Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Obvious point of comparison? (Score 1) 211

by flonker (#49689235) Attached to: FCC May Stop 911 Access For NSI Phones

In California, for example, as many as 45 percent of the more than 8 million cell phone calls to 911 each year are for non-emergencies, officials said; in Sacramento, it could be as high as 80 percent. Those calls block the lines for callers who really need urgent help

Source

But national statistics say otherwise. One recent survey reported that 25 percent of all 911 calls are pranks, creating a dilemma for emergency agencies. And in 2003, another national study found that 70 percent of all cell phone calls to 911 are dialed inadvertently.

Source

Estimates suggest 20% of 911 calls are non-emergencies

Source

So, we've got 45%, 80%, 70% or 20% non-emergencies; and 25% fraudulent. Somehow, I don't have a lot of faith in these numbers.

Comment: Re:One-sided relationship (Score 1) 139

by flonker (#49333043) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google

We don't want American spy agencies listening to our https traffic either. Just because Alice is shooting at me, it doesn't suddenly make it OK for Bob to stab me too.

This is an attack against the SSL trust model. A CA knowingly created a rogue certificate for malicious purposes. This wasn't an accident. A Diginotar type response would not be inappropriate.

Comment: "Likely to end up in an ethically worse position" (Score 1) 392

I see the "close access work" as a bit of a red herring, and the "ethically worse position" is the real story. Mass surveillance is just too nice to give up. So, I predict that we will be seeing government malware that infects large numbers of computers in order to attempt to maintain the status quo.

Comment: Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate (Score 1) 693

by flonker (#48868105) Attached to: Doxing Victim Zoe Quinn Launches Online "Anti-harassment Task Force"

So, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong, or just saying that because it doesn't agree with you, that you want to dismiss it?

I'm saying that it's a controversial subject, and as such, anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt.

I was not stating my opinion, because I hadn't seen enough of both sides to develop one yet. One side seems normal mixed with a few crazies, and the other seems all crazy. I was looking for the normals on the other side in order to see what their argument was, but have yet to find them. From what I've read here, I think I'm finally starting to understand that they are, in fact, all crazy, and that they have no real disagreement other than that they find the very existence of the first group repugnant for no readily apparent reason, and that they're projecting their thoughts onto the first group.

I apologize for attempting to define "SJW". I thought you legitimately didn't know how the term was being used, and like I said, I now understand your side of this disagreement.

Comment: Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate (Score 1) 693

by flonker (#48866399) Attached to: Doxing Victim Zoe Quinn Launches Online "Anti-harassment Task Force"

FYI, Wikipedia generally isn't the best reference for controversial subjects.

I see the term SJW being used as a pejorative against a group which includes some but not all feminists. In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.

Comment: Re:The review ecosystem is good and truly broken.. (Score 5, Insightful) 249

by flonker (#47962649) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

It would need to be a full on classification system, similar to how Netflix does ratings. That is, it would have to put both the reviewer and the review reader into groups, and weigh the rating based on the reviewer's similarity to the reader.

"People with similar ratings to yours gave this restaurant 2 stars, while the general public gave it 4 stars."

The problem with this is that you would need a whole lot more ratings in order to get any kind of reliability.

Comment: Re:Netflix has light DRM? (Score 2) 304

by flonker (#46152077) Attached to: Adobe's New Ebook DRM Will Leave Existing Users Out In the Cold Come July

I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I don't find Netflix DRM unpalatable is because I didn't purchase the content. The "rental" is very explicit in the agreement between the Netflix and the consumer. If Netflix were to start to sell movies, I would find that objectionable. I do find Steam objectionable, as well as most DRM.

Comment: Re:If all it takes is one... (Score 4, Insightful) 65

by flonker (#46071427) Attached to: Spoiled Onions: Exposing Malicious Tor Exit Relays

The primary development goal of Tor is to prevent the request from being traced back to the requester. (As a secondary effect, it also bypasses various national/regional content blocking schemes.) Malicious exit relays are detrimental, but in theory the user should be aware of the trust issues involved. I would label this as a user education issue.

The major points being:

  • If your traffic is on the Internet, unless it is encrypted (such as by SSL), it can be passively monitored with only moderate effort.
  • If you are using Tor to reach the Internet, your traffic can't be traced back to you, but it still goes out over the Internet; see the previous point for more details. Tor can do nothing once the traffic is back on the Internet.
  • Attacks such as sslstrip exist. Be on guard against them.

Comment: Re:SETI (Score 1, Informative) 107

by flonker (#45806097) Attached to: NASA's LLCD Tests Confirm Laser Communication Capabilities In Space

A great example of this that I've seen is: Shine a spotlight at the moon (from Earth) and sweep it across the surface. You can move the spot faster than the speed of light, thus the wave moves faster than c, but no individual photon moves faster than c, and no information is conveyed faster than c.

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin

Working...