Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment having watched someone check door handles (Score 1) 101

I watched a thief check door handles once, looking for low hanging fruit. As I said, as long as he found plenty unlocked, the locked ones were safer. When four in a row were locked, he smashed a window. Locks didn't keep him out, not when either a lots of people used them or he saw something he wanted.

That thief is currently serving time for murder for hire.

Comment kick in door, load electronics (Score 1) 101

I'd bet $100 I could simply kick in your door and walk out with your stuff.

You COULD spend $10,000 on a security system to protect your $10,000 worth of stuff. That would be stupid, though, wouldn't it.

Let's say you did spend $10,000 on security. In that case , a burglar would want to spend $4 on a ski mask and maybe $13 on a post driver to knock the door in. Then smash the door in an QUICKLY grab $3,000 worth of electronics etc. You spent $10,000, the bad guy spent $17 to defeat it (and didn't wait around for the security company to first call you, then call the cops.)

I used to work as a locksmith. Now I secure computer systems for a living. I've yet to see one I couldn't break with ease. There ARE some strong security measures you can take with a computer, just like there are quality locks. Quality locks won't stop a large crowbar and no amount of computer security will stop a root kit.

Comment same answer as any political question (Score 1, Offtopic) 107

Given the overall percentage of libertarians (1%?) and the overall percentage of liberals (48%?), clearly it isn't anywhere near "all libertarians". This proves that:

The liberals are completely wrong.

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn by anyone who can follow simple logic. People who can follow simple logic knew that already, though.

I'm KIDDING you hyper-sensisitive liberal weenie who is furiously clicking the "reply" button. Sometimes liberals are right, even Obama. Obama was right when he said the lack of a federal budget was a sign of no leadership from the president. Obama was right when he said if the economy isn't back on track in early 2012 he shouldn't be re-elected. Obama was right when he said it would be irresponsible of him to run for president because a presidential candidate should "know what you're doing". Liberals are very often right.

Comment clear, but wrong (Score 2) 107

While there may be millions of possible reconstructions for a fuzzy, ill-defined image, the simplest (sparsest) version is probably the best fit."

Of the millions of possibilities, the sparsest is MOST likely. Perhaps it's twice as likely as any other possibility. That still means it's 99.999% likely to be wrong.

As for the MRI, that fuzzy part is probably noise that can be deleted, except when it's a tumor.

"

Comment anyone can kick your door in. I can pick it. (Score 1) 101

"Locks keep people out of my house". They don't keep bad guys out. Anyone can kick the door in. I can pick the lock, as can many other people. A lock is a REQUEST. a "do not disturb" sign.

How about much bigger locks, like a bank vault? Have you ever noticed that most banks keep their vault door a) open and b) well polished? Does that look like security, or security theatre? Notice that next to the thick steel door is a plaster wall.

It's fairly rare that you can increase security enough that something is more expensive to steal than it's worth. Sometimes, but rarely. What you CAN do is avoid being low-hanging fruit. If only I use encryption while everyone else uses plain text, I'm safer. I don't have to outrun the bear, so to speak. If everyone encrypts their data , the bag actors will download the hack tool to decrypt it.

Comment "hacking a system", see hacker's dictionary (Score 2) 162

> But we already HAD a word for that and it was not "hackers" it was con artists..

I think the distinction is in your last three words, "hacking a system".

A con man or fraudster will get a _person_ to hand over their property.
A hacker manipulates a _system_ to have it do something other than what it's supposed to do.
TFA says:

"The group was able to change the DNS records managed by Network Solutions for a number of security companies".

They did a number of companies by exploiting NetSol's SYSTEM, not simply tricking one person, but exploiting
holes in the system that the person what was part of. If you can fairly reliably exploit the system, it's a hack in my opinion whether that's a TCP/IP system, a phone system, a traffic light control system, or system that includes both
computers and human.

However, see also the Jargon File for original meanings of the term:
http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html
http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_23.html#SEC30

Comment rule #3 (Score 1) 177

Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.
Rule 3: raymorris is never wrong (note rule 2 says YOU can be wrong, not me).

Hmm, come to think of it, I WAS wrong when I said Clinton didn't barricade open air monuments.
My point, that such shenanigans are a new form of BS by democrats, was correct, though. Perhaps we need rule #4:

Rule 4: If it appears that raymorris is wrong, look at the bigger picture. He's always right about the big picture.

Comment many forms are available, your choice (Score 2) 168

What do you mean "of you don't want to participate in culture in it's exact form as it exists right now"?
Right now, you can buy from a boutique retailer who buys from a distributor, you can buy direct from the manufacturer, or many choices in between.

I bought my last pair of glasses from 39dollarglasses.com. They are the same glasses the retailer in the mall will sell me for $160. The differences include - the retailer will measure the distance between my eyes for me, help me find a pair that looks nice, adjust them for me, and charge more. Both choices are "culture as it exists right now". Right now you can buy direct from the manufacturer who is 1,000 miles away, buy from a discount store, or a boutique shop. You can have it any way you want. Why do you insist that I also have to have it your way, that I'm not allowed to getvalue added by a dealer? What posesses you to need to take away the last bit if freedom I have left?

Comment If so, don't use them. or the grocery store, gas.. (Score 4, Insightful) 168

If aggregators, dealers, and other "middle men" don't offer you anything you want, don't use them. Simple.

Note that the grocery store, gas station, and just about every other business you use is a middle man. If the grocery store doesn't offer you any advantage over ordering items shipped directly from manufacturers and producers, you can make that choice. Sometimes, I order things direct. Most of the time, it's more convenient and cheaper to go through an aggregator / retailer like Walmart.

If you want some of the services of a middle man but not all, you have that choice too. Sam's Club and other warehouse stores sell cases at low prices, just like buying direct. Internet distributors are another in-between option. Yet, most of the time we prefer the services of a middle man, a retailer.

More on topic, I have bought, and continue to buy data services through a middle man. The backbone providers sell 10Gb connections. They aren't interested in the 50Mbps I want to buy. My retailer IS very interested in my 50Mbps account and they work hard to keep me happy. If there's a problem with one of the backbones, they have the expertise and the pull to get it fixed.

Comment operators reversed. money == ! technically compete (Score 3, Interesting) 497

It seems to me that the larger the bill and the larger the company sending that bill, the lower the competency.

Our three-person company handles web sites serving hundreds of thousands of users per day for a few thousand dollars. We could easily handle a few million users by adding a few more database servers at a cost of around ten thousand.

Comment idiots exist, therefore idiot proof it. holding it (Score 1) 43

People at work are always saying "the user is doing it wrong". They say that all the time because users do it wrong all the time. A guy named Murphy made it a law - if there's a wrong way to do it, someone will do it wrong. (That's the actual original Murphy's law.)

I'm constantly pointing out that yes, we KNOW that the users will do it wrong if we let them. We also know how to easily prevent those mistakes. Idiots exist, so idiot proof your software.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you hype something and it succeeds, you're a genius -- it wasn't a hype. If you hype it and it fails, then it was just a hype. -- Neil Bogart

Working...