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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Windows 7 (Score 2) 347

I figured that if I poked around long enough I'd find something. Mostly I searched for "Linux won't boot after Windows 10 boot", and just found descriptions of how you need to install Windows first. But once I got the idea of ditching Windows in my head, I really liked it. It just seems so much more... peaceful. No more fighting for privacy, no more updates I can't roll back, no more of Windows casually deleting my boot loader... And no annual fee either.

Plus, I think it's the right time. It just feels like Microsoft is slowly wrestling control of the machine away from me, a little bit at a time. And while it's just starting to get a little stifling now, I can only imagine it getting worse. UEFI is currently only a hair away from not letting you install other OS's anyways. You can't tell me Microsoft isn't thinking about it. Because they've got to be thinking about it.

It seems that Windows is slowly turning into a console. I mean, why would they want you to install software not in the Windows store? They could act as gatekeepers to your computer, like they tried with RT. In RT it was too soon... but when the whole world uses Windows 10, and modern software won't even run on Windows 8 anymore, what are you going to do? If you want your precious software, you'll do it on Microsoft's terms. You'd have no choice but to use the Windows store. And Microsoft will take a cut on every sale, and gets the final say on which software you can and cannot run.

Depending on where you stand, this might seem to have a small chance of happening, instead of the big chance that I see. But with Linux there's no chance. Heh, that could be their new slogan: "Linux: Not a Chance".

Comment Re:Windows 7 (Score 5, Interesting) 347

It used to be that dual-booting Windows and Linux wasn't much hassle, so I kept Windows around for the odd time I wanted to play a game. But when I upgraded to Windows 10 it wiped out the Linux bootloader. So I grumbled a bit and figured that's par for the course, formatted the hard drive, installed Windows 10 first and Linux second. And that was fine for about a week until I decided I wanted to play a Windows game... after shutting Windows down, my boot loader is toast. Again. I can't even get to the little GRUB repair prompt this time.

It's just not worth it for me anymore, especially now that Steam is on Linux. Plus, I figure it will be good to get out before Microsoft's "subscription-based" model kicks in for Windows 10.

Farewell Windows. You were an awesome gaming platform for 15 years.

Comment Re:They aren't really still blaming DPRK, are they (Score 3, Interesting) 51

I'd hoped that you'd gotten it through your skull
About what's figurative and what's literal
But just now
You stated
You literally couldn't do anything computer related
That really makes me want to literally

Uh... Go back in time so your parents never dated? ...That seems kind of harsh.

*Looks up PCoIP*. Ah, shit.

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 1) 351

One app for graphics, gimp. . One app for a gui, gnome. One app for an ide Eclipse, etc

I'm a Linux user and I've never felt pressure to use any of those things. It's Kolourpaint, KDE or XFCE, and Kate or CodeBlocks for me. Though I'm going to try Qt's IDE, I hear it's a good one.

Comment Re:Before a human walks on Mars... (Score 2, Interesting) 285

Yeah, it is only a continent, not a planet, but it is so much easier to get to and live on, that there really is no excuse to go to Mars, until Antarctica (as well as Siberia, Australian Outback, Sahara and other deserts, American Midwest, Canadian woods) are settled to a population density exceeding 1 finger per square mile.

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space - each discovered, studied and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision." -- Randall Munroe

Comment Re:Recursive short replies (Score 1) 131

If anything, the spammer now knows this is a valid and active e-mail account.

That's why we all have to turn on our auto-responses together, and at the same time. Plus, bonus points if Google detects a spam message directed to an invalid gmail address, and crafts a response automatically.

Someone else said: Unfortunately, I know of no spam emails that don't forge the from address. If you actually got a working address, very likely you would be emailing someone who had nothing to do with the message.

Disturbing! I've never tried responding, but I've seen addresses like GrrlsHotForYou@atotalscam.com. I suppose they want you to click on a link these days? I imagine your email client could auto-click on the link, but then the spammers could just add a captcha... Which is ironic in its own way.

Comment Re:Recursive short replies (Score 2) 131

Next up, scripted responses will be responding to each other while we stay back and watch ;)

I've fantasized about this. Imagine a world where every email you flag as spam has an auto-generated reply returned to the sender. The spammers could have a whole conversation with your chat bot. I wonder how many messages back-and-forth it would take for them to realize there's no one on the other end. The value of spam would plummet, because you'd have no easy way to sift through the millions of fake responses to find the real ones.


Comment Re:Jargon (Score 2) 160

I was once looking for a method of calculating 1-way latency between two computers. The standard method is to take a packet's round trip time, and divide by two. But that only gives you the average latency. It might take 100 ms to send the packet, and 20 ms to receive the response, but RTT/2 gives you 60 ms for each. So I found this paper where a grad student claimed to have found a more accurate method, and had this huge formula to represent it. I spent a whole day reading that paper, and at the end I found that his formula actually just simplified down to RTT/2. The whole paper was time-wasting garbage that had somehow gotten published.

Science articles: a guide. It's sad how many papers are in the bottom-right corner of this graph.

Comment Response to criticism (Score 5, Interesting) 62

Here's the meat of the "questionable and somewhat irate" response:

The following are factual and editorial errors in the document:

1. Abstract – States that for AS 5185-2010 "we show that the privacy properties of PLAID are significantly weaker than claimed" but in fact the report shows that the privacy properties of PLAID are unbroken by the attack and in fact unbreakable by the attack. The report actually shows that the "ID Leakage" properties of the protocol (as defined in AS 5185-2010) could be better implemented in the 2010 version of the reference implementation by implementing the fake "ShillKey" better - see further discussion in section 6.2.

2. Abstract – states that it will be ...." reporting a number of undesirable cryptographic features of the protocol" This is however unargued and not actualised. The reference appears to logically means section 5.3 of the Unpicking PLAID paper however, as shown in section 7 of this discussion these are either not claims of the protocol or are not shown to be weaknesses by any argument presented by the Researchers - see further discussion in section 7.

3. History in Introduction is not 100% correct – the Public Consultation process included additional workshops and stages – see section 4 "History" above

4. P3, Last paragraph, the words "added for privacy reasons" is incorrect, the ShillKey was added to delay and distract an atacker, privacy was never an issue and is not stated as a design requirement.

5. P4, last paragraph, P5 first paragraph – Not clear what point is being made – OPACITY is a completely different protocol based on Eliptic Curve technology. Last sentence seems to mix this Paper on PLAID up with a completely seperate report on OPACITY.

6. P3 2nd last paragraph the Researchers state "Even though the encryption key in RSA is usually public, in PLAID it is kept secret to enhance privacy". This is an incorrect representation of PLAID, the reason for both keys being kept secret is in fact to prevent any leakage to an attacker of the AES diversification seed in order to enhance security. Note that PLAID is not a PKI, and the use of public and private key concepts is not relevant, ALL keys are secured in (preferably) hardware crypto devices.

I'm no crypto expert - can anyone explain to me why these points aren't valid? Especially points 1 and 4.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.