Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Not really unusual, but... (Score 1) 69 69

I used a similar buzzer to add a "hey id10t you left your lights on" for my '65 Porsche 356. Really not much of a hack, more just figuring it out where to attach it on the fuse block - you want it buzzing if the headlights have power (and each side was on a different fuse) and the ignition switch does not have power thru it.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 285 285

Christ, try being original with your trolling

?

It's been repeatedly proven that the "harassment" has been the professional victims using alternate accounts to send themselves messages - and it's also why none of these supposed "threats" have ever been reported to the police.

That's a complete lie. But it is what Gamergaters tell newcomers so they can feel good about supporting a campaign of harassment.

Do you feel good about not merely ignoring the high profile threats and harassment prominent women in tech are experiencing, but also smearing the victims as liars, and spreading false stories to try to get people to disbelieve them?

Comment: Re:Harrassment and frivolity (Score 1) 60 60

OK, but the settlement is unlikely to be for more than pennies (we're talking Youtube royalties here), so what lawyer is likely to take on the case?

Despite the view of many that the legal system is some kind of lottery where you can win arbitrary amounts of cash, the reality is that the civil system generally works on the basis of damages with any punitive element being small or non-existent. Most of the time the high awards you hear about for some injury or another are a product of high medical bills being involved, not because a judge wanted to make Macy's pay for having slippery floors (or whatever.)

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 285 285

Got any evidence ?

Plenty. You can start here.

Nobody's trying to "smear" GamerGate, we read what you write in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

Your entire movement started when Adam Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos smearing a female game dev's sex life because her ex-boyfriend wanted to run a hate campaign against her. That information is public domain. It's not something I just made up. It's the ORIGINS OF GAMERGATE. It's where the hashtag came from.

Forget the links I point to you above, take a look at the last few articles on Slashdot concerning gender - concerning subjects as minor and unthreatening as whether marketing a chemistry set specifically at girls might have the opposite affect to that intended (ie doing so might decrease interest by girls.) Something many of us would like to discuss, but can't, because you fuckers SHITPOST over EVERY. SINGLE. DISCUSSION, doing your absolute best to discourage anyone from even discussing the subject by flooding the comments section with misogynist trolls and off topic bullshit.

If you really are so stupid as to think that GamerGate is something to do with Ethics in Gaming Journalism, you might want to actually look into the movement. You might even want to look at the "journalists" it allies itself with.

Because if it did, it wouldn't:

- Do everything possible to prevent discussions of women in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Harass female game devs constantly, because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Talk non stop about so-called "SJWs" and never mention journalists. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Demand Slashdot ban discussions related to diversity in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Call JACK THOMPSON "BASED DAD", a lawyer who has actually tried to ban games, while calling Anita Sarkeesian a "censor" or "authoritarian", because she produced a video identifying tropes she feels are sexist in various video games. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Support the "journalism" of Milo Yiannopoulos, because he certainly has NOTHING to do with "ethics in (ANY) journalism" FFS.

- Pretend a mass harassment campaign against prominent women in journalism is not going on, pretending instead it's some kind of fund raising stunt (even though it doesn't apparently help any of the targets that it's going on), because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you get the picture?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 285 285

(Third attempt: reposted due to abusive moderation. Interesting how the moderation on virtually everything I post that's anti-harassment these days proves my point. What has happened to tech? What has happened to Slashdot? If I'd posted a year ago that a bunch of female devs would be suffering harassment up to and including rape threats and worse in an attempt to prevent them from speaking about problems they encounter, I'd have been laughed out of town. Now it's happening a significant number of people on Slashdot actively support that hatred campaign and are doing everything they can to silence anyone who opposes it.)

This little loaded troll is +5 Insightful? The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"? Because constant threats of violence is somehow pro-free speech, and encouraging people to evaluate games, highlighting problematic aspects, and encouraging developers to produce more interesting work is pro-censorship?

There are countries out there that welcome the "MRA/Republican/Stormfront/Racist/Misogyno-nerds" (a fairly decent description of a campaign of relentless online terror against women, blacks, and left wingers) and others that make up your little cesspool - the countries that support the kind of terror you inflict on those who refuse to kowtow to your demands. An Iranian actor just had to apologize for tweeting support for the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Russia continues to push the bar as far as imprisoning gay people for being gay in public. Saudi Arabia punishes women for invading your traditional male space by, you know, driving and stuff.

Those are countries you guys would love. Why don't you fuck off there, and let the rest of us enjoy a diverse community in which people don't get rape and death threats for criticizing the Hitman video game?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 285 285

Your post was downvoted for pretending people like Jenny Bharaj or Oliver Campbell are white male teenager, rather than a women and a black man.

I've never heard of either of these people, nor are they mentioned in my post.

At least be honest when you try to broadly paint a movement as something, as not to dismiss women and minorities like you did. You won't get down modded as much if you are truthful, rather than posting simple flamebait.

What the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Or is this a #notyourshield troll?

Comment: Re:Harrassment and frivolity (Score 2) 60 60

I believe there's a concept called Slander of Title, but I'm not sure it actually results in serious damages being paid out, and quite honestly, how many YouTube contributors want to/can afford to pay for a lawyer to sue over what, at best, would be a tiny, measured in pennies, royalty check?

I don't actually buy the argument that this was a mistake. Rumblefish actually doubled down when they were called on that birdsong mistake mentioned in the summary, and Google backed them. I think Rumblefish knows they've found a loop hole, and Google are too scared of the larger copyright holders to vet their claims.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score -1, Troll) 285 285

(Repost due to abusive moderation. Interesting how the moderation on virtually everything I post that's anti-harassment these days proves my point. What has happened to tech? What has happened to Slashdot? If I'd posted a year ago that a bunch of female devs would be suffering harassment up to and including rape threats and worse in an attempt to prevent them from speaking about problems they encounter, I'd have been laughed out of town. Now it's happening a significant number of people on Slashdot actively support that hatred campaign and are doing everything they can to silence anyone who opposes it.)

This little loaded troll is +5 Insightful? The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"? Because constant threats of violence is somehow pro-free speech, and encouraging people to evaluate games, highlighting problematic aspects, and encouraging developers to produce more interesting work is pro-censorship?

There are countries out there that welcome the "MRA/Republican/Stormfront/Racist/Misogyno-nerds" (a fairly decent description of a campaign of relentless online terror against women, blacks, and left wingers) and others that make up your little cesspool - the countries that support the kind of terror you inflict on those who refuse to kowtow to your demands. An Iranian actor just had to apologize for tweeting support for the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Russia continues to push the bar as far as imprisoning gay people for being gay in public. Saudi Arabia punishes women for invading your traditional male space by, you know, driving and stuff.

Those are countries you guys would love. Why don't you fuck off there, and let the rest of us enjoy a diverse community in which people don't get rape and death threats for criticizing the Hitman video game?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 0) 285 285

Which campaign is this ? I haven't seen such a campaign online or in tech

Wow, you've not read any media whatsoever in the last year or so? That's impressive.

The campaign is called "Gamergate". It's been extensively covered by most media outlets.

In fact, most tech places I've worked at for the last 18 years have been tripping over themselves to hire any women that actually apply, as long as they are qualified.

Indeed, and GG seems to be, in part, a reaction to that.

Comment: Re:I bet they're not. (Score 1) 32 32

I'm still not sure why netflix or the content IP owners would care who is paying the $10/mo for the subscription, where they live, etc. as long as... they get their $10/mo. It doesn't cost 'em any more money than a US based customer, they get the same pay, etc. Of course, I'm thinking logically and not like a lawyer, mba, or sociopathic executive...

Comment: Passwords are not the only way to authenticate (Score 1) 71 71

Both of you are wrong and so is Dustin Kirkland (whoever he is). The core of your error is in this statement:

Only secrets can be used as token for authentication.

That sentence is true, as stated, but only because it includes the word "token". Yes if you're using secret tokens for authentication, then the tokens must be secret. But exchanging secrets (or proof of possession of secrets, which is what most cryptographic authentication protocols do) is not the only way to do authentication. Not by a long shot. In fact, humans hardly ever use secrets for authentication.

How do you identify and authenticate your mom? Do you ask her for a secret password? Of course not. You use the same tools for both identifying and authenticating her, and those tools are a set of biometric markers. The same set of tools are also used in high security situations. Back when I was a security guard in the Air Force, I was trained that personal recognition is the very best form of authentication. Not only is it not necessary to check the badge of an individual you know personally, badge-checking is inferior to personal recognition for authentication (note that badge-checking may still be important for authorization, verifying that the person who has been identified and authenticated actually has permission to enter. Thus I was trained to always check the access control list before allowing someone near nuclear weapons).

With respect to user authentication in electronic contexts we generally use secrets because computers don't (or at least haven't) had the ability to use the sorts of biometric authentication that humans use quite effectively. But, when we equip them with biometric sensors, they can.

HOWEVER, this does not mean that biometrics are useful for authentication in all circumstances.

Secret-based authentication has the advantage that -- assuming the secret has sufficient entropy and can be assumed not to have leaked nor been intercepted and cannot be rerouted (note that that's a pretty long list of criteria, some of which are hard to establish) -- you don't have to worry about the possibility that the authentication could be spoofed. An attacker who doesn't know the secret can't fake knowing the secret.

Biometrics, though, are not secrets. They are public knowledge. This means that an attacker must be expected to have access to copies of our fingerprints or faces. The biometric authentication process is different, though. It does not rely on secrecy of the authenticator, but instead on non-replayability. If we can be certain that (for example) the fingerprint placed on the scanner belongs to the person we wish to authenticate, and that the stored template we match against belongs to the person we wish to authenticate, then we can perform a good authentication. The fact that the fingerprint is not secret does not matter.

Where biometrics fail is if (a) we can't be certain that the livescan data acquired from the sensor belongs to the person trying to authenticate or (b) the stored template belongs to the person we wish to authenticate. Part (a) is particularly difficult to validate in many contexts because faking the input isn't necessarily hard to do, and in some cases an attacker can even bypass the sensor entirely and simply inject a digital copy.

This doesn't mean biometrics are worthless, it just means they're only useful in certain contexts. And, again, their utility for authentication has nothing to do with their secrecy. And rotation is likewise irrelevant and silly to discuss. You need to rotate secrets because you can't be certain they have stayed secret and because if they have low-ish entropy they may have been brute forced. None of that applies to biometrics because they're not secrets and their utility as authenticators does not depend on secrecy.

Can we please kill this incorrect meme about biometrics as identifiers, not authenticators? They can be either, or both, and are used as both, by billions of people, every day, with high effectiveness and reliability. Whether or not they provide security depends on the context.

With respect to credit card payments, fingerprint and facial recognition biometrics are pretty reasonable tools. This is especially true if the sensors are provided by the retailer, and the consumer is providing a traditional electronic authentication (cryptographic challenge-response) with their smartphone or smart card. It's not quite as good if the smartphone is also providing the fingerprint scanner and camera, because in the event of an attempted fraudulent transaction that means the attacker is in control of those components.

But you also have to consider the model that is being replaced. Is fingerprint plus face recognition better than a signature which is theoretically matched by a non-expert human, but in practice never checked at all? Absolutely. Is it better than a four-digit PIN? That's debatable, but it's at least in the same ballpark.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score -1, Troll) 285 285

This little loaded troll is +5 Insightful? The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"? Because constant threats of violence is somehow pro-free speech, and encouraging people to evaluate games, highlighting problematic aspects, and encouraging developers to produce more interesting work is pro-censorship?

There are countries out there that welcome the "MRA/Republican/Stormfront/Racist/Misogyno-nerds" (a fairly decent description of a campaign of relentless online terror against women, blacks, and left wingers) and others that make up your little cesspool - the countries that support the kind of terror you inflict on those who refuse to kowtow to your demands. An Iranian actor just had to apologize for tweeting support for the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Russia continues to push the bar as far as imprisoning gay people for being gay in public. Saudi Arabia punishes women for invading your traditional male space by, you know, driving and stuff.

Those are countries you guys would love. Why don't you fuck off there, and let the rest of us enjoy a diverse community in which people don't get rape and death threats for criticizing the Hitman video game?

Comment: Re:Most of their apps are annoying anyway (Score 1) 104 104

I tried Inbox, but wasn't impressed. It strips so much of gmail away that it is basically "Gmail for beginners". You want filters, labels, etc, then it is worthless.

Actually, Inbox is Gmail for power users, for people who have massive volumes of e-mail to manage. It takes a little bit of work to figure it out and set it up, but once you have, it's awesome. There are some features it lacks, like complex filters (simple filters are very easy to set up; you just move a message to a label and Inbox asks if you want to always do that. Click "yes" and you have a new filter rule), vacation auto-responder and the like, but you can always use the Gmail UI when you need to set stuff like that up.

The Inbox features that that make it great for heavy e-mail users are:

Snooze.

Many people use their e-mail inbox at least partially as a task list, especially their work e-mail. This results in having to keep e-mails that for you can't work on yet sitting in your inbox, cluttering it up and making it harder to process new e-mail. When you snooze an e-mail, it goes away until some point in the future. You can pick a date and time, or even a location (requires using the Inbox app on your mobile device). Heavy application of snooze with well-chosen times/locations lets you clear all of the stuff you can't do yet out of the way, knowing it will come back later when you can handle it.

Bundles.

Bundles are just Gmail labels, but with an additional setting that tells Inbox to group them in the inbox. This is fantastic for high-volume mailing lists. With Gmail you can get almost the same effect by setting a filter to apply a label and skip the inbox, but then you have to remember to actually go look at the label from time to time. With bundles, you get the same grouping effect but the bundles show up in your inbox so you don't forget to go look. The reason that grouping (by whichever mechanism) is useful is because when you have large volumes of email, most of which you don't actually need to read, it's much faster to scan through a list of subject lines and evaluate what's important and what isn't when you already know the context.

My process for plowing through a busy mailing list is to scan the subject lines and click/tap the "pin" icon on the few that are interesting, then "sweep" the rest. A single click or gesture archives all unpinned items in a bundle. Then I handle (or snooze until I can handle) the pinned items.

I also have a bundle (label) called "Me" that is applied by a filter that looks for my name or username in the To line or the body of the message. This helps me to be sure that I notice e-mails where people are mentioning me or asking me questions. It's the first bundle I look for every time I check my e-mail. Similarly, I have a bundle that extracts e-mails that reference my project's name. That's the second bundle I look at. Other high priority bundles are e-mails from the code review system and e-mails from the bug tracker.

Obviously there are many e-mails that mention both my project and me. That's fine; bundles are labels not folders, and it's perfectly reasonable for an e-mail to be in more than one of them. When I archive a message in one bundle, it disappears from the others. So, often I'll look at Inbox and see the "Me", project, code review and bug tracker bundles displayed, but by the time I've processed everything in the "Me" bundle, the other three have disappeared.

Delayed Bundles.

I think this vies with snooze as the killer feature of Inbox. By default, a bundle appears in the inbox whenever you receive new mail with that label. But there's lots of stuff, at least in my inbox, that I don't need to see immediately. Having low-priority stuff displayed instantly distracts me from my work, or obscures truly urgent e-mail. Also, it's more efficient to handle low-priority e-mail in bulk. So, you can specify that a bundle should only appear once per day, or once per week. Inbox will accumulate e-mail in delayed bundles and only show the bundle at the specified time.

When I start work in the morning I have a dozen or so bundles containing low-priority e-mail. I can quickly scan each of them, pinning the items I care about and sweeping the rest. I have a few bundles for purely informational mailing lists which are set to display once per week, so I only see them on Monday morning.

I'd like a little more granularity on this feature. Specifically, I'd really like to be able to set some bundles to show, say, every three hours. Then I'd only allow the highest-priority bundles to show immediately, giving me larger blocks of uninterrupted time but with the knowledge that I'll still get notified of truly urgent stuff immediately.

Consistent Interface

It took me a while to realize just how valuable this is, but it's really great that the mobile and web UIs for Inbox are virtually identical. I don't have to have two different flows for handling e-mail on mobile vs desktop. The mobile UI is a tiny bit better because of the gestures a touchscreen interface can provide, but my process for using it is the same.

One common complaint about Inbox vs Gmail is that Gmail's more compact; you can fit a lot more stuff on the screen with the Gmail UI. I find that isn't a problem, because the Inbox workflow mostly eliminates the need to scan through a big list of messages visually, looking for something in particular. The need to do that arises mostly (for me, anyway) when I'm keeping a lot of stuff hanging around in my inbox. With Inbox, I don't do that. I snooze it or I archive it, so my inbox is empty nearly all the time. If I need to find something that I've snoozed or archived, I search for it.

Bottom line: If you're a heavy user of Gmail, you should really take a good look at Inbox. Odds are you'll never go back.

+ - Reddit is going dark after new CEO fires key employee. ->

GNUALMAFUERTE writes: At approximately 5pm UTC, 1pm EST, on Thursday the 2nd of July, 2015, the moderators of /r/IAmA took their subreddit, which is one of the default set, private, making it for all intents and purposes shut down. Just after that, a thread was posted to another subreddit, /r/outoftheloop, asking whether anyone knew why it had happened. User /u/karmanaut, top mod of /r/IAmA, responded explaining that Victoria Taylor, Reddit's Director of Talent had been fired without notifying any of the subreddits that depended on her work. Victoria was a moderator of many default subs, and essentially the main contact between the moderators and the admins.

After Reddit's employees refused to comment on the issue, most other default subreddits, including /r/AskReddit , /r/Books , /r/science , /r/Music , /r/gaming , /r/history , /r/Art , /r/videos , /r/gadgets , /r/todayilearned , /r/Documentaries, /r/LifeProTips and /r/movies decided to do the same in solidarity with r/IAMA, effectively shutting down 90% of Reddit.

This thread in /r/outoftheloop has more information, and updates will be posted there.

Link to Original Source

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...