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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's OK (Score 1) 231

Or perhaps it's possible to have a "reasonably accurate" conception based on what we are reasonably sure of knowing?

$string = 'It is statistically impossible';
do {
    $string .= ' for it to be statistically impossible';
} while (true);

I think Zero's thought is unrefined, but touches on a valid point. It isn't possible to prove that any speculation about God is accurate. You can guess on it all you like, and you might get lucky, but without some evidence to test your speculations against, it will never be certain. I would say that we are certain of knowledge that is reproducibly and demonstrably true within our current scope. Even if our universe existed inside of another universe where the laws of physics for example were no longer true, the laws of physics would still be true in our universe for as long as it can be shown that they are true and certain. What a loopy loop!

Comment Re:Does it compute? (Score 1) 168

I was about to say, "You know, you're arguing with someone who is pasting in text from elsewhere?", but it looks like you figured it out already. Might even just be a troll, hard to say, as I can see an actual scientologist sounding that mindless as well... err, no offense, Mr. Mindless. :)

Comment Re:Hypocrisy (Score 1) 893

For the same reason we give a lot more lenient punishment to thieves than to murderers: nearly everyone places a higher value on human life than on property.

Agreed, and I'd like to add that those who don't value human life more than property are likely mentally ill, at least to some degree. We are creatures of society and most of us tend to understand the intrinsic link we all have to one another, if only on a subconscious level. Most can see how the welfare of your neighbors and your fellow co-workers benefits everyone. The only ones who don't recognize this are typically those who are mentally ill, or those who pull their blinders tight and refuse to acknowledge it. At least the mentally ill have a good excuse though.

Comment Re:Me, too! (Score 2) 208

I haven't ever experienced problems with data not being available on MySQL either. Running several Drupal 6 & 7 sites on MySQL. Also, the company I work for hosts their main customer interface against on MySQL and they haven't had any problems in the several years it has been running either.

Is that an issue from 'ye olde' days? I love your posts, but from what I am reading here, it seems like some have problems with bugs in MySQL that aren't actually there anymore. Either that, or I have just been insanely lucky to not have experienced any of them? I'm running Debian stable with apt sources from (http://packages.dotdeb.org stable). So my MySQL version is 5.5.30-1~dotdeb.0.

I couldn't blame you in that regard though, once something leaves a sour taste in your mouth, it's hard to find reason to go back and try it again, I've done the same thing. Though this article is definitely inspiring me to have a look at both PostgreSQL and MariaDB. One gripe I had before (in drupal v6 about 2 years ago) was that PostgreSQL was purported to not support a 'distinct' select by the maintainer of the 'views' module (or possibly a random committer?). It made some of the configuration that I tried to do with views not work out correctly, so I ended up hacking the module code to add distinct support.

Drupal v7 now has a database abstraction layer though, so it now supports specialized queries based on whatever DB you choose to run it on. Drupal 8.. haven't tried it yet, but I looked at some of their DB code using PHP 5.4 traits, and it looks pretty slick. I'm was planning on putting together a new VM soon for testing out Drupal v8 on PHP 5.4, I'll definitely give PostgreSQL and MariaDB a shot.. though http://packages.debian.org/testing/database/ doesn't seem to have a package for MariaDB, looks like mariadb.org has its own repos: https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/.

Should be fun!

Comment Re:Bullshit story and a Slashdot low (Score 1) 505

Personally, I agree with some of what you said about the Anti-MS posts. Though, I've come to pay little attention to them other than the obligatory glance at the train wreck as I am passing by. I'm definitely no fan of MS, to be certain, but I honestly believe that most of the time the posters who post these things actually believe what they write. It's deluded, to be certain, and you keenly observe such, however, your mistake is that you seem to believe that the general readers of Slashdot cannot also observe this. Most people just blow it off and keep trucking though, and there is a good reason most people do that. Namely because arguing with or against someone so obviously deluded by their own perceptions is largely pointless, and the old saying, "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who" comes to mind as well.

The truth is, there will always be fan-boy's (of anything and everything you can possibly imagine) and I'm sure you know this, but you should try not to let that get to you. They're as much a part of the ecosystem here as at any other aspect of life and I think actually that they probably serve some healthy function in communities, (such as ants and bees and other insects serve a larger more obscure purpose in the world) though what that *may* be is beyond me.

Honestly, I think the bigger problem at Slashdot are derailed/off-topic comments that end up getting bloated with so many other comments which may or may not also be off-topic that they completely drown comments beneath them. It would be nice if they would implement a feature similar to stackoverflow to cause entire threads to sink down when the parent is modded down. Then maybe people wouldn't piggy back on the first post so often.

You presented a lot of good information though, and I am thankful for that. You could be a voice of reason on the site if you stick to the objective side of things and just let your facts stand on their own when they can. There isn't a need to defend them against foolish people who don't bother to read.

Comment Re:Can you use Android without the Goog? (Score 1) 337

Thanks for the info. Google Play just lost another customer in me. I'm using f-droid now as well. Also just purged my phone of any other extra Google anything services. I used PDroid to lock down all the rest which I couldn't outright remove.

I have purchased a few apps from google play store, but they still seem to work with it gone. However, having AdAway removed is just so.. sneaky and underhanded. I don't trust app developers implicitly, AdAway was a basic protection against rogue apps using my power and bandwidth without permission, now Google is going behind my back and attacking the developers of these protective apps so they don't have to deal with me directly?

Lately Google has been upsetting me more and more with their direction. Over the past year I have been slowly trying to phase out anything Google from my life. I just don't trust them anymore.

I can't wait for Firefox OS.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 325

That reminds me of a scene from "Wall-E" where the fat people on the hover chairs only talked to each other via their HUD.

Calling a smartphone emasculating though, that's really far fetched and leads me to believe he has some strange ideas about what masculinity actually is. Either that or he is just really grasping at straws trying to push the glasses. Either way, he definitely doesn't think very highly of the people he is speaking to if he believes rubbish like that will actually persuade them.

Comment Re:Ethics (Score 1) 85

I see a note on the punkspider site to opt out of having your site scanned. Is there a specific way to opt in as well? I would be interested in seeing what results could come out of scanning a few of my sites. I've tried using Skipfish in the past, and a few other scanning utilities, and got a lot of false positives, and also a lot of missed positives. Things I knew were vulnerable and just wanted to see if the scanner would pick up on it.

Thanks for the great work! I look forward to seeing the results, even if some people don't like it. Perhaps sending a notice to "webmaster@domain.tld" would suffice? Possibly even a month or so. Just something along the lines of:

Hey, found some vulnerabilities on your site, this is what they are......
DOMAIN.TLD is currently in queue to be listed in our database on 00/00/2013: click here to request a time extension (or possibly a removal from the list completely) before listing, or click here to queue up another scan of your site when the vulnerabilities are patched.
If you would like assistance in fixing these vulnerabilities, feel welcome to come to our forums or read [link to OWASP info] more information.

I know I would personally appreciate such an automated approach.

Personally, I don't think there should be a removal from the list option if adequate time is given. That's just my opinion though. I feel like if you've done your due diligence to notify the maintainers, after a month or two of time, the public should have a right to know so that they can be avoided.

Comment Re:i like to limit my DHCP scope (Score 1) 884

The truth that nobody wants to really admit is that there's simply no way to keep a determined hacker out of a wireless network. It's, by its very nature, an open network. About the best you can do, short of going wired, is regularly rotate your wireless passwords (get a new one every day, for example), and also maybe set up a VPN on your local network, so that even if you're on the wifi you can't actually do anything with it without connecting to the VPN.

Are you thinking of WEP encryption? If you are using WPA2 encryption, asking someone to change their password once a day is completely unreasonable.

If you are using WPA2 and a semi-long password there is absolutely no need to change the password daily. The way that cracking WPA2 works is by capturing an authentication handshake of a user who knows the password, storing that locally and then cracking it on the local machine. Now you are playing the waiting game, even if the attacker was using (http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/25-gpu-cluster-cracks-every-standard-windows-password-in-6-hours/) cracking at 350 billion passwords attempts a second, a password with 20 characters (upper, lower, digits, and punctuation) would take
(32 lower + 32 upper + 32 punctuation + 10 digits) 104 ^ 20 = 2.1911231430334195e+40 possible combinations.
2.1911231430334195e+40 / 350,000,000,000 attempts per second would require 62,603,518,372,383,410,015,659,322,218.865 seconds to try each combination. Which comes out to a potential 2,905,645,676,789,197,589,949.8015733293 years to crack. Change your password once a year and call it good.

Wireless networks are not open by nature, they are broadcast by nature. There is a very big difference.

Comment Re:Never ... (Score 1) 171

I pretty much do the same as you. Some people are still amazed at how fast you can be when you stop using a mouse and only use the keyboard. This is however, completely compromised when you run across applications that have poor keyboard support. Most browsers tend to have excellent keyboard support though.

I am used to using a screen session over and SSH terminal most of the day though, so the keyboard is the king of the kernel there.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't drop acid, take it pass-fail!" -- Bryan Michael Wendt