Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Privacy (Score 1) 31

by drinkypoo (#48929643) Attached to: Amazon Takes On Microsoft, Google With WorkMail For Businesses

Google is working on enabling OpenPGP-encrypted e-mail for Gmail with a Chrome extension: https://github.com/google/end-...

Or you can have it on Firefox right now with enigmail. Or well, you could. Maybe it doesn't work any more. I had nobody to exchange encrypted email with, so I no longer have it installed.

Comment: I thought the point of the charge ... (Score 1) 23

by Ungrounded Lightning (#48929295) Attached to: Spider Spins Electrically Charged Silk

I thought the point of the charge was to make the "wooly" side-fibers of the strands wrap around the prey's limbs and/or the microscopic irregularities in the exoskeleton, tangling to it. "Tying" the fibers to the prey would have a similar binding effect to gluing them to it, without the need for glue, and lots of little fibers could make a very strong attachment.

(Stretching fibers made of long chains makes them stronger by aligning the chains along the direction of the stretch.)

Comment: Also: lots of code has been vetted for decades (Score 1) 46

Why are they still using C to deal with network protocol? Is the performance so critical that it's worth all the troubles?

Also, because there's a lot of C code that has been in heavy use, and tested for correctness, for decades, suitable for reuse with substantial confidence that it's correct (though you check it anyhow...).

Let's see you find code like THAT for a language that hasn't been AROUND for decades. B-)

Comment: For starters, because it's transparent. (Score 1) 46

Why are they still using C to deal with network protocol?

For starters, because it's transparent. The "K&R compliant assembly laguage", as one of my former colleagues once characterized it, translates to object in a clearly understandable way (especially if you turn optimization down or off). Though it gives you more opportunities to create bugs, it makes it hard for the bugs to hide from inspection.

The "higher-level" the language, the more it takes over and inserts its own stuff between you and the metal, and the more opportunity for that to inject an invisible vulnerability - which you might have trouble removing even if you DO discover it.

Meanwhile, many of the things "higher-level" languages protect you from can also be detected and flagged by both modern C compilers and code examination tools - starting with the venerable "lint".

Comment: Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated (Score 1) 310

by Jeremi (#48928545) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

Crippleware on Windows always used to amuse me. Oh you've disabled the button because I haven't paid? [poke]...[poke]... There now it's enabled again. Oh, you forgot to check if it should be enabled when processing the click event? Tough.

If you're going to pirate the software, you might as well go ahead and pirate the full version; then you won't have to poke at it.

OTOH, if you're going to legitimately use the software, you ought to pay for it.

Comment: again for the naysayers (Score -1, Redundant) 150

by Billly Gates (#48928095) Attached to: Adobe's Latest Zero-Day Exploit Repurposed, Targeting Adult Websites

Just because someone is infected doesn't mean they are idiots who click on attachments.

Heaven forbid too if you think your safe with no AV protection either as this shows your not. AV is not perfect but can certainly stop a payload in 90% of cases for non 0 day exploits

Comment: Re:Overblown nonsense. (Score 1) 99

by mrchaotica (#48927695) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Now, I grant you that most an entire generation having grown up with the idea that it's ok to steal IP, and the toxic idiocy of the "information wants to be free" crowd additionally muddying the waters, and the proliferation of people who just can't seem to keep their word, one might have reason to be cynical about this.

You've gone off the rails here. The "information wants to be free" crowd thinks as such precisely because information naturally (i.e., without the interference of law) is in the Public Domain to begin with. Creating a strawman argument claiming that they'd somehow twist that position to justify stealing from the Public Domain is not only offensive, but patently absurd.

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley

Working...