Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Best solution (Score 2, Funny) 296 296

Today "intensive testing" means "Bill in accounts receivable installed it yesterday and his computer seems fine.".

Look at Oracle, Adobe, MS, Google, Apple, etc. They're all HUGE fucking companies who absolutely have the resources to test things thousands of times over. Their QC track record is abysmal. The "standard" now is to have the users be the testers.

Google does this by rolling out updates slowly to unsuspecting users.
MS does it by dumping a load of shit on everyone at once and hoping the blogs sort it out.
Adobe does this by having "Continuous" track and a "Classic" track, then forcing you into the "Continuous" track if you want any of the cloud features you paid for.
Apple does it by denying there is a problem, pushing out a "fix" for it, and then letting half of the users placebo themselves into thinking it's fixed and censoring the other half on their forums.
Oracle does it by chugging a beer, putting its head down on a baseball bat and spinning around 10 times really quickly.

Comment What? (Score 1) 13 13

Isn't that the entire point of those FuelBand, FitBit, etc. things? Monitor hear rate, distance traveled, etc. and feed into an app where you can also add exercise details, food details, etc.? If these things don't track this shit, then what is it that they do, exactly?
I have no interest in these devices but I can't imaging what it is they do if they're NOT doing these things.

Or is the lawsuit claiming the advertising specifically said it tracked "health" and not these specific things (which are related to health)?

Comment Re:Tape (Score -1) 214 214

512 TB isn't really all that much. It's only a couple hundred disks at most.
Tape plus a disk cache, or disk only depends mostly on the cost/latency requirements.

Backup should be to tape for longevity, but depending on how much you need to write each backup, and how frequently you backup, that could be an issue.

Comment Re: Right ... (Score -1) 115 115

All the preview builds of Windows 10 I used (the earlier ones, sure) let you install and get to a desktop without an account.
The start menu was completely blank and you couldn't launch basic shit like windows explorer, but hey, you technically didn't need an account!

The account system is baked in deep, and many programs (or "apps", and not just the "modern" UI ones) do in fact require an account to run or to do basic things unrelated to any sort of online functionality. Running without an account mostly worked in Windows 8, and I presume it'll mostly work in the final build of Windows 10. But they're clearly heading toward the Windows as a Service model, as evidenced by Xbox Live and Office.

Comment Re:yawn (Score 0) 63 63

Percentages don't work that way, 20% and 80% means 5x1.25 which is 6.25 times power consumption or 16% efficiency, based on your numbers of course.

That's what he said.

I think its something like 20 percent in most cases and that's on top of the AC/DC conversion. So you lose 20~30 percent converting to DC and then you lose 80 percent of of the remainder transmitting it.

Start with 1 unit of wall power.
AC/DC represents a 20% loss using his numbers.
The remainder (0.8 units of wall power) is to be transmitted to the device.
"Then you lose 80 percent of of the remainder transmitting it."
0.8 - 0.8*0.8, or 0.8 * (1 - 0.8), or 0.2 * 0.8, or 4/5 * 1/5, or whatever.
16% of the power at the wall goes to the device's charging circuitry.

Comment Re:LibreSSL (MOO!) (Score 1) 157 157

A strong, unique password (aka a secret) is the only thing that matters.

Certificates are nothing but long passwords that people can't remember and thus need to store in plaintext.

Encrypted certificates are nothing but long passwords that people can't remember and store in an encrypted form, thus requiring a separate password.

Encryption of a connection is done using a password. Whether you call it a password, a pre-shared key, or a certificate, it's all the same. It's a secret known only to the legitimate user.

The password is the be all, end all of networked computer security. There's a reason every single attempt to replace passwords has failed - either they reduce security or they're simply dressing up a password as something else - a smart card, an RSA clock, etc.

The problem is you don't realize what a password actually is in relation to security. It's simply the secret.
Retards who don't know what they're talking about like to prattle on about "something you are", "something you know", and "something you have".

"Something you are" is your username.
"Something you know" is your password.
"Something you have" is your cell phone or your little hardware token (nothing but an RSA clock with a seed stored on the device and on the server).

If your "something you are" is a secret username, or a hash of a fingerprint, then it merely becomes "something you know", and is effectively part of your password. If you authenticate remotely using a fingerprint scanner, the server you're authenticating into has NO IDEA whether or not the bits are coming from the fingerprint scanner or not, whether it has been tampered with or not, etc. It's all "something you know".

Similarly for "something you have", a text message code or an RSA clock or whatever else are all "something you know" when you're presenting them over the wire. Unless someone is PHYICALLY INSPECTING your shit, it's ALL "something you know", and thus all effectively pointless if you already have a strong, unique password.

People think that codes sent via text message or the seeds in their RSA clock keep them safe. They don't. If your host or connection is compromised to the point that you're leaking your password (such as a keylogger or a MITM attack), these codes are available to any attacker working in real time because you invariably send them over the same fucking channel. It's a joke!

The ONLY thing you can do to protect yourself with networked authentication is to know a secret and keep it secret. It should be astronomically expensive to crack. Use that secret to authenticate, encrypt, whatever. But adding more secrets on top of it doesn't do SHIT.

That secret is called a password. What you call it is irrelevant.

Comment SJW Bullshit Like This Is For Cows (Score -1, Troll) 90 90

You are all cows, moo, moo, etc.
Are we going to get an article about how misogynistic this is when someone makes a video women can't see?
Or are we going to get an article about how progressive this is when someone makes a video that men can't see, thus creating a "safe space" for women?
Will Facebook let people further restrict by race using your 23andMe profile? Will Facebook require users to submit a DNA sample?

How about you dumb shits delete your fucking Facebook accounts?

Comment Re:LibreSSL (Score 1) 157 157

THis flaw isn't even a mild flaw considering nobody worth a squirt of piss would ever rely on passwords to secure any SSH - be that from microsoft, libre or open.

The majority of servers running SSH rely solely on username and password authentication.
A strong, unique password known only to a single user is the most secure protection available.
Certificates don't add shit on top of that in terms of actual security.

Comment Re:Question about the name (Score 1) 70 70

Is the name of the their group based of the JFK conspiracy? It is quite moronic. If their are 3 of them, they aren't exactly lone.
Definition: lone

having no companions; solitary or single.

That's the joke, stupid.
The name is a reference to the fact that there was more than one gunman in the JFK assassination. (Yes, I said fact. Anyone who believes that LHO acted alone is mentally retarded.)

For further information on the use of "lone" with pluralized nouns, see the 1994 documentary film "Airheads".

Comment Holy Hell (Score 1) 31 31

Those are some long, shitty, fucked up sentences, Batman. And why would you start out the summary with the pronoun ("a research project") instead of the proper noun and definition ("OCEARCH, a non-profit shark tracking project")? And then there are the fucking errors ("a online and mobile apps"), which can't be blamed on having shitty style.

Lrn 2 Engrish plox?

Submission + - The Lone Gunmen are not dead->

He Who Has No Name writes: It may have been one of Slashdot's most memorable front-page gaffes, but apparently there's no harm and no foul — because the Lone Gunmen are set to ride again in the X-Files return. reports, "The Lone Gunmen, the X-Files' trio of conspiracy theorists, are set to appear in Fox’s six-episode event. The three characters were played by Tom Braidwood, Dean Haglund, and Bruce Harwood. Haglund, who played the gunman “Ringo,” confirmed his and his compatriots’ return on Twitter today." We'll see how see how series creator Chris Carter handles their apparently greatly-exaggerated demise, and whether the explanation used in the print comics comes into play.
Link to Original Source

We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge. -- John Naisbitt, Megatrends