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


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Its only SuperFish-like (Score 5, Informative) 92

Not only is the private key supplied with the certificate, unlike with SuperFish the certificate can also be used to sign executables. Which means that the bad guys can now sign their malware with eDellRoot and gain unwarranted trust. It figures that slashdot doesn't provide a good link. Try

Comment Re:They aren't really still blaming DPRK, are they (Score 0) 51

it can help to know something about the subject before commenting on it, and such failure is particularly egregious when the topic is very public with many details publicized.

Maybe you don't like the term "bricked", but systems were wiped, leaving them inoperable.

As to the capability of North Korea, people are I think significantly underestimating their ability. In any case, the allegation is that the attack was perpetrated by actors who previously worked for North Korea or had ties to North Korea. It is entirely possible the attack was orchestrated by North Korea.

However, the complaints/demands of the attackers (as recorded in the screen image that was displayed on attacked systems) had to do with outsourcing labor -- nothing to do with The Interview or its relationship to North Korea. Workers wanted fair treatment and took the matter into their own hands. The attack itself looks like someone on site (for example, someone who hadn't been downsized yet who had friends that had already been let go), not a network intrusion.

As relations with Cuba have (very slightly and very gradually) thawed, it appears that the US government is increasingly relying on North Korea as the exemplar of an unstable and dangerous regime.

Comment Re:Phbbbt. We don't need not stinking fact checkin (Score 1) 93

Ah, yes, the ad hominem when you disagree with the message. Classy.

So if a human has any failings we should ignore any insights they happen to have. Not that your ad hominem is all that good anyway. You fail to demonstrate that he was plagiarizing John Locke (and be sure to know what plagiarism actually is before trying to do so).

Lets be clear: I'm not defending Thomas Jefferson. I'm just calling out one of the lamest attempts to discredit someone.

Comment Re:I honestly havea hard time deciding where to st (Score 1) 108

The one problem with their world view (which you describe so nicely) is that *eventually* the excesses become to much. People do not truly become inured, but they do want to live their own quiet lives and are willing to put up with a lot in the hopes of maintaining the illusion. But there is a limit, and when that is reached you have a very rough time. Like the French Revolution.

The end result of the turmoil may not be a better life for the average person and it may not wrest power from all of the incumbents -- but that is not something on which they can count. Regrettably, for many who are in power they do not acknowledge this inevitability and the closer things approach such a turning point the more they grasp for additional power in the belief that they can secure themselves from repercussion.

Here's hoping that the tide turns before things get to a point of blood and death. Its not pleasant for anyone to live in such turbulent times.

Comment Re: What a World (Score 1) 108

I'm not sure you have either, because if you had you would see that the violation of law is only one of the required qualifiers. In other words, the first hurdle to be passed is that a criminal act must be committed. Then, *in addition* to that it must also have other characteristics. But let's not mince words and instead quote:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

                        `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

                        `(B) appear to be intended--

                                `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

                                `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

                                `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

                        `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

Comment Re:Protein from plants, not animals (Score 2) 381

If you do some research on the subject you would discover a few things. Like the real critical point for "not starving" was not meat but fire. Eating meat (without using fire to cook it) has a detrimental effect because of the health hazards. But fire (used to cook food) has the property of increasing available caloric content.

The rated caloric content of a food is pretty much just theoretical with only a weak correlation to what the digestive system is able to extract from it. Cooking food improves the available caloric content with an effect ranging from mild to extreme (I forget the exact examples of top providers, but it is something like yams/potatoes/bananas).

Focusing on protein alone is not silly, its stupid. You need protein, you need calories, you need fiber, and so on.

There are all sorts of attempts to justify a particular diet. A popular one is that a lack of red meat leads to diminished stature (which makes the error of assuming that great stature is even desirable and lacks strong evidence for the claim). Another popular one is that humans digest meat more easily -- and conversely that humans digest vegetables more easily. In both cases there is an agenda attached to the claim.

Having surveyed available research data on the "ease of digestion" claim I can say that both are wrong. There is too much individual variability. It is sufficiently difficult to measure both rate and extent of digestion that only very narrow studies have been done with scope and results that preclude making any strong statements.

Accept that digestion is not that well understood. Make a reasonable attempt to eat well, whatever that means to you. And accept that others will make reasonable attempts to eat well that do not follow the same diet as you. Not only is there no need for you to be right, there is too much individual variability for there to be "one right way" and too much over time variability in an individual for one diet to best suit a person over time.

Be flexible. Avoid foods that cause upset (e.g., if you suffer from IBS it is wise to at least try cutting out tomatoes). Be willing to try new things. Be willing to try old things. Avoid mandating specific regimens or insisting that another person's diet is wrong (except in unusually extreme cases, like parents that insisted on a diet solely consisting of bananas to the detriment of the children's health -- IIRC they lost their children over that one).

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 175

Actually, bit torrent has been marketed to the copyright cartel and they have actively investigated it and there is increasing adoption. Not in the way the pirates want, of course, but as a means to reduce their bandwidth costs by offloading it to their viewers. Such schemes do not allow freeloaders, of course, nor do they interoperate with other bit torrent clients like utorrent. Nor do the copyright cartel describe them as bit torrent, but one of the issues for any traffic shaping service is to discriminate between the various bit torrent clients, permitting some and rejecting or throttling others.

You also have some weird understanding of reality. "Old school piracy" was nothing like streaming. Old school piracy was using a client to find music and pictures being shared by other people and downloading them. In fact, originally it was direct download and single source. But ISPs make good use of asymmetric bandwidth and "swarming" was invented to improve performance -- particularly important as the content being pirated shifted to video. But single source or swarmed, there was never any streaming involved, it was always download in total, then consume.

Or did you mean *real* old school, back in the day with Usenet and binary postings? Where the files were split and encoded, then had to be decoded and combined? This was also not streaming.

Or did you mean *really* old school, when piracy was done with sneakernet? Which was also not streaming.

BTW: the actual reason Netflix went to streaming was in order to lower costs. They paid for the shipping -- each way -- of those disks. They have to pay for the streaming bandwidth, but doing so is cheaper than shipping. Pirates had nothing to do with it.

The actual precursors to streaming movies/tv shows have nothing to do with piracy and rather more to do with corporations like Real and Macromedia.

But, hey, what's a little real history between random people on the Internet?

Comment Re: Good ... (Score 2) 175

Although you are certainly right that the protocol is nearly entirely used for piracy (despite vociferous claims to the contrary) there is at least one issue with claiming use of the protocol as evidence of piracy and that is of standing.

I may know with certainty that Bob is using bit torrent. I might even happen to know he is using it for piracy. But unless he is redistributing a work to which I hold the copyright then I have no standing to complain. In point of fact, the *one* thing a DMCA complaint says under penalty of perjury is that they work which is claimed to being infringed is owned by the plaintiff. In other words, unless I'm a duly authorized agent of HBO I cannot file a DMCA complaint about someone pirating Game of Thrones.

Just because someone is using bit torrent, even if it is for copyright infringing purposes, that is not evidence of a *specific* infringement.

Bring up YouTube is beside the point. Google is in no way legally obligated to have the system they put in place. In point of fact, their system was put in place specifically to benefit wealthy copyright holders. The only reason for Google to do this is for some consideration from them and it is clear that both Google and the wealthy copyright holders benefit from this. But merely holding the copyright to material that is being infringed on YouTube is not enough, you have to be a wealthy copyright holder to qualify for Google's "expedited process".

If this practice were codified into law it would be an affront and disservice to the public. It is pretty clear why you would not want an account associated with such fascist views.

Comment Re:I'm upset because it's divisive. (Score 2) 289

You took the quote out of context. As you have demonstrated substantial ability in reading and writing I suspect that you simply keyed in on some particular phrasing and skimmed/did not really read the rest. In other words, it got under your skin. Relax. While you may or may not agree with each other, you are arguing with a point that wasn't being made.

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!