Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Wow gorgeous (Score 1) 219 219

I think a lot of Ubuntu and GNOME3 users would be much, much, happier if you were right. Both Unity and GNOME3 have tried to re-invent the desktop, but neither really have been successful.

Neither are a 2000s museum. But both could learn a lot from what Microsoft is doing - this should not be written as an endorsement of anyone deciding that the next GNU/Linux Desktop should be a clone of Windows, there's a difference between learning from and copying..

Comment: Re:Evidence? (Score 3, Insightful) 219 219

It's actually very easy, I've done it. It's just not something anyone does because of two factors:

1. Desktops always look a little odd when encapsulated inside of a window. Think VLC or VirtualBox/etc.

2. Aero isn't a touch Interface, and all web development has been going towards UIs that work well on both touch and desktop systems.

And that latter is also why Windows 10 looks the way it does. Which is also why it looks like the web enough for you to think they're replicating what looks good on the web - they're trying to do the same thing.

Comment: Re:FreeNAS (Score 1) 199 199

> ZFS can be unstable if not fed enough RAM.

--I have seen ZFS (FreeBSD and Linux) be "stable" with ~2GB of RAM, as long as you are using a 64-bit OS. In my experience, these days ZFS only needs lots of RAM if you are doing de-duplication - although this can be gotten around to a certain extent if you use an SSD drive for L2ARC; it will just be slower. Maxing out your RAM is recommended if you want max speed and you can afford it, but there are other ways. As long as you're not doing de-dup and not expecting miracles; my ZFS backup/fileserver only has 6GB of RAM and is doing fine running Ubuntu 14.04-64-LTS.

Comment: It's called Rocket Science for a reason ... (Score 4, Insightful) 292 292

by xmas2003 (#50006337) Attached to: A Failure For SpaceX: Falcon 9 Explodes During Ascension
Bummer to see this happen - was really hoping they could "stick the landing" on the 3rd try ... but obviously never got the chance.

SpaceX has been very forthcoming with their telemetry data and analysis, so hopefully we'll hear what happened soon.

Comment: Re:Randomness can't come from a computer program (Score 1) 64 64

by Bruce Perens (#50004185) Attached to: NIST Updates Random Number Generation Guidelines

Most of us do have a need to transmit messages privately. Do you not make any online purchases?

Yes, but those have to use public-key encryption. I am sure of my one-time-pad encryption because it's just exclusive-OR with the data, and I am sure that my diode noise is really random and there is no way for anyone else to predict or duplicate it. I can not extend the same degree of surety to public-key encryption. The software is complex, the math is hard to understand, and it all depends on the assumption that some algorithms are difficult to reverse - which might not be true.

Comment: Re:Bad RNG will make your crypto predictable (Score 2) 64 64

by Bruce Perens (#50000917) Attached to: NIST Updates Random Number Generation Guidelines

The problem with FM static is that you could start receiving a station, and if you don't happen to realize you are now getting low-entropy data, that's a problem.

There are many well-characterized forms of electronic noise: thermal noise, shot noise, avalanche noise, flicker noise, all of these are easy to produce with parts that cost a few dollars.

Comment: Randomness can't come from a computer program (Score 2, Interesting) 64 64

by Bruce Perens (#50000905) Attached to: NIST Updates Random Number Generation Guidelines

True randomness comes from quantum mechanical phenomena. Linux /dev/random is chaotic, yes, enough to seed a software "R"NG. But we can do better and devices to do so are cheap these days.

I wouldn't trust anything but diode noise for randomness. If I had a need to transmit messages privately, I'd only trust a one-time pad.

Comment: Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 812 812

Requiring a modified version is not banning the game.

If you enforce it by banning the game until it's modified, then yes, it is. By definition.

Can you get the game now? No? Then it's banned.

This is slashdot. If Apple gave everyone in the would an ice-cream, people here would find some reason to hate them for it.

I'm not talking about just Slashdot.

Comment: Re:Bandwagon (Score 1) 812 812

No, it was put up as a big fuck you to the rest of the country. SC put it up in the early 1960s to protest civil rights. It wasn't up before then.

In the early 2000s, it was superficially moved to a cemetery in front of the Capitol, but that was a "compromise", and was the moving of the flag, not a removal.

Comment: Re:I'm spending 60% of my monthly income on rent (Score 1) 937 937

by Bruce Perens (#49992299) Attached to: The Vicious Circle That Is Sending Rents Spiraling Higher

Communism has been tried on a large scale - see Mao's Great Leap Forward.

Nope. That was a totalitarian socialist program pushing a collectivism that didn't work. Communism is a post-scarcity society and obviously scarcity was the thing Mao produced best.

Comment: Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 812 812

Well, it is banning the game (from the App Store) if Apple removes it from the App Store. The fact you can modify it and get your modified version put up doesn't mean you don't suffer harm in the meantime.

And the modification you're having to do is also absurd. What are you going to use to represent Confederates in battle other than a Confederate battle flag?

I'm not finding a lot of support for Apple's position at the moment. Apple's actions, if anything, undermine the more serious reasons to call on the government of a US state to stop using it. Suddenly a call for a US state to show humanity and stop being dicks is turned into a de-facto nationwide ban on controversial symbols. Not good.


Editor of 'Reason' Discusses Federal Subpoena To Unmask Commenters 144 144

Posted by Soulskill
from the apparently-people-say-bad-stuff-on-the-internet dept.
mi points out an article from Nick Gillespie, editor of libertarian website Reason, who was recently asked by the federal government to provide identifying information on anonymous commenters from one of the site's blog posts. Not only was Reason issued a subpoena for the commenters's identities, but they were also placed under a gag order, preventing them from even mentioning it to somebody who wasn't their lawyer. Gillespie says the comments in question were "hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary." He continues: To the extent that the feds actually thought these were serious plans to do real harm, why the hell would they respond with a slow-moving subpoena whose deadline was days away? By spending five minutes doing the laziest, George Jetson-style online "research" (read: Google and site searches), they would have found publicly available info on some of the commenters. I'm talking things like websites and Google+ pages. One of the commenters had literally posted thousands of comments at, from which it is clear that he (assuming it is a he) is not exactly a threat to anyone other than common decency."

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."