Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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: Re:Wait a minute. (Score 1) 430

by kae_verens (#37722608) Attached to: US Bishop Charged For Not Reporting Priest's Child Porn To Police

if you know someone else has been breaking the law, /and you don't report it/, that makes you an obstruction to the law, as the guilty party may continue doing what they have been doing, making you partly guilty.

similarly, if you know that someone has been killing people, /and you don't report it/, and the person then goes on to kill more people, then you are partly guilty of letting some people get killed.

Comment: Re:soon to drop Firefox, Safari and IE altogether (Score 1) 353

by kae_verens (#36329326) Attached to: Google Incrementally Dropping Support For Older Browsers

let's consider this a little further.

at the moment, yes, they do need to support IE, Firefox, etc., as that's what most people use.

but they're also releasing the Chromebook, which will cost only $20-$30 per month.

my post was a joke, but it is entirely possible that Google could end up with a huge chunk of the OS market.

and if history (of large corporations that end up with a huge market share) is any judge, then it is also possible that they may exploit this by gradually tightening the requirements until it is much easier to use just their products and no-one else's. It won't have to happen /tomorrow/ - but they could do it so gradually that you simply don't notice you depend on them until it's too late.

You might call all of this "abject stupidity". But to think that it cannot possible happen is utter naivety.

Comment: Re:virtual hosts, money (Score 1) 665

by kae_verens (#35560554) Attached to: Why Doesn't Every Website Use HTTPS?

SSL certs are not expensive - but they do cost money and also cost time to set up, and a slightly more complex server configuration. My guess is that most server managers don't know how to configure an SSL cert.

On the caching issue - yes, you /can/ have non-SSL-encrypted images embedded in an SSL-encrypted page, but that will raise alarm-bells within the browser. Browsers don't like to mix encrypted/non-encrypted sources.

Personally, I'd love it if browsers would let me embed non-SSL images, etc., within encrypted pages, but that's not the current state of things.

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.