Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Protect yourself (Score 1) 41

basically you are saying that you'd have to treat the cell phone as simple a transport, only, and never a data entry or even data display device. it should not even be part of any encryption system other than normal cell or wifi. assume its weak and just consider it like UDP (lol). do all your data entry, display and encryption outside of the phone and the phone simply gives you a wifi AP.

if you think about it, that's a huge waste. such power and display, being ignored and using it just to convert cell rf to wifi rf. in fact, there are boxes that do that cheaper and better. you could get a $30 battery 'travel router' and have cell rf via usb and wifi also over another usb port. that gets you raw ip.

then, you need your trusted phone, but it can't be any kind of 'normal' phone. and this does not know or care about cell and only speaks ip/wifi. you can have a trustable touchscreen system that does that and it does not have to have any blackbox magic in it.

it still means you need 2 boxes. but really, since one box (the cell part) will never be 'ours' or trustable, might as well make it its own separate box, create an IP boundary and talk just IP.

if a phone can be repurposed so that no black magic is left in it and all code is known and trustable, then we could go back to using 'phones' as user interfaces. but really, if you need to trust it, you can't use phones as phones and UI devices anymore.

shame. really it is. but this is what we have.

Comment Re:Fuck off, I decide what's fair (Score 3, Insightful) 287

I agree completely.

Furthermore, if Google decides they want to "charge" for software they're currently giving away as a result of dropping ad revenues, THEN I'll decide if I want to pay for those products on their individual merits rather than suffer from the constant ad bombardment.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 416

that does not go far enough.

apps can change behavior if you deny privs and even worse, fail silently and not tell you why.

best is to allow all privs and feed the apps JUNK FAKE DATA. everyone's happy. well, everyone that matters, anyway.

anything less is not good enough. no special cases for apps; let each app gets its 'data'; but let ME decide what 'data' means.

if apps don't like getting fed dummy data then maybe they will stop asking for the world. its a training thing; we have to train our app developers to STOP demanding the world just for a flashlight app!

xprivacy feeds dummy data. I have not been able to install it yet, though, as it needs a bunch of things that are not always easy. but this feature is what is needed in order to put the control back in the owner's hands.

permit/deny is the wrong approach. sorry, but its a stupid way of solving what is a broken architecture. apps writers are rogue (most of them) and we have to start treating them as hostile sources. sounds harsh but that's how it is right now.

Comment Re:Laughable (Score 2) 203

any western government (not the US) who is trying to 'shake down' google or FB gets my 100% blessing in anything they do to reduce the force, power and evilness of both of those companies.

anything that causes either of those companies PAIN is a good thing in my, uhm, 'book'.

corporations are evil and the biggest ones have the most evilness to them. anything that knocks down the evil corps even a little is a Good Thing(tm).

Comment Re:NRA and gun control (Score 1) 1163

The original compromise that SAF tried to broker with the Manchin-Toomey bill made some sense: what they were trying to pull off there is universal background checks combined with national reciprocity for concealed carry, and a well-defined system to challenge and remove (when justified) legal restrictions on gun ownership on felons, drug users etc after a reasonable time period and after a court review (they're currently banned for life with no recourse in most cases). It sunk because carry reciprocity was rejected by the anti-gun groups.

Comment Re: Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1163

Push guns underground, and they become much more expensive and risky to buy. Why not just divert all the money and resources in the "war on drugs" into the "war on guns", and it'd be won inside a decade, I reckon.

It won't, really. Guns are actually easier / less dangerous to make than most drugs (that require labs to produce, or farms to grow, or both).

Here is a shotgun that can be made out of two pieces of pipe and a screw, readily available in any hardware store, not requiring any machining skills and minimal assembly. It's single-shot, but it's so cheap to make that a spree killer could easily make a dozen or two, preload them, and just use and discard them one by one.

Here is a book detailing how to make a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun at home, with no machining, out of pipes and other stuff also readily available from any hardware store. Its only deficiency compared to the "real thing" is that it has a smooth bore, not rifled - which will not matter in the least if used at distances under 50 yards or so, or against a crowd. We know that it works because the author has sufficiently made and tested one - and ended up in prison for it, being a UK citizen.

The only thing that can be realistically regulated is ammo. Even then you're looking at modern smokeless powder rounds with primers - cases can be reloaded, and bullets can be cast, and smokeless powder can be made, but primers are complicated. OTOH, black powder cap and ball revolvers are much more low-tech, and yet still quite deadly.

Comment Re:Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1163

And do you really think a darkened room full of amateur gun owners opening return fire is going to in any way lessen the death toll? Against a gunman with body armour?

It probably would, actually. Even the best armor doesn't make you immune to bullets - penetration or not, all that energy has to go somewhere, and when the bullet hits an armor plate, it's basically translated to a very heavy and rapid punch of the plate against the body. This results in, at the very least, a massive hematoma, and quite possibly in broken ribs, depending on what exactly the round was.

Alternatively, if this is soft armor (e.g. kevlar alone - what police typically use unless it's SWAT), then the bullet actually creates a bump on the other side that can easily be 2-3 inches deep - and if there's body behind the plate, then that's what gets protruded by said bump. There are safety standards that define the maximum size of such bumps, but their point is to make sure the person wearing the armor survives, not that they're not damaged at all.

So yes, several people unloading handguns at the armored shooter at the same time would, at the very least, knock him down and hurt him significantly, possibly enough to buy more time for others to get out of the way, and possibly even to disable and subdue him.

FWIW, the Aurora shooter wasn't actually wearing body armor. He had a plate carrier that was capable of accepting armor plates, but he didn't actually have them in it, using it simply as a load bearing vest. He did have armor on some other parts of the body (head, neck, legs), so it's probably because he was buying things without understanding what they are, and bought a plate carrier thinking that it is armor.

Comment Re:Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1163

Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is based on a very contorted reading of it. It doesn't say "right of the militia". It doesn't say "right of the well-trained people". It does say "right of the people", with no further qualifications (a rationale is not a qualification).

This doesn't preclude background checks and many other things. But it almost certainly does preclude your suggested regulatory scheme. If you still want it, you can always advocate for a constitutional amendment - that procedure is there for a reason.

Oh, and please, leave the bullshit "judicial activism" whining for the right-wingers. It has been diluted so much that by now it simply means "I don't like the decision the court has made".

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.