Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:RE Security Software (Score 1) 79

Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.

Bingo. There are certain gov organizations that you can't sell into unless you let them audit your source. It's not just the US either. Also required for certain Russian certifications (for example).

Comment Re:Open Source should go all the way (Score 1) 144

Assuming that the routers require signed firmware images (or will in the near future), the law should require that everything needed to load new images into the router by the user should be made available (including any signing keys).

That entirely misses the point of why the FCC is wanting to lock down the firmware...

Comment Re:Cabs (Score 1) 239

It makes no difference the quality of the taxi's that are in existence. If the laws aren't making taxi's you like, then, again.. Why is this so hard to understand... HAVE THE LAW CHANGED. It doesn't give anyone carte blanche to break the law.

Given the prevailing stances on /., I have to ask if you say the same thing when it comes to copyright laws? Did you pay for all of the music and movies on your computer/phone? Or were you with the rest of the /. crowd saying "screw the man!11!! they shouldn't charge so much!"

Comment Re:Unauthorized teardown (Score 1) 366

Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.

Don't forget that copyright law should be ignored (ie., music, movies, etc.) unless it is to enforce GPL

Comment Re:lol crowdfunding (Score 1) 50

You're confusing business with charity. Unscrupulous businesses thank you.

No, I'm clear on the difference. It's people that think participating in Kickstarter campaigns is an investment that are confused.

When you give money, did you get stock or chotchkies? If you got stock, you are investing. Otherwise, you are giving away your money.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, just as long as you know which you are doing. If it makes you happy to contribute towards making some product/thing/project happen, that's great. It's just not in any way, shape or form an investment where you expect a financial return if the product/thing/project succeeds.

Comment Re:regulatory aspects (Score 1) 91

You shouldn't trust the cloud providers. Even if the CSP and its employees are trustworthy, if they get a court order or double-secret-probation security letter, they have to turn the data over.

Whether that matters or not depends on what you are doing with the cloud though. If you are using cloud storage as a "big scalable drive in the sky", then you just need to encrypt the data on-premise where YOU control the encryption keys. Server(cloud)-side encryption helps with hackers, but not against three letter agencies.

Just using encryption to transport the data isn't enough. The data itself needs to be encrypted before it goes to the cloud. As long as you do that, you can take advantage of the cloud providers cost structure and save yourself some significant $$$ without risking your data.

Comment Re:Eliminate all tax withholding (Score 1) 413

Your math is ridiculous.

The math isn't really the point. The point is that people seem to think all those government benefits, programs, etc. are free.

Today in the US, you never really "see" the taxes directly. Most people just look at their take-home pay, not their gross pay. If you got rid of all those out-of-sight, out-of-mind deductions from people's paychecks and made them write a check to the IRS each month, they would be WAY more aware of the cost of government.

Presumably that would make them significantly less likely to vote for politicians promising them more "free" stuff, because that monthly check to the IRS keeps the cost in their face.

Comment Re:At the same time (Score 2) 323

IBM did not one but several REALLY fucking stupid things, 1.- When Intel refused to license the 386 for second sourcing IBM refused to buy it, instead sticking with the 286 (which they made) damned near until the Pentium was released.

Interesting version of history you have there... The 386 went into full production in mid-1986. IBM released their first 386-based computer in 1987 (PS/2 Model 80). The Pentium came out in 1993.

Comment Re:Is this shocking? (Score 1) 63

All the major testing houses check for false positives alongside detections, but perhaps they decided more false positives would still look better on benchmarks than a lower detection rate.

It's not that they don't claim to test for false positives... It's that their FP testing tends to be... rudimentary.

To be fair, I haven't worked with these specific test houses. I have, however, worked closely with some very well-known and trusted test labs. Perception and reality don't line up very well

Comment Re:Is this shocking? (Score 3, Informative) 63

I am not shocked, but I am confused. Why would they give bad software to their customers, but give good software to the testers? The marginal cost of software is zero. So, if they have good software, why don't they give it to their customers? Can someone please explain how any of this makes sense?

It's really easy to "detect" everything so you get a high detection rate. It's really hard to do so without a ton of false positives.

Very few of the tests out there check for false positives, so it is easy to game the results. You could never ship the product to customers that way because you'd drown in support calls from customers complaining about programs not work, broken websites, etc.

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."