Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Do it like Linux (Score 1) 492

by locofungus (#49136195) Attached to: Users Decry New Icon Look In Windows 10

I don't use windows much at all. However, any of those beyond the win95 I couldn't use at all because they're out of focus. (Perhaps this can be turned off?)

The win7 one in particular is so painful for me to look at that even in a few seconds my eyes start feeling uncomfortable and I can feel the strain of trying to correct the focus.

Comment: Re:Greek Myths (Score 1) 253

Ironically, Greece had a balanced budget in 2014. Germany did not. Yes, this is true if you compare apples to oranges.

Greece had a small budget surplus if you exclude debt repayments and one off payments such as bank bailouts. Overall it's budget deficit was around 13% (which meant that Greece was no longer in last place with Slovenia something around 15%)

18 European countries kept their deficit within the 3% threshold. Luxembourg posted a small surplus while Germany[1] was balanced.

To Greece's credit, balancing the budget excluding debt repayments and one off items was achieved around a year ahead of the agreed austerity plan.

[1] To reconcile this with your claim I can only assume that Germany was very slightly negative. Small enough that most people call it balanced.

Comment: Re:well (Score 5, Informative) 418

There is no error correction on audio CD.

Yes there is. It uses a dual interleave Reed-Solomon code together with 8-14 modulation and three joining bits.

192 data bits are encoded in 588 bits on the CD.

Those 588 bits comprise:
24 bits sync word plus 3 merge bits. (27 bits)
33 EFM words of data of 14 bits plus 3 merge bits per word (561 bits)

The 33 bytes of data are:
24 bytes of audio (12x16 bit samples)
8 bytes of parity.
1 byte (8 bits) of subcode information.

The merge bits allow the min/max separation of 1s to be maintained between EFM codewords and also allow the data to be DC free

Comment: Re:SIP Replacement? (Score 1) 282

by locofungus (#48912895) Attached to: EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance

why would providers go from IPv4 to IPv6 when soon there will be a shortage of numbers

They'll drag their feet but, eventually, there will be services that people want to use that are only available via IPv6 and then there will be little choice. (Although they'll try to proxy[1] popular IPv6 sites first)

[1] fake 10.x.x.x dns records that they serve to their customers and then forward the traffic over IPv6

Comment: Paid sick leave (Score 4, Insightful) 673

by tomalpha (#48883395) Attached to: Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?

they've already put some employees on paid leave until medically cleared

Would this be mitigated by Disney *always* providing paid sick leave? The quote in TFS suggests that this might be the exception rather than the rule. If you encourage employees to come in to work while they're sick, or even hide their symptoms, then I guess you're more likely to see illnesses spread...

Comment: Re:Jurors (Score 5, Interesting) 303

It's very hard to explain "this shit" to people when there's someone else equally knowledgeable as you determined to explain why your explanation is wrong.

Asymmetric encryption. Do you explain P vs NP, why NP-Complete is almost certainly not in P but the problems that asymmetric encryption are built on aren't known to be either NP-Complete or P.

NP is a decision problem - but encryption isn't a yes/no problem. How can problems that only have yes/no answers be used to encrypt?

Muddy the water some more - PRIMES is in P. Do you really want to have to explain the difference between constructive and existential proofs while someone is interrupting every time you say anything that isn't 100% accurate.

You've only got to look at the climate change "debate" to see this effect in force. Climate scientists are playing a game of whack-a-mole and the general public cannot tell which side to believe. There are always questions and doubts that can be raised - the mark of a good scientist is asking the questions for which the answer is interesting. The mark of a good defense attorney is raising questions for which cast doubt on the reliability of the witness. The role of the judge is to make sure that the questions that the lawyer asks is relevant to the case - and that's where it gets hard when you've got two experts in their field debating something and one (or both) has an agenda.

+ - Installing top 10 render your computer almost useless

Submitted by fluor2
fluor2 (242824) writes "For the purpose of this experiment, we’re going to just click through all regular installation screens with the default options using a fresh virtual machine. And we’re going to install ten applications from the most popular downloads list. And we’re going to assume the persona of a regular non-geek user." Read the full article.

Is crapware completely destroying the user experience for a non-geek user?"

Comment: Re:It's just wrong (Score 1) 335

When you already have a defined program (and machine in this case) in front of you for review, then you can determine whether or not it will halt

except when you cant

For any computer program with a finite number of states (finite memory) you can determine whether it halts by running it long enough that it must be looping.

For a computer with 16384 states (An 8 state turing machine with an 8 position binary tape. 8 states * 8 positions * 2^8 values that can be on the tape) you can tell if any arbitrary program terminates by running it for 16385 steps. Any program that doesn't terminate in 16385 steps will run forever.

Comment: Re:quick question (Score 1) 212

by locofungus (#48415905) Attached to: Launching 2015: a New Certificate Authority To Encrypt the Entire Web

Web Browsers DID used to accept self-signed certificates (and certificates signed without a known CA - or cert-chain.) People just clicked through and accepted them willy-nilly. That was a poor security model.

The poor security model was browsers asking for confirmation for self signed certificates.

What browsers should have done is:

self signed certificates or unknown CA - how the "unencrypted web" works today.
No encryption at all - popup "are you sure you want to connect"
Signed certificate - tick (check) mark (instead of padlock) to show that the site is verified.

Now that browers are hiding the "http/https" bit from most people anyway it makes even less sense to treat self signed certificates as less safe/require more warning than a normal http connection.

Comment: Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score 1) 184

by tomalpha (#48334245) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists

Mass surveillance should never be tolerated

I agree and that's not what I said and not what TFS or TFA is about - they're about targeted surveillance of lawyers. Which is always wrong, with a few possible but very rare exceptions. Targeting lawyers of people who criticise the government is clearly wrong and a blatant abuse of power.

I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of history

I don't think I'm completely ignorant of history (although I wouldn't would I), but I might disagree with you about how we solve the problem. And as I said above, there is clearly a problem that needs fixing.

Comment: Re:Apologist (Score 1) 184

by tomalpha (#48334075) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists

British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally

That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.

Trying to conflate the jobs of law enforcement and "spying"

I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.

apologists don't want debate and dialogue

Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if the government and/or intelligence agencies have been abusing their power. That doesn't necessarily mean that breaking the attorney-client privilege is always a bad thing and to be clear, it absolutely doesn't mean it's a good thing either. It's not too hard to come up with a (very unlikely but not impossible) circumstance where the majority of citizens would agree it was the right thing to do in that very individual and specific circumstance. My position is simply that I favour more scrutiny and accountability rather than more laws and absolute rules - never say never, but you must be able to, and made to, justify why you're doing something as a spy.

Comment: Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score 1, Insightful) 184

by tomalpha (#48332825) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists
It's a nice thought but I don't think that works in the imperfect world we live in. We don't only spy because everyone else does (though I dare say there's an element of that). There has to be some way of letting the security services in their various forms do what they need to do. And to be clear: I think "need" here means what we the people as a democratic majority agree they need to do. (We the people also need to be realistic about the world we live in in doing so). Slightly changing tack as well: It's good and healthy that everyone's angry if someone abuses a position of responsibility and power. We just need to channel that productively so we make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water when we fix the problem. I also think that engineering a culture in our intelligence agencies that shies away from any abusive practices. You want people to avoid abusing power because they think that's right, not just because it's against a law or rule of some kind. My gut instinct is that the culture is probably well intentioned. Caveat the road to hell etc...

Comment: Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score 1) 184

by tomalpha (#48332737) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists

Spies should respect laws and constitutions, at the very least those of their own country.

No argument from me there, but how do we balance this against other nations or groups that don't play by the same rules? (However limited or flawed the home laws might currently be).

Comment: It's what you do with it that counts (Score -1, Troll) 184

by tomalpha (#48332669) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists
Spies should listen in to whatever they need to listen in to. That's what they're there for. Nations spy on other nations. It's not pretty, but it's reality. That might include otherwise privileged or sensitive conversations - I bet Angela Merkel would feel that her conversations are in some way "privileged" (clearly not in an attorney-client sense). The worrying aspect here appears to be if, when, and how that data might have been passed to other areas of government. Passing, say, data gained from spying on defence lawyers and passing that to the government prosecutor should be criminal.

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead