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:Right up until... (Score 1) 212

It's not the check for intoxication that concerns anyone, it's the checkpoints. Around here, the police need suspicion of a crime in order search a person. Nobody has a problem with stopping and testing people who appear to be driving drunk (except the drunk, I suppose).

Comment: Re:Right up until... (Score 4, Informative) 212

Wow, I just looked into that some more and it's pretty horrifying. The ruling was more than it being "Just Too Important(TM)", it was that it is too important to the State. That line of reasoning allows for just about any unconstitutional law to be upheld. Even the dissenting decisions were more concerned with the effectiveness of the checkpoints and considered the violation of the Fourth Amendment that they represent an accepted and foregone conclusion.

The majority opinion from Rehnquist: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

Comment: Dynasties (Score 5, Insightful) 676

by chihowa (#49459993) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.

Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???

Comment: Re:Living off the grid (Score 1) 280

by chihowa (#49453851) Attached to: The Myth of Going Off the Power Grid

Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid.

That's what I do. The extra hardware is really just a switched battery charger, but you could get better efficiency switching the entire AC output to grid instead of running everything through the battery and inverter.

The panels run the house during the day and charge the batteries for night, but during extended cloudy weather or snow everything will run off the grid without any action on my part.

Comment: Re:bad but creating false evidence trails is worse (Score 1) 46

by chihowa (#49448775) Attached to: The DEA Disinformation Campaign To Hide Surveillance Techniques

Well, they have to find out that it actually happened to do that. There appears to be a good deal of "information laundering" going on so that individual agents may not even know that they're facilitating perjury. It's a deliberately constructed end run around our system of justice, which makes it even more nefarious than a few rogue agents.

Comment: Re:Removing this CA from your macbook (Score 1) 100

by chihowa (#49443185) Attached to: Apple Leaves Chinese CNNIC Root In OS X and iOS Trusted Stores

Why does Apple get to decide what certs are trusted or untrusted? They should send out a security notice advising customers about the situation and then let individuals deal with it from there. Also, all certs should be shipped as "untrusted" so that the user can selectively enable what he wants to be trusted.

Have you looked at the root CA list in any of the major browsers/OSs? Why are we required to implicitly trust every single one of these entities to sign anything they want? If those lists illustrate how broken the CA system is, I don't know what will.

Comment: Re:Are non-China users safe? (Score 1) 100

by chihowa (#49443065) Attached to: Apple Leaves Chinese CNNIC Root In OS X and iOS Trusted Stores

DNSSEC doesn't tie you to a registrar any more than registering a domain already did. DNSSEC also solves a good chunk of the MITM that can occur with the normal CA system. DNS is a vital part of the internet. The fact that it is so easily spoofed and altered is the root of many security problems.

The argument against DNSSEC is that there is still a root authority, at IANA, that can be corrupted. Which is solvable with DLV (DNSSEC Look-aside Validation) and alternative trust anchors. Even without that, stating the CA (or specific key) you use in DNS only makes the system stronger. At the very least, that's one more party to corrupt and non-targeted attacks would be broadcast across the internet.

Comment: Re:Powdered alcohol is stupid. (Score 1) 421

by chihowa (#49430209) Attached to: Powdered Alcohol Banned In Six States

Benzene doesn't hurt its use a fuel, and the total exposure is very very low when used as an antiseptic. The assayed benzene concentration in commercially available 200 proof ethanol is less than or equal to 1 ppm (basically the limit of detection of the test, so 1 ppm at worst). You'd be a fool to drink it all of the time, but drinking a few cL while hiking wouldn't be likely to hurt you, besides tasting like shit.

Comment: DANE... [skip] DANE... [skip] (Score 2) 42

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but this is a problem than can be easily solved with DANE (or certificate pinning or CT...). If you make a positive assertion about the legitimacy of your self-signed certificate in DNS, you can have the authentication of a CA-signed certificate without the associated expense.

With DANE, you (the domain owner) are acting as the authority who vouches for your certificate instead of (or in addition to) one of the many CAs.

(I know that this is supposed to be an opportunistic approach, but reliance on the CAs is what is making proper HTTPS, even if just for forms, underutilized.)

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.