Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 4, Interesting) 1173 1173

I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go.

I'd much rather see the jury demand to know why the victim, and not the four perps, is being prosecuted, with a not guilty verdict. Considering where this took place, it's possible.

Comment Re:Worst? Heh (Score 1) 574 574

There's a big difference between telling the difference when you know the difference, and when neither you nor the tester do. Hence, the "double blind" part. Audiophiles are famous for hearing a difference only when they know it's there. That's why there are $11,000 speaking cables, and wooden amp knobs for hundreds of bucks, and Ethernet cables with directional arrows on them.

Because audiophiles are gullible.

Comment Worst? Heh (Score 2, Informative) 574 574

I'll bet a steak dinner that he couldn't tell the difference between any of the streaming services and a CD, or any other commercially produced medium, in double blind test. Most sound engineers can't tell the difference between $11,000 speaker cables and wire coat hanger.

The reason most music sounds like shit is because the sound engineers compress the hell out of it, and balance it to make it sound louder. The streaming services can only stream what they're given.

Comment Re:Wrong problem (Score 1) 165 165

It's the low-information voters.

My thought exactly. When people vote how the one eyed monster in the living room tells them to, the problem isn't money in politics, it's disengaged, uninformed, and frankly stupid voters who do what the TV says. Reduce the amount of money, and you simply change who controls the instructions. Reduce it enough, and control passes to the TV networks.

Who would want to live in a TV show? Given the economics of television, it'd be a reality show. Government by Duck Dynasty.

Comment Re:If you gotta ask... (Score 1) 267 267

There comes a time when a problem ceases to be a technical issue, and becomes an HR one.

Sing it, brother. I got paid to surf porn web sites one time, because I was told to completely document the misdeeds of an employee who had access to an unrestricted computer. Most of them were obviously porn, and needed no further investigation, but some I had to go to the home page to be sure. In the end, I had 45 pages of proxy logs, in small print (for one week). I'd had a conversation with that employee less than 2 weeks earlier about how if you did someone on my network, I have a log of it.

(And he liked to print it out - in black & white. They still call the bottom drawer of the file cabinet "the porn drawer.")

Comment Re:If you gotta ask... (Score 1) 267 267

Such stations should be limited to a white list only, with everything else blocked. And by rights, be on a separate network, but it has to be on the same network as the server behind the POS stations to work at all, and that's an intruder is after anyway. There's only so much you can do.

The real lesson is there are no easy answers, and every situation has to be handled on its own merits.

Comment Re:If you gotta ask... (Score 5, Insightful) 267 267

The question is "Why block at all?" not "Should we block at all?" In other words, "What is the specific goal of blocking?" If it's to prevent malware, it requires a different approach than if it's to prevent watching porn. If it's to protect sensitive information, it requires a very different approach, and may well involve blocking in both directions.

So, no, it isn't that idiots as "why block at all" so much as only idiots don't distinguish between "why" and "should we".

Comment Re:I'd certainl yhope so... (Score 1) 64 64

I suspect the legal theory goes like this:

By calling our fine, outstanding product "shitware," you have defamed us.

Or, possibly, "You encourage others to engage is practices that harm our business, which somehow constitutes some kind of fraud or conspiracy or something."

Mind you, I agree these people should be publicly whipped for being assholes, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with an internally consistent legal theory to support their claim.

Fortunately, the court saw fit to spank them for being retards.

Comment Re:Is Haselton going to jail? (Score 1) 187 187

The thing is, you can't find a brute force attack without testing it. And this one is so basic that it's mind boggling that even a clueless web designer let it slip though. This is one that can't be reasonably reported without testing it.

Mind you, I'm as in favor ore Bennett Hassleton being sodomized by a mutant goat on Viagra as anybody, but United's position is, frankly, kinda silly.

"If a computer can't directly address all the RAM you can use, it's just a toy." -- anonymous comp.sys.amiga posting, non-sequitir

Working...