Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:By Your Command (Score 1) 269

Why is not NOT OK to have a real choice, where people can choose a more open Android or a platform that ships with defaults that are vastly better for 98% of people that will own mobile devices?

That's a false dichotomy. Android is a platform that ships with defaults that are better for 98% of people that will own mobile devices. By default it only allows installation from the Google Play store.

That said, I have absolutely nothing against people having a choice between iOS and Android (and whatever else). I'd be very, very concerned if the walled garden were the only option, but it's not.

Comment Re:Is it going to break the API? (Score 1) 688

I've got 8GB on my machine, and every day or so I need to shut down Firefox to reclaim the memory it's been leaking.

Are you sure about that? Do you understand how modern OSes use RAM?

Try disabling swap, then running Firefox for a day or two, so it appears to be hogging all your RAM, then start up an app that actually does allocate, say, 6 GiB. Then check the FF usage. Do the same experiment with swap enabled. If FF is doing things right, the behavior should be the same, and in both cases you should see FF memory "consumption" drop dramatically when something else demands all the RAM.

If the other program can't actually get the memory it needs (with swap disabled), then FF actually leaks. I suspect it doesn't. (Note that I don't use FF).

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 2) 132

And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.

You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others. I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pistol) is useless. My rifles, however, are not.

As for the expected riposte about how semi-automatic rifles are also useless against machine guns, cannon, attack aircraft, helicopters, tanks, JDAMs and nuclear weapons other than to say that if you think rifles aren't effective against them you need to (a) study the history of guerrilla warfare and (b) think about the political aspects of armed resistance and how the members of the police and armed forces are likely to respond to being asked to fire upon their countrymen. If necessary, consult with a few policemen and soldiers to clarify any uncertainty you may have about (b).

The reason I carry a handgun is the same reason police officers carry a handgun, for self-defense. Handguns are defensive weapons. Rifles are offensive weapons, which is why they're carried by soldiers. Oh, and before you tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, I should probably also mention I'm a former police officer and a former soldier and a current (part-time) firearms instructor.

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 1) 132

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

In 2011, the NRA raised over $200M from individual contributors. Between 2005 and 2012, the NRA received $15M from gun manufacturers, which averages to a little over $2M per year.

This means that the industry funds approximately 1% of the NRA; the other 99% comes from its membership.

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 1) 132

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

Not only that, they actually helped write some of the gun control bills. But that's in the past and the NRA of the last decade or so has caught on to the ideas of eternal vigilance and incrementalism (pushing your view inch by inch, always taking as much as you can get, but not refusing just because it's not all you want).

Comment Re:Site for illegal activities, just load this... (Score 2) 251

Nah, you didn't have anything better to do. You're just a fucking idiot who has no idea what they are talking about.

The irony of your statement made me chuckle. You obviously don't know anything about who I am, what I do, or what comments I've made about OpenSSL over the years.

Comment Re:So far, no lessons learned... (Score 1) 338

I find it incredulous

"It" (meaning the state of the world) cannot be incredulous (in a state of being unable to believe). What you mean to write is "I find it incredible that..." or "I find it unbelievable that..." or "I am incredulous that...".

Vocabulary quibbles aside, I agree with your point. Mostly. There's no guarantee that privately-owned networks will fight government surveillance, or that government agencies will facilitate it. But I think it is more likely. What's really needed in both cases is really strong whistleblower protection laws so that if something shady is going on someone who sees it can let us all know without having to seek asylum in Russia.

Comment Re:Site for illegal activities, just load this... (Score 1) 251

Well, if this client is as crufty and badly-written as OpenSSL (which I've been complaining about for years), then you may have a point.

Irony: Where you have the skill to completely understand that a major software program is "crufty and badly-written" but don't do anything other than complain about it "for years".

I had one or two other things to do. Still, I take your point, because everyone I know who looked at the OpenSSL source was terrified by it. Its sheer nastiness deterred people from trying to do anything to fix its nastiness, but everyone kept using it because (a) there wasn't any good alternative and (b) everyone else kept using it.

Comment Re:Site for illegal activities, just load this... (Score 1) 251

Heartbleed proves all of your posts moot and irrelevant. Regardless, I'll still use OSS. Just don't hold it up on such a high pedestal next time.

Well, if this client is as crufty and badly-written as OpenSSL (which I've been complaining about for years), then you may have a point.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.

Working...