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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Simple solution (Score 1) 306

by tlhIngan (#48897247) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

What I've found is that the cheap mouses the click wheel works ok. The MS and Logitech ones, of course.

Got me the middle button gets used most for opening a link in a new tab, and also has it's uses in CAD apps.

I don't know about you, but 3 button mice I find limiting - I invariably get mice with extra buttons to get me the extra functions you need. Instead of zoom mapped to the wheel (which is annoying as hell), I map it to two buttons so I click it when I need it, and map the wheel elsewhere.

And hell, I can map Paste to a button that's less vulnerable to hitting than the middle click when scrolling fast.

Comment: Re:bitcoin is circling the drain, but.... (Score 1) 65

by tlhIngan (#48897217) Attached to: Winklevoss Twins Plan Regulated Bitcoin Exchange

If the Winkletwins want to hype it up long enough so that I can dispose of the last of my BTC stash while 1BTC is still over US$200, I'm game.

Having bitcoins kept in a US bank seems to defeat the purpose of bitcoin, but it it helps me with my previous point, then by golly, full speed ahead.

And that's the entire point.

The WInklevoss bought BTC when it was probably $500 or higher - and supposedly they own around 10% of all BTC.

And now that the price crashed from $1300 each to $250 or so, well, damn, they lost a lot of money.

The whole point of the regulated exchange is supposedly to keep the price up and give it more legitimacy - I'm sure they saw that BTC was used for Silk Road and other illicit transactions and when Silk Road got busted, well, the fact its value was propped up by illegal activities hurt them. So they want to transform it into a legitimate business whose value is driven by "legitimate" economic activity over say, criminal activity.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 147

by tlhIngan (#48897205) Attached to: WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users

I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app.

Probably because WhatsApp Plus is distributed outside normal channels (otherwise it would be quickly removed from say, the App Store or Google Play) and is one of those where the developer just doesn't make themselves easily known.

Plus, sometimes it's easier to just cut access to it than to try to launch a lawsuit which costs a lot of money with little to show for it since there will probably be 10 more clones after the lawsuit is over. Just cutting off access is easier and cheaper.

Comment: Re:Not news (Score 1) 115

by tlhIngan (#48897187) Attached to: Linus Fixes Kernel Regression Breaking Witcher 2

And if only MS had a similar "never break userspace" rule that applied to even the most unbelievably "casual" of software too.

Hell, I broke four apps just going to 64-bit Windows 8 from... 32-bit Windows 8.

If that happens (and Microsoft is one of the best at not breaking userspace), WIndows development would stop overnight.

Most developers are crap - and I'm sure "never break userspcae" is routinely violated by Linux as well, just it breaks little apps that no one knows about and someone either fixes it or codes some other workaround.

Yes, developers are crap who are more apt to take a shortcut "because it works" over doing it the proper way. On Windows, it's easy - if you run a non-English version of Windows, or put it anywhere other than C, you'll find yourself with a "Program Files" folder soon enough because it was hard coded in over using the system APIs to retrieve it. Or you might end up with a C:\Windows even though Windows is installed on D: purely because someone hardcoded a path there.

Plus, there's tons of legacy code out there - a surprisingly large amount of code is still 16-bit (which breaks on 64-bit), usually more bespoke applications used in specialized areas, but hey, if you ever wondered why there's a 32-bit version of Windows despite most processors sold being 64-bit capable...

And to be honest, a LOT of Windows bloat is due to the compatibility - Microsoft codes around applications that took shortcuts. Apple took the opposite tactic - they refuse to support anything but published APIs - if your program broke because you did something "the easy way" then Apple pretty much says "screw you - you took the shortcut, you profited, now you pay". (And yes, new features often broke poorly-written applications. On Windows, this would mean Microsoft wouldn't introduce the feature, or have to work around it).

And yes, moving to 64-bit Windows breaks stuff - remember what I said about hardcoded apps? "Program Files" for 32-bit turns into "Program Files (x86)", breaking all sorts of stuff.

Vista broke practically everything, which was why it was demonized, but mostly because it showed how poorly Windows apps were developed - all those shortcuts meant ground breaking changes like administrator not being enabled all the time broke a lot of apps that required admin just to run.

Comment: Re:They already have (Score 1) 661

by Bruce Perens (#48897151) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

There is no reason that we have to pick one and abandon work on the others. I don't see that the same resources go into solving more than one, except that the meteor and volcano problem have one solution in common - be on another planet when it happens.

The clathrate problem and nuclear war have the potential to end the human race while it is still on one planet, so we need to solve both of them ASAP.

Comment: Re:Disintegration of the ecosystem (Score 1) 58

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48897001) Attached to: Twitter Moves To Curb Instagram Links
In this case, it's actually rather impressive how badly the twits appear to have forgotten.

"Hey, let's select a group of our most influential users and then annoy them with an unexpected and minimally useful nag screen when they try to use our service!" is a plan that sounds like a joke, not a strategy; but apparently twitter is now doing exactly that. Are they really gambling that all those users are just morons who are too stupid to realize that twitter has a given set of features; but would totally love to embrace them over a competitor they already use if only they are nagged enough? That seems...a trifle optimistic.

Comment: Re: What's wrong with a scroll wheel? (Score 1) 306

by Mal-2 (#48896375) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

I have a mouse (the one currently at my right hand side) that is perfectly useful this way. I middle-click without any issues at all. I have another one -- also made by Logitech -- where the spring force of the click function significantly exceeds that of the scroll wheel's detents. The only way to middle-click reliably without scrolling is to reach forward and press down on the leading edge of the wheel, where it basically can't spin under the pressure. Luckily I only keep that one around as a backup. It also has a tendency to occasionally "spin out" and send the cursor (or viewpoint) flying around randomly for about 300 ms.

Comment: Re:Car analogy (Score 1) 115

by Mal-2 (#48896351) Attached to: NVIDIA Responds To GTX 970 Memory Bug

You'd be kinda foolish to only add one can at a time though. When you needed the last five, why not put all of it in at once? For that matter, why not have a single five-gallon can? It would certainly simplify refilling.

Of course, you'd still be well within your rights to complain about the misrepresentation of the fuel capacity.

Comment: Re:OpenSSL and the Internet (Score 0) 61

by Opportunist (#48896151) Attached to: OpenSSL 1.0.2 Released

It's an affront to common sense to put security as an afterthought on top of another protocol instead of making it an intrinsic part of the protocol. But that's what you get when you use ancient technology (and yes, TCP is ancient by computer standards) and simply refuse to accept that it is necessary to invest into it.

But security does not sell. Only now people finally start to slowly catch on and realize that there might be a reason for security. They still don't know jack about it. They only know they "kinda wanna be protected". And that's what HTTPS and OpenSSL offers. It looks secure, Joe Randomsurfer doesn't understand jack and the whole security community will certainly not stand up and admit that it's all ... well, we can't really say it's insecure but ... well, I wouldn't bet my job on it either.

The problem with the whole shit is that it is very, very hard to prove without a doubt that something is insecure when it's not blatantly so. And OpenSSL is not blatantly insecure. It doesn't have the gaping "dude, that's fucked up" holes. When you look through the past year, from heartbleet to POODLE, you'll notice that ... ok, heartbleet was a blunder and a half, but POODLE is by no means something you will instantly understand without quite a bit of understanding of the whole security process behind it and even then it may take a while to wrap your head around it.

We're heading into the area of chances and probabilities. And I do predict that we'll see a lot more of this, attacks where it's not clean cut and "easy" to end up with a way to break security, but we will find that systems we thought to need 10^DAMN_LOT tries to brute force only need 10^VERY_LITTLE, because of flaws in the implementation or even the algorithm itself, where it becomes known that most of the "possible" keys were in fact impossible.

That's what I'd expect from the next few years. And I kinda fear that we will find out more than we'd want to know.

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.