systems that distribute the advertisements. Personally I'd be more inclined as an content provider or an advertising distributor to incorporate an advertising module directly on the content server. Adblockers use pattern recognition and source recognition to determine which content components are advertising. Both strategies are defeated when the advertising patterns are randomized and coming from the same sources.

In order to block advertising in either of those situations, adblockers will have to evolve to be able to interpret the desired content and process and interpret the content displayed well enough to figure out which parts aren't related to the same subject matter. There isn't AI advanced enough to do that consistently anywhere yet, let alone in software you could run in your computer and it is a long, long way from being something you can put in a browser add-on. There are a couple things holding advertisers back from implementing more unavoidable schemes, but when they find their revenue dying due to widespread adblocking, they'll have the motivation.

Everybody wins if we can reach a consensus on what constitutes acceptable advertising. That's a big if, but I'm glad to see Mozilla making the attempt.

Another alternative I'm on-board with is a per-visitor micropayment system. Google's already offering that but until there is a common consensus, and some way to get payments exchanged between different middle companies, it's a partial measure only. It's been tried before and failed, but I but I still hold hope since that was before adblocking became commonplace.

Comment Re:Is this really an issue? (Score 1) 318

Pretending I'm an advertiser for a moment: If you go to a page where I want you to see my ads, you'll see my ads, at least the first time you load the page, and probably ever time thereafter. Why? Because I understand how ad-blockers work and they're not hard to outsmart. Have you ever built an adblocker? I ask because you'd have to build your own, rather complex, adblocker to keep me from being able to show you undesired ads.

The computer user doesn't determine what displays, the programs running to display desired content determine what displays. Programs to force unwanted advertising don't have to be nearly as sophisticated as the ones that are designed to block them. Right now, advertisers and programmers haven't cared enough to change the way most ads are delivered, but that's changing. Eventually, the end user can win because they have the potential to control the computer that does the actual display but they won't anytime soon. The programming skills to accomplish that goal are tremendously sophisticated. No current adblocker is even remotely close to being that sophisticated.

Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook have the programmers capable of writing adblockers that sophisticated, but none of them has the incentive.

I was blocking advertising and other junk before adblockers became something you could just add to a browser. I needed to learn how in order to effectively use the terrible bandwidth I had in those days, so I had to learn a lot about what can and can't be done. If advertisers get determined enough to outsmart the adblockers available today, my experience assures me that we'll start getting bombarded with crap again no matter what adblocker we try. I'm still hoping for an ecosystem change rather than that outcome, because if it goes that far, the money it will take to build a successful adblocker against that scenario will mean we'll have to pay out of pocket to fund it.

Comment Re:Is this really an issue? (Score 4, Insightful) 318

What's wrong with what we have today?

It's a battle rather than an agreement.

I don't mind some advertising, but I do mind scripting and video and bandwidth consumption. The state of the ad-supported web as it exists currently is a battle between the consumers who don't want to see advertising and businesses who want the consumers to see it anyway. What we have today is companies who insert their programming into pages coming from their own servers with little or zero oversight to make sure that what consumers get is safe or desirable, even tolerable. Consumers use Ad-Blocking software to filter out things that come from sites outside of the content desired. Advertisers can still get their advertisements to show, and I'm surprised more aren't by having the ads injected directly by content directors and by using URLs within the desired content providers' resources which are indistinguishable from the desired content. I'm surprised more aren't; it isn't that hard.

What we really want isn't the battle we have today. We want the benefits of cheap content, and we're willing to view safe and unobtrusive advertising or pay micro amounts to support our desired content but the way the ad-supported web is built today doesn't allow us to do that simply and reliably, so it's far easier to just block stuff and far easier to load web pages with crap. The problem with what we have today is that it isn't a long term sustainable solution.

There are two solutions that I think we're headed toward. The first is direct support. Google and others are recognizing there is money to be made in suppressing advertising, and the natural development of that is either paying consumers to allow ads or to consolidate enough advertisers who are willing to take payment in lieu of actual advertising. The other is building advertising systems that make it impossible to avoid and building better adblocking software to avoid what was previously impossible. One is a war, the other is a cooperative system. I don't know which will win, but I'm rooting for cooperation.

Comment Re:No. Give the control to the users (Score 1) 263

Too late.

The genie is out of the bottle. Now consumers are realizing that they don't have to see things they don't want to. In the old days the browser did whatever the site owner wanted, so we got pop-ups and java advertisements and auto playing flash. The internet started out being a place where ideas were conveyed mostly by text because putting a double handful of advertisements would make the page take several minutes to load with a 2400 baud modem. Those websites that tried to put a lot of advertising failed because nobody was willing to wait for them to load. Then Phoenix (look up the history of Firefox if you don't remember it) came out and it didn't run javascript or Flash and it blocked pop-ups and it loaded everything in tabs in a single window and it freakin' took off. As internet connection speed increased across the board for the average consumer, more and more advertising could be loaded in the few seconds it took the page to load. As a result, ads started taking up more bandwidth than content and loading more pop-ups than any consumer was willing to swallow, which in turn made pop-up blocking ever so much more desirable, so much so that eventually all the browsers started supporting it, and then eventually by default.

So the consumers won, as they always do, because whatever gets them the content they want without the stuff they don't gains popularity until it becomes the standard. But consumers wanted javascript and java and Flash and it became standard even in the new Phoenix, next called Firebird, now Firefox. Bandwidth and processing speed continued to rise, allowing yet more advertising to be loaded and new techniques to cause pop-unders and interstitial ads. Add-ons came along to block all advertising as a direct result and Firefox continued to rise, then the same came out for Chrome and even Internet Explorer because with a broadband connection there was no other way to limit the flood of advertising that could be loaded in time consumers were willing to wait for content.

Decent people didn't want to block advertising because they wanted to screw over content providers, but they didn't want to deal with the crap. The technology to force people to see something they didn't want was obliterated because the consumers always win. In a war between people wanting content and advertisers wanting to force unwanted ads, the tides turned so much that every advertiser is being blocked regardless of how respectful or unobnoxious they behave.

We've come the point where advertising has to be insanely pushy to get past the average adblocker. The only ads that work are the ones that are going to be blocked in a few months because they're trying so hard to force themselves on the consumer. The consumer will, eventually, always win anyway. Advertising as the standard way to provide funding for content is dying and the war has gone on too long for the tide to turn now.

I still see and feel sympathy for the indignant content providers who just wanted a fair business trade where some reasonable amount of advertising is acceptable by the consumer. It's too late because the consumer won't ever go back to allowing the obnoxious advertising or incidentally the reasonable content providers. I know, it sucks, because good content is dying as a result.

Eventually, there will be another balance. Some way to fund websites will succeed. Here's hoping it isn't every site requiring its own app.

Comment What about portable? (Score 1) 106

I always liked portable edition because I would prefer not to have someone point to an installed program as proof I have something to hide. Portable TrueCrypt didn't require admin privileges so there wouldn't be a potential privilege escalation issue. The ability to run as an unprivileged user was the biggest thing I missed when I switched over to bitlocker.

Comment Re:Why only say Obama? (Score 1) 142

Yup. I've explained before how law makers could have access, and how much I distrust them. The facts are that they could get what they say they want, and get it securely, but what they really want is illegal.

Legal access could be managed securely, but not without limiting government and law enforcement to a legal process. They don't want that, and that's the reason they dropped this. So they say.

The problem we have is that we already know we've been repeatedly lied to by our government, and even government agencies lie to each other about what they're doing. No rational person accepts that our government will tell us when they're spying on us illegally. If they've decided to go ahead and do it, odds are that we won't know until the next Snowden if we're lucky, but more likely we'll never know.

Comment Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right (Score 1) 279

The ability to have your intellectual property protected with the force of law is akin to having your life protected by the full force of law.

But why? Nevermind. It's said clearly enough, and I don't have anything new to add, but thanks for presenting the other side.

Comment Re:Honestly - piracy is an inalienable right (Score 1) 279

The basic question I am asking is whether intellectual property should be property. I'm not asking whether it is defined (by law) as property. If the law changes or I move beyond it's jurisdiction, then it ceases to be property. (Sorry if I mislead with my attempt at humor.) Under current law, copying illegally deprives you of the opportunity to profit due to governmental created and enforced scarcity. You're also deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell people, but it wasn't always that way. Maybe it shouldn't be that way for intellectual property either.

What I make is mine and I have ownership of it. You're not free to make a copy unless I give you that right

What you make is yours and you have ownership of it, but if you allow me to observe it, I have a right to make a copy unless somebody takes that right away.

I know, it looks like semantics, but in this case, where the governments create and enforce an artificial scarcity of constructs that exist as ideas rather than physical things, it's really more accurate to say that.

If you refuse to speculate on how a society would work if we transitioned to law without copyright, then your argument boils down to "this is the best way because it is working" and mine boils down to "imagine it working differently, it would be better." The world was different when copyright was invented in 1710. Importing slaves was still legal in the US in 1710. Society's values, norms and laws change. You say intellectual property is property. I agree. I say it shouldn't be and you ignored that issue.

We both know the reasons people use to argue both sides, so I'll turn your previous challenge back on you. I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that copyright is good for humanity in the long run.

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.