Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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: Define "wild" (Score 2) 171

by dalmor (#42699025) Attached to: Trojanized SSH Daemon In the Wild, Sending Passwords To Iceland

The article says "...discovered on compromised servers."

If they are not distro(i.e. ubuntu, redhat,centos, etc.) servers, or openssh servers, this is a non-story. I can create a random domain, compile a version of openssh to sends passwords to me and host it on my server as an official ssh binary.

If I install stock wordpress with access to the file, would that then count a compromised?

Comment: Simple. (Score 1) 228

by dalmor (#39000533) Attached to: What Does a Software Tester's Job Constitute?

Obvious statements are obvious...come on guys, sure a software tester can just simply follow a checklist. Can't say what a screener is looking for(i.e. scripted responses), but as an interviewer I would look for...

1) Passion to understand things and constantly digging deeper
2) Natural distrust of quality of code
3) Passion for security as well(it is another form of bugs)
4) Someone who is willing to stick to their guns(can believe 100% they are right) as much as willing to back down(not 100% ego).

Following scripts or going down features...anyone can do that, but if you don't have at least some of the drive as listed above, you will get burned out fast.

Comment: There may be potential... (Score 1) 235

by dalmor (#35765976) Attached to: Merck's Drug Propecia Linked To Sexual Dysfunction

Seriously, I am not trolling. Nor do I want to get in any side arguments(the government will force people to take this yadda yadda...).

But if they could get this working as a voluntary drug for the real problem sex offenders who can't control themselves(i.e. like repeated child molesters), I think it could have benefits. Having an option for those that do want to stop but can't would be a good thing.

Comment: Re:Supporting Chrome is moving back standards (Score 1) 182

by dalmor (#34892742) Attached to: Google Pushes New Chrome Release, Pays $14k Bounty

Is it still considered "free" if it's ad-supported?


Or in the case of a low-volume local business selling local-interest videos to local customers, is there a prohibitive minimum annual royalty per firm?

And how much does a good one of these cost?

Dude, using questions to bring in doubt and uncertainty is no way to debate. Questions should only be used if your trying to gauge someone else's POV(or you are trying to win over an audience, in which case kudos).

Regardless, I will leave this questions up to you to discover.

Comment: Re:Supporting Chrome is moving back standards (Score 1) 182

by dalmor (#34887622) Attached to: Google Pushes New Chrome Release, Pays $14k Bounty


First, for streaming. It was extended to 2015 for free streaming if the site was offering free videos to the end user. That has even more recently been extended indefinitely:

Second, sites doesn't pay for H.264 licenses to encode. They would have to pay IF they are building their own encoders. Sites would normally have to pay for the encoder themselves, like any other regular commercial software. The software encoders are the one who has to pay the fee. If you still want to go on about sites can probably find "free" software to get past paying and truely solve your price problem :)

Comment: Re:Wrong, here is workflow that will be used. (Score 1) 182

by dalmor (#34880490) Attached to: Google Pushes New Chrome Release, Pays $14k Bounty

Heh, your a shoot the messenger kind of guy(i.e. a lot of "you" and "your"). As I mentioned to begin with, I was just copying from another page I didn't write. Relax, this IS the internet afterall...but on to my real response.

I guess the iPhone is the deciding factor to use H.264, since Android can use flash. So while my "math" may have been wrong, it still reaches the same conclusion: Chrome switching is not a game changer.

Comment: Re:Supporting Chrome is moving back standards (Score 1) 182

by dalmor (#34880208) Attached to: Google Pushes New Chrome Release, Pays $14k Bounty

Your implication of my "implying" is wrong :)

I am SAYING as it currently stands(not the direction it is going), there is a lot of diversity in what it supported. As it stands, Google is not changing the landscape just because they are a big name,Firefox and Opera currently do not and will not support it which a LOT of people use.

Comment: Re:Supporting Chrome is moving back standards (Score 2) 182

by dalmor (#34874906) Attached to: Google Pushes New Chrome Release, Pays $14k Bounty

I posted this URL in another thread, but it is a great view of the whole video format "war" going on.

Even with chrome supporting h.264, in order to get maximum compatibility for video playback across all browsers(let's not leave out Android and Iphone), you still need to have the video in all 3 formats(below is copy/pasted from the site). Chrome isn't going "backwards" compared to where it stands now, unless you prefer having site visitors standardize on a set of browsers, in which case I can't argue with that:

      For maximum compatibility, here’s what your video workflow will look like:
            1. Make one version that uses WebM (VP8 + Vorbis).
            2. Make another version that uses H.264 baseline video and AAC “low complexity” audio in an MP4 container.
            3. Make another version that uses Theora video and Vorbis audio in an Ogg container.
            4. Link to all three video files from a single element, and fall back to a Flash-based video player.

Comment: Interesting article about video format for HTML5 (Score 3, Informative) 663

by dalmor (#34864178) Attached to: Ars Thinks Google Takes a Step Backwards For Openness

Most people don't know that in order to support EVERY video format for HTML5, you still have to encode a video 3 different times. But this site has a great explanation on which browsers support what, this history of the video formats, and even describes the history of licensing HTML5(i.e. went from paying for encoders, players, AND transmitting to just paying for encoders to players).

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]