Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I'm confused... (Score 1) 115

"We believe that every child should have access to an exceptional, personalized education that enables them to be happy and successful in an ever-changing world," reads AltSchool's mission statement.

Then why have you set yourself up as a private school? If you want to reach every child, why not set yourself up as a public charter school and allow every student equal opportunity to apply? Currently, only children whose parents have $28,750 to spare have access to this "exceptional" education. That's not every child.

Eventually, the plan is for the billionaire-bankrolled education magic to trickle down. AltSchool's pitch to investors, according to NPR, is that one day, charter schools or even regular public schools could outsource many basic functions to its software platform.

Good luck with that. At $28,750, you cost way more money than what every state in the nation pays to educate a child. And all those lucky kids still get a teacher in the room! You better have a really, -really- good return on investment for that kind of money!

Comment: Re: Secrets (Score 1) 92

> Harris forces it's gov customers to sign an NDA that essentially says they're not customers of Harris.

I take extreme issue with your use of the word "Force".

A person "Forced" to do something cannot be considered responsible for his actions, so if they are being "forced" that is a pretty serious accusation. Unless you have evidence of some manner of blackmail or threat, then I don't see how it can be applied.

They always had the option of backing out and not buying the equipment. Nobody was forced, they were accomplices.

Comment: Re:Secrets (Score 1) 92

Well if you are actually a congressman the answer is simple....you write all laws that apply to you and people like you such that the law itself specifically requires your understanding of it in order to break it. Most laws that apply specifically to lawmakers almost always contain words like "knowingly".

If you are not a lawmaker or one of their clients who pays for the law to be made....then its irrelevant, nobody gives a shit about you.

Comment: Re:So... (Score 2, Interesting) 25

um of course they would, that is why so much protection is built around the process.

That was one of the things that Manning talked about with the snitch Adrian Lamo; that the process was designed to blind wikileaks themselves from direct knowledge of the leaker's identity; because it would be a liability to everyone involved.

By not knowing, they have to take other measures to carefully validate leaked information since they can't rely on the credentials of a source. Its obviously a series of trade offs.

However, its really the only viable way to operate, since they know they can never ensure total security, the best thing they can do to protect their sources is to actually not know themselves.

Comment: Re:Why the surprise? (Score 1) 177

by TheCarp (#49604801) Attached to: When Enthusiasm For Free Software Turns Ugly

Its very true, however, it is avoidable if you are willing to make trade offs.

For example, some of the server distros like RHEL don't often have that issue. The thing is, they don't update often except for security. Most desktop users will not be happy running something based off Fedora core 12 today; but on the server end, lots of people are still deploying on it just for that reason.

For me, I tend to have little problem with either Ubuntu or Debian....until I find I want newer stuff and start running testing or unstable distributions which....do break a lot more often than stable.

Comment: Re:Here _I_ come? (Score 1) 216

by TheCarp (#49603187) Attached to: US Successfully Tests Self-Steering Bullets

Your right, thats all blunt objects, and its the FBIs statistics I was looking at:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

So "blunt objects" and "personal weapons" (including fists, etc), EACH are more than double that of rifles at 380.

But this is homicides, doesn't count intentional self wounding, since, that isn't really a useful statistic, being...intentional and consensual.

Comment: Works both ways (Score 3, Interesting) 276

by dissy (#49601443) Attached to: Native Hawaiian Panel Withdraws Support For World's Largest Telescope

If that is acceptable, what about my claim that science is my religion, and the native Hawaiins are desecrating what I declare as holy land? Will they be forced to stop doing so too?

Probably not, which is why we shouldn't allow them to stop us for this reason just the same.

Comment: Re:She has a point. (Score 1) 606

by dissy (#49601397) Attached to: My High School CS Homework Is the Centerfold

The Lena Rossi image is famous, but tossing it into a CS class with a bunch of eighteen-year-old men is just asking for a hostile work environment for any women in the class.

So what are you saying exactly?
That any classroom that has a woman's face in it is a hostile work environment?
That the only way to treat women as equals is to force women to wear masks over their faces? Or do you feel women should flat out be excluded from being in a classroom to prevent this hostile working environment?

You do know you can get your wish just by moving to a country more in line with your morals, like a Muslim school that forces women to cover their faces by law.
You don't need to turn America into what you want. What you want is out there already, just go get it.

Comment: Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1) 319

by Todd Knarr (#49597591) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

That's an argument for having the browser try HTTPS first, optionally falling back to HTTP if HTTPS isn't available. That's fine by me. It's not an argument for disabling capabilities of HTML/Javascript/etc. just because the transport isn't encrypted. It's also not an argument based on security but on privacy, and there's plenty of privacy problems that exist regardless of whether the connection's encrypted or not (eg. web bugs placed in advertising coming from servers in the site's domain (but not operated by the site and not on the site's network) that then use plain query-string parameters to relay data to off-site servers bypassing browser origin checks).

Comment: Re:Wait a minute... (Score 4, Interesting) 319

by Todd Knarr (#49594115) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

The problem is that requiring HTTPS doesn't make sites more secure. It prevents an attacker who can't obtain a legitimate SSL certificate for the domain from running a mid-transit MITM attack, nothing more. The biggest problems seem to be a) phishing attacks that convince the user to visit a rogue site eliminating the need for MITM, b) local system compromises (client- or server-side) that have access to the cleartext traffic and don't need an MITM, and c) rogue CAs who issue certificates for domains the recipient isn't authorized for which allows for mid-transit MITM with HTTPS. The first two can't be mitigated by anything other than smarter users (HAH!), and mitigating the third requires massive changes to certificates so it's possible to determine whether a certificate belongs to a given site without depending on anything in the certificate and without depending on the CA having validated the recipient.

Comment: HTTP insecure? (Score 1) 319

by Todd Knarr (#49594011) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

Doesn't that depend on the configuration and purpose? If the HTTP server's running on my own machine and the URL is "http://localhost/...", am I automatically insecure because I can't get an SSL certificate for "localhost"? And how would an attacker not already on my machine exploit this?

If I can't test the full capabilities of a Web site because the browser won't let me, I'm going to have to switch browsers and relegate Firefox to testing-only just like IE is currently.

Comment: Re:Why such crap? (Score 1) 263

by dissy (#49581261) Attached to: Crashing iPad App Grounds Dozens of American Airline Flights

yes, a netbook running a locked down version of linux, with NO update ability, signed binaries and (to be even more sure) put the os in ROM. require some kind of key to do any writes at all to it. have dual sections of rom for redundancy and crc check them; if one is bad, switch to the other.

OK, lets pretend that exact configuration is used.

Now the airline manually signs and offline installs the updated manuals, resulting in the same exact breakage you see here, and in the same situation.

Your solution just resulted in the grounding of the aircraft.
Except your solution will take much much longer to install the fixed data back.

The only real difference is now it is you personally and Linux that will unfairly and incorrectly get the blame instead of Apple.

Introducing, the 1010, a one-bit processor. 0 NOP No Operation 1 JMP Jump (address specified by next 2 bits)

Working...