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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"Still a youngster" is an invalid option. (Score 1) 109

by arth1 (#48631141) Attached to: At 40, a person is ...

A woman that hits menopause and doesn't have children is a dead end from an evolutionary perspective. What potential there was for propagating her genes is gone.
Men have a much larger window, and can produce offspring at any age from the first pre-teen ejaculation until death.

Back to the poll, it means that there isn't a single good answer for what 40 means. If you're a childless woman who feels the imperative drive to reproduce, it might mean you're way past middle age and really need to hurry. But if you're a free man, you might still have a good part of your reproductive years ahead of you.
And if you have children, regardless of gender, whether it's middle aged or old might depend on how old those children are.
There is no good answer, but I think overall, chances are that a woman will feel older at 40 than a man does. And even more so at 50.

Comment: Re:Sly (Score 1) 366

by arth1 (#48631101) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Sorry, no, won't work. See, in order to get a valid SSL cert installed, it has to match the FQDN, or you still get warnings. Which means the embedded device suddenly needs writable storage and routines for uploading said cert, which is a much bigger security risk than someone setting up a man-in-the-middle attack inside your home between you and your DVR.

There are thousands of different web-enabed devices on networks, accessible through unencrypted methods. Because most of them they don't need it. I don't need a certificate on my printer any more than I need auto-locking doors everywhere in my house.
It's only adding overhead, and not giving any tangible benefits.

SSL isn't a silver bullet. It's mostly theater, giving the unwashed masses a feeling of security. It's not implemented in a secure way, but relies on distributed trust - a system that doesn't work.
You have to be horribly ignorant to trust that none of the CAs in your browser's or OS' key store have been compromised, or handed out to someone. Do you verify that the certificate for "secure" sites you visit actually are from the signing authority the web site is expected to use? No? Then how can you possibly trust it?

It's worse than nothing in that it makes you feel warm and cozy and safe, and lulls you into a false sense of security, much like AV software does.

Security is a state of mind. Not a technical piece of shit you can force on everything and say "look, it's secure now!"

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 3, Informative) 523

by arth1 (#48627289) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Norway hasn't had any school shootings that I know of, except one where a girl got shot in the arse with an airsoft gun about 20 years ago.

If you mean the UtÃya massacre, that wasn't a school shooting, but a right wing nutter first bombing a government building and then impersonating a policeman and shooting indiscriminately at a political youth camp.

Citizens being allowed to carry guns would have stopped neither.

Comment: Re:Sly (Score 5, Insightful) 366

by arth1 (#48623601) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

That you can get free certs doesn't mean it's easy or in some cases even possible to install them. These days, you find web servers in lots of embedded devices. Should i have to click by a warning every time I want to access my DVR on my LAN?

Encryption is useful when it serves a purpose. It doesn't always, and then it's just a waste at best and a false sense of security at worst.
SSL is inherently a weak solution - it is never any stronger than the least strong of the enormous list of CAs built into every browser. If just one of them is compromised (or have handed over the keys to a three letter agency), visitors lose the protection against MITM attacks and similar.

Self-signed certs are actually far safer, if done right, where the user has to actually validate the cert the first time. But those gets warned against.

Comment: Re: So perhaps /. will finally fix its shit (Score 4, Insightful) 366

by arth1 (#48623141) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Make no mistake, Google doesn't do this because they have our best interest in mind, but because caching means they can't always tell exactly how many and who saw a particular page or ad. They hate caching unless it's them doing it. Going https instead of http defeats most caching, at the expense of the web sites easily having to serve twice as much data to serve the same number of visitors - some of that from the overhead of https, and some of that because of less caching.

Again, follow the money trail, and you'll get the answer for why Google wants to push everyone to https.
The guys over at squid-cache.org are not amused.

Comment: Re:But but but (Score 0) 315

by arth1 (#48616013) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

oh tahnk goodnes you saved us all. what elsee is in ur crystal ball.

What kind of idiot modded this drunken drivel insightful? A sock puppet account?
Look at the GP post - the guy didn't predict anything. He correctly used the present tense for describing timeline events, and drew no conclusions. If you drew your own conclusion and then knock it down, that is not insightful, nor any skin off his back.

Comment: Re:And on the plus side... (Score 1) 315

by arth1 (#48614807) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

There are in fact huge forests around me. And this is where the drought has been severe and has caused a lot of forest fires.

Good. There are supposed to be droughts and forest fires. That's why the tall conifers were everywhere in California - trees evolved to survive droughts and fires.

Those not willing to live with the natural climate of the land they have settled on better be prepared to pay high and continuing costs for fighting nature.

Comment: Re:But but but (Score 1) 315

by arth1 (#48614785) Attached to: 11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

Sure, over-use is a problem, but there's also less precipitation than is normal.

That there will be years and even decades of less precipitation than normal is normal. Droughts happen. Floods happen. Hurricanes happen.
People planning for what's out of the ordinary happens less often. It's much easier to pretend it won't happen and then find someone or something to blame.

Comment: Re:AdBlock can't do as much as hosts can (Score 1) 157

by arth1 (#48612481) Attached to: How Identifiable Are You On the Web?

Please explain how hosts entries would block:

- Any host on the 123.64.0.0/11 network.
- Any host that ends with .2o7.net regardless of hostname[*].
- Requests that embed a hostname or IP address in the URL

[*]: You are aware that some trackers use pseudo-random hostnames that are resolved through wildcard DNS entries, right? That way they can track exactly where you came from too, because the hostname will be unique for just you.

All you have to do is give examples that do the above. It's you who claim hosts files are the panacea - the burden of proof is on you, not others.
Put up or shut up.

Comment: Re:Privoxy iirc, & the rest of your "points"? (Score 1) 157

by arth1 (#48612341) Attached to: How Identifiable Are You On the Web?

No, Privoxy won't help if you have to go through an external proxy. You know, one that you don't have control over, but where work can log who visited what pages. Work, like what you don't have because you're a kook and unemployable.

With a remote proxy, no local resolving takes place at all (other than the address of the proxy server). No matter what hosts tables you have set up on your local machine doesn't matter because the resolving doesn't happen on your machine at all.

Adblock works great, because it filters before you send a request. Neither the resolving nor the request goes anywhere.
Of course, it can filter IPs and wildcards too, unlike a dumb hosts table.

Comment: Re:Why don't browsers clean it up? (Score 2) 157

by arth1 (#48601429) Attached to: How Identifiable Are You On the Web?

No, I don't think he did. He was suggesting that browsers truly act on that option selection in a useful way. You misunderstood his post.

The Do Not Track option is defined in the RFC draft as not doing anything except sending the DNT: 1 header to a remote server. Having it do more goes against the specification.
Of course, browsers can implement other functionality to thwart tracking, but not as part of Do Not Track, which has a very specific meaning.

Comment: Re:AdBlock's useless (Score 1) 157

by arth1 (#48601345) Attached to: How Identifiable Are You On the Web?

Pray tell us how to use hosts files through a proxy server.
It's the proxy server that looks up the host names, not your local resolver.

Also, how well does it work with wildcards? There are ad companies that use thousands of random hosts, of the form 47db.adcompany.com, 1a74.adcompany.com, 357f.adcompany.com. With a hosts file, you have to fill out every single possible entry ahead of time, because it doesn't take a wildcard like *.adcompany.com.

Nor does it block IP addresses. How would you use a hosts file to block http://61.174.51.194/ ?

Never mind that big hosts files slow down the system, because it is traversed linearly, not through a hash like better resolve (and blocking) mechanisms.

Using hosts files was viable up until the late 80s, but now it is a joke.

Comment: Re:Fuck You (Score 1) 1039

by arth1 (#48601207) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Humanity is as successful as it is today because we take care of our weak, not because we destroy them. You are confusing evolution through natural selection with eugenics...

This deserves its own reply. No, it's you who are confusing the two.

Eugenics is when people choose who should live and who should die. This is abhorrent, for a variety of good reasons. It's not only morally repugnant, but from an objective point of view, it is detrimental to the species because when you kill those who are different from you, you also kill the good mutations, i.e. those who are fitter than you.

Natural selection is when those who survive due to their own abilities have more viable offspring, causing a propagation of successful genes and mutations, not selected genes.

If anything, vaccination is more like eugenics than anti-vaccination is. Money and culture controls who gets vaccinated and who doesn't, and most people want their own children to have an advantage, even if unfair.

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...