Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why are they posting old source code? (Score 1) 224

by joelleo (#46579833) Attached to: Microsoft Posts Source Code For MS-DOS and Word For Windows

you're thinking of command.com, not cmd.exe. Command.com was the 16 bit command prompt in 32 bit (and 16 bit) windows. Windows NT through to Windows Server 2008, command.com existed parallel to cmd.exe for execution of 16 bit code either natively (16 bit versions of Windows or, in 32 bit versions of Windows, inside the NTVDM. Server 2012 does not come in a 32 bit version thus command.com is not included.

Comment: Re:It's a ROOT CA they can sign anything (Score 1) 417

by joelleo (#46438623) Attached to: School Tricks Pupils Into Installing a Root CA

Root cas can only sign stuff for their own organization, as identified within the certificate. You cannot retroactively sign a cert for https://www.dutchwhizzmandoesn... if that server already has a certificate from a different organization - its existing certificate HAS to chain up to a root - otherwise clients will receive an ssl error. Once the cert is created, the only way to chain it up to a different root ca is to issue it under the new root ca or one of its subordinates, then install that _new_ cert on the server. From there, browsers will receive the new cert chained up to the new root ca. Until then you can have as many root certs as you want and none of them will actually work with the existing certificate with the sole exception of the originating root certificate and any subordinates involved in its issuance.

Comment: Re:Root CA is Only for Your School's Apps (Score 4, Informative) 417

by joelleo (#46438597) Attached to: School Tricks Pupils Into Installing a Root CA

A root ca for an organization cannot interpose itself into the certificate chain of another organization - that's kinda the whole point to the certificate "chain" of trust. His school would have to either use their own root ca and force clients to use their proxy - a very real and frequently implemented setup - or have spoofed a cert on the site as provided by its web server which chains up to his school's root, which is very unlikely and very unwieldy.

In his case, the root ca he's so concerned about will only secure comms with the servers that use a cert derived from that root ca or one of its subordinates. If he goes to https://www.anonymouscowards.c... and the cert provided by the server doesn't successfully chain up to his school's root cert he'll receive a giant ssl error saying the connection is untrusted. There's no mitm here unless he goes through a proxy.

Comment: Root CA is Only for Your School's Apps (Score 4, Informative) 417

by joelleo (#46438547) Attached to: School Tricks Pupils Into Installing a Root CA

Per the subject - that root ca only covers your school's applications. If you go to https://www.yourschool.com/ it ensures that your computer can vet out the complete certificate trust chain. However, if you can establish a connection to https://www.xhamster.com/ your school will not be able to peer into the encrypted contents of the connection unless you're connecting via a proxy that they control.

If you think "Root CA BAAAAD!" then you're not looking deeply enough into ssl or the security concepts behind the certificates to understand their ramifications. Stay in school and dig deeper.

Comment: TrueCrypt + DropBox (Score 1) 445

by joelleo (#46307679) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You Manage Your Passwords?

I have a truecrypt virtual disk that I store in a dropbox folder. Because dropbox can sync differentially the entire thing doesn't have to sync every time I disconnect the file. Because all dropbox sees is the encrypted file, unless someone can decrypt it it is useless even if they breach my dropbox account or in some other way gain access to the file.

It works a treat, to be honest. I keep sensitive passwords, of course, but also use it as encrypted storage for my notetaking app, sensitive diagrams, images etc.

Comment: Re:Strategy? (Score 5, Informative) 463

There is a LOT going on that isn't encompassed by just the grid where the main battle is being fought. There were swarms of interceptors in surrounding systems preventing reinforcements, there were blockade fleets at our staging systems for much the same reason, there were strategic positions set up all around the grid to enable friendlies to get in and out avoiding bubbles. Things happen in waves - when the CFC jumped in 12 carriers and EACH ONE lit a cyno I knew we were in for a ride...

I was in the fight in a supercarrier and the sheer complexity and coordination necessary to make something like this happen is pretty astounding. We had 3 different alliances (NC., Pandemic Legion and Nulli + friends) in a "Wreckingball" fit for the main battle on our side - we had to be orbiting a certain way, aligned a certain way and within very certain ranges for all of it to work. Supers' Fighter Bombers had their own orders, dreads had separate orders, titans had their coordinated doomsdays + guns, archons and triage carriers all had their own parts to play as well as they could in the extreme tidi and this is before we even begin to talk about the support fleets for tackle, strategic warp-ins etc.

Beyond the in-game coordination, the out of game coordination is incredibly complex as well. I was on two different voice comms, different chat systems and we were all receiving pings via Jabber. Gameplay on this level is hard to comprehend, but I wouldn't trade it even with the tidi lagfest. Eve Online 2014 - Children and the ADHD-afflicted need not apply =)

Comment: Re:I'm an atheist. (Score 1) 674

by joelleo (#45663199) Attached to: New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason

Perhaps you should take your own advice, Mr. AC. Here, I'll help =)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Thomas Henry Huxley said:
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[8]

Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist.[2]

So, agnosticism (even agnostic theism) holds that rational understanding is worth more than blind faith. How is this not a "rationality-based belief system?"

Comment: Re:I'm an atheist. (Score 3, Insightful) 674

by joelleo (#45658845) Attached to: New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason

Certainly, Atheism has no formal organization, but neither do many religions (see also "Wicca" as an example), so that cannot be a usable guideline. But there is even more damning evidence here: Atheism does have "saints" and "preachers" (e.g. Mr. Dawkins), it does have a dogma (centered around a fairly particular definition of "reason" as its central coda, I believe, yes?), and it certainly have its zealots (oftentimes more irritating than Mormon/JV missionaries, truth be told.) Also, they seem to have the same smug self-assurance that many religious folks carry.

Finally, your very post says (without specifically saying) point-blank that Atheism has very little tolerance for anything that may intrude into the full exercise of its tenets.

I daresay that there are times when Atheism is just as much of a religion as, well, a mainstream religious organization; with some people, it is even moreso.

One very important point you're missing here is that Atheism/Agnosticism and other rationality-based belief systems generally base their 'dogma' on a scientific system - their 'dogma' is a variable, not a constant.

Comment: Theory vs. Hypothesis (Score 2) 710

by joelleo (#45518877) Attached to: Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Comment: Science is Inherently Destructive (Score 1, Informative) 366

Science destroys to understand. LHC smashes particles to examine their innards.Biologists dissect cadavers to examine their innards. Geologists smash rocks to examine their innards.

In this case, the fact that the animal was still alive should have been indication enough that science should leave the old boy alone, or attempt only explicitly non-destructive examination. This sounds a lot like Indiana Jones's style archaeology...

Comment: Re:Please, Google (Score 1, Insightful) 104

by joelleo (#45362799) Attached to: TrueCrypt To Go Through a Crowdfunded, Public Security Audit

They also apparently:

hacked my Power Supply by implanting a trasp device in My Bose Speakers and possibly my high end water machine that sent malware farts through my electrical grid and tunneled into my system that way.

sounds TOTALLY not paranoid schizophrenic.

On topic, Truecrypt is just a tool. It can't be "subverted" to do evil - it just exists and people can use it for 'good' or 'evil.' My hammer is really good and pounding nails ('good',) but would work equally well in password extraction ('evil') =)

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...