Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible (Score 3, Interesting) 263

by arth1 (#49351329) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

Use a password manager and you:
- Cannot access your accounts without the password manager. Like when you've had everything stolen at an airport and need to transfer some money.
- Lose access to all your passwords in one fell swoop when you lose your password manager, or move to a system where that (by then) old piece of software won't run.
- Lose all your passwords in one fell swoop to any blackhat who manages to brute force or key log your password manager.

Password managers defeat much of the security of having passwords.

Comment: Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 1) 134

by arth1 (#49333233) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google

Trolling much, AC?
I have written a proxy server. What are your creds?

From the Wikipedia entry on SPDY:

SPDY requires the use of SSL/TLS (with TLS extension ALPN), and does not support operation over plain TCP.

This means that (a) unless you can get the client to install the proxy server's CA, it cannot act as a man-in-the-middle on your behalf, and (b) they know who you are because of the SSL session being unique for each client - there's no mistaking your request for the request of anyone else behind the same proxy. Even more so because it re-uses a single connection. Make no mistake, this protocol was designed to thwart proxies and caching, and making the user trackable for the servers. Speed is the carrot, not the horse.

Similar for HTTP/2.0, which in large parts are based on SPDY, and written largely by the same people.

Comment: Re:I can see this working! (Score 1) 283

by arth1 (#49331935) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

I don't know about most people, but my exwife is a horrible driver and her highway speed varies by +-10 miles per hour. Yes, a 20 MPH range.

She sounds like a good driver. Your speed should vary depending on the road, traffic, visibility and other factors. It's the idiots who drive the same exact speed based on what the speed limit is that are dangerous fools.

Comment: Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 4, Interesting) 134

by arth1 (#49330615) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google

The irony here is that Google wants https with chain-of-trust certificates, and advocate https, and without self-signed certs harder than anyone. Now it comes back to bite Google's own derriere.

The reason they want https (or SPDY or HTTP/2.0) everywhere isn't our best interest, but because you can't easily hide behind caching proxy servers, giving them better fingerprinting as well as a higher hit count on ads.

When I have to go to Google, I go to the non-redirecting http page they have hidden.
My personal privacy is worth more to me than the risk of a 3rd party listening in on my searches (other than the three letter agencies who already listen in).


Hundreds Expelled, Many Arrested, For Cheating In India's School Exams 233

Posted by timothy
from the not-exactly-subtle-about-it dept.
Etherwalk writes Sources conflict, but it looks like as many as 300 people have been arrested for cheating in the Indian state of Bihar after the Hindustan Times published images of dozens of men climbing the walls of a test center to pass answers inside. 500-700+ students were expelled and police had been bribed to look the other way. Xinhau's version of the story omits any reference to police bribery, while The ABC's omits the fact that police fired guns into the air.

Comment: Re:Space expanding faster than light (Score 1) 162

by arth1 (#49309597) Attached to: How Space Can Expand Faster Than the Speed of Light

I thought that for a short time after the big bang there was a period of 'inflation' when the universe expanded faster than light.
But its not expanding like that now.

Sure it is. Not at the same rate, but given two spacetime points far enough away from each other, the distance between them can increase much more than the speed of light.

The thing about expansion is that it will appear "faster" the farther apart two points are. On the proverbial balloon you blow up, two marks that are close together will move much slower apart than two marks that are far from each other. And this is a very very big balloon. The ant called Andromeda crawls towards the ant called Milky Way faster than the expansion happens, because the expansion is very small at such a short distance. But an ant that's much farther away won't ever be able to reach us, because the distances involved means a larger distance increase too. And an ant that's far enough away won't even be able to send a light signal to us, because the distance expands more than the speed of light, relative to us and it. The edge of the observable universe simply means that anything beyond it recedes faster than c. But no movement is involved, just a distance increase.

Comment: Re:Does the speed of light change? (Score 1) 162

by arth1 (#49309495) Attached to: How Space Can Expand Faster Than the Speed of Light

If it weren't, it would be detectible. The cosmic background radiation, for example, would be doppler shifted and have larger temperature variations than what we observe. We'd see more older galaxies far away and more younger galaxies close to us, depending on how the speed of light had varied. That's not what we observe, though.
Also, gravity would behave differently, and stars would have different colors and spectral lines than what we observe, depending on what the speed of light were where/when the stars exist(ed). We'd have small stars turning into black holes, and giant stars much bigger than what is possible with c being what we think it is.
Again, we don't observe that.

Comment: Re:Does the speed of light change? (Score 2) 162

by arth1 (#49309133) Attached to: How Space Can Expand Faster Than the Speed of Light

Was it always that way? At some point someone must have tried to measure the speed of light...

Oh, absolutely. Usually by bouncing light back and forth between mirrors far apart. And we still do - we've just have realized that's it's not really the speed of light we're really measuring, but the distance/time relation.
Because time itself is variable. A second here is not the same as a second at a GPS satellite. But the speed of light in vacuum is the same.

Anyhow, that's our current point of view, because it makes it easiest to do calculations and make observations. We could use a point of view where time was a constant, and have a very variable light speed instead. It's just as mathematically legal as a point of view, but it would complicate how we have to perceive things. Planck's constant would be variable, and atoms smaller or larger depending on location. We'd have to shift our view of distant galaxies to being very small, close, and low energy, but having a very slow speed of light compared to our speed of light. A headache, even if mathematically valid.
So Einstein took the simpler point of view, and let distance and time be variables with a fixed relation.

Comment: Re:Does the speed of light change? (Score 3, Insightful) 162

by arth1 (#49308647) Attached to: How Space Can Expand Faster Than the Speed of Light

The speed of light cannot change, because it's the definition of speed, not a measured speed. When we say that the speed of light in vacuum is 299 792 458 m/s, what we're defining is the meter and the second relation. If you "slowed" the speed of light, distances would shorten and time would expand and c would still be 299 792 458 m/s. I.e. you would not notice anything. Only an observer outside our universe could possibly detect it, because inside our universe, we exist relative to c.

Comment: Re:Can't have it both ways (Score 2) 337

by arth1 (#49304795) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

Governments spying on each other is one thing, but USA goes a lot further than that, including industrial espionage, spying on civilians en masse, strong-arming and assassinations.
Apart from Russia and Israel, I can't think of any other country that disregards other peoples to this extent.

Comment: Re:Oh, *BRILLIANT* (Score 2) 317

What's wrong is that in the US system, it's possible to treat someone against their will and then bill them for it.

Someone just recently went on vacation from Europe to Florida, and a combination of sleep apnea and jet lag caused him to fall sound asleep in the hotel lobby before even getting to his room. They rushed him to an ER against his half-awake protests, and he ended up with an *enormous* bill. That's just not right.

Comment: Re:Can't have it both ways (Score 1) 337

by arth1 (#49302305) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

Reconstructionist President Mackenzie of the Simon Morden books isn't far-fetched anymore, alas. We're well on the way there.

The blatant disregard for the sovereignty and principles of other nations is part of why USA is so generally despised and feared, even by our allies. But walk over people enough, and they will raise up.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson