Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How quickly we forget (Score 1) 555

How quickly we forget 9/11. If our government had been more vigilant in who crosses our border, it would have never happened. Border searches are one of the few powers I am happy to grant my overgrown, bloated, ineffective federal government. If you come to the U.S. with bad intentions, I hope they catch you.

The problem is that at the time all the government agencies who do border security type stuff were looking at yet more budget cuts and a public that was becoming less and less sympathetic to paying tax for this sort of crap. Some people actually believe that some government agencies knew that 9-11 was going to happen but ignored it in order to justify all the budget increases they have had over the past decade.

I am not entirely sure I 100% believe this but sometimes there are things government does that make me think I am wrong.

Comment Re:Goes back centuries ... (Score 1) 555

If the primary goal is to steal trade secrets why bother with any of that? You can purchase the use of a 50GB VPS for $6 a month and store any encrypted data you want on it which can be accessed anywhere in the world with Internet access.

But where is the company who host your VPS based? The truth is that if the US wants access they will just quietly get a snapshot of it by asking directly if it is hosted by an american company. There are a few companies in certain parts of europe and russia you might be able to trust not to give the US access but not many.

All companies with a US presence though will voluntarily help the US government crack or bypass any encryption you have in place, probably just by snooping from within their network when you enter the password for access. The only safe approach to this is if you only enter passwords locally any time they go over the net it becomes possible for the US to gain access to them somehow.

Comment Re:Waste of resources (Score 1) 242

It's not necessarily complete waste. All scrambled JavaScript code can be returned into an understandable form, that's for sure. But by obfuscating the code, you're always adding some extra puzzle to those who want to steal your code.

Steal your code? Will they be deleting it from your servers?

The right way to handle this situation is to not do a bunch of client-side js yourself. And why would you?

In my case it was because I had to produce something that was scorm 1.2 compatible ( That meant I had to use javascript as to produce a scorm compatible course there has to be no server side code (Only flash or JS). I should have used flash but that would have meant me spending 6 months learning actionscript before having anything to show for it.

Comment Re:Waste of resources (Score 2) 242

Why do so many developers waste time on obfuscation and other ways of hiding the source in scripting languages?

Because the boss tells us to.

This is spoken as someone who has been asked to obfuscate javascript. I spent a few minutes trying to explain why this was an utter waste of time and such but the problem is that the boss knows a bit of JS code so looked at it and could understand it. He then googled "javascript obfuscation" and found a product that made the code so he could no longer understand it. The fact that I said I could still understand it he just blamed on me having created it.

The problem was that this was dynamically generated JS so I had to then go away and incorporate obfuscation into my server side code. I tried to do the best I could and make the result really hard to understand (once I am given a task I hate doing a poor job, even if it is a waste of time) but one of our competitors he gave access to the end result still reverse engineered it and copied it in a few months.

Now it is back on my task list again to go and revisit it and make the end result more cryptic using the stuff I learned by looking at our competitors similar solution. I have long since given up trying to explain why trying to hide what is ostensibly an open technology does is a complete waste of time.

Comment Re:American priorities (Score 0) 240

Maybe so but it helps to only consider one thing at a time.

I was amazed that Prague made the list. It's a lovely place to visit but it is the capital of an ex-communist country, and the last I heard the government telephone company still owned all the infrastructure.

You seem to automatically associate government owning the telco with it being crap whereas the truth is exactly the opposite. When these are government owned they throw money at stuff since nobody is looking for a profit.

Comment Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (Score 3, Informative) 164

We learned from that, and have become much better at keeping stock of which bulls are the fathers and grandfathers of which cattle. I don't see how cloning affects the situation significantly.

Ok, first up when you fertilise an egg you have no real control over what bits of genetic material comes from which parent in many cases. Sometimes it is predetermined by dominant / recessive genes but for other stuff there is a huge element of chance in there. Cloning completely removes this from the equation which is actually the whole point.

Secondly, if you start allowing clones you really need to keep a sample of genetic material from the donor as well to ensure it was not altered as part of the cloning process. Like maybe you want a horse to run faster and can find someway to tweak it's genetic makeup to make this possible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not personally against cloning, genetic modification or any other amazing new technology like this. I do think you have to be a little careful though at how it is applied when money is involved and horse racing is certainly in that category. It seems that if a bunch of a majority of trainers do not want to pit their animals that have been bred in a similar way for hundred of years against a horse that is grown in a lab that should be their prerogative just like most athletes don't want to compete against someone drugged up to eyeballs.

Comment Re:Ok, sure... (Score 2) 164

I don't see it. Horse breeding is not Horse cloning. Bad idea. Very bad. I can't even fathom the idea that they can force them to take cloned animals.

It's very simple:

The US has a great many companies involved in genetically modifying or cloning stuff. These companies donate substantial sums to the political parties that judges are appointed by. Any judge who allowed these companies to be put at any sort of commercial inconvenience would find themselves very unpopular with the people who ultimately have a large say in them getting a promotion.

Some judges might hold firm on matters of principle safe in the knowledge that they cannot be easily removed from office but that may well remove any chance of them making it to the supreme court.

Comment Re:Removing bins will not fix underlying problem (Score 1) 179

But most carriers default their phones to auto-connect to open WIFI to save themselves bandwidth.

I'm thinking that must be a British thing. My GS3 (on Virgin/Bell) in Canada doesn't autoconnect to anything WiFi unless you've previously explicitly connected to a given network and AFAICT, there's no option to even make it do so.

It's not a british thing, its apparently how android and maybe iphones work. Even though you were not actually connecting to the wifi access point as it came into range your phone does a little hello to get a signal back and determine range and stuff that included its MAC address. They then logged the MAC and monitored whether the signal was getting stronger or weaker in order to figure out your rough direction of movement. Apparently all this was done even when you just walked past the bloody things even though you never actually associated the device with the access point.

I have been walking past these things for months so they must have a nice track showing my walk to work every day as I am fairly sure I walk past a few of them between Bank and Shoreditch.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 634

More precisely, is there anything Obama has said since he gained the public eye in 2007 which hasn't been 180 degrees from the actual truth?

I think the only thing he's been honest about at this point is his intention of making gas/diesel/etc. more expensive and a couple slip-ups about healthcare not being available for everyone.

I am sure that at some point he must have said "I am better than the other guy".

I actually think that at least he kinds of wants to do the right thing and juts makes a screw up of it, whereas generally republicans just seem to be about fucking over everyone who is not incredibly rich. I suppose that does make them more honest though.

Comment Re: Leadership (Score 2) 252

Yeah, that's leadership, which is different than project management.

Project management is about getting the project done. It's nice to be a leader, but what happens when key people quit? Who arranges to make sure different parts are done? Leadership is an extremely good skill, but management is a different but also extremely good skill to have.


Most of the discussion of this on slashdot just shows how little people bother to actually read what they are commenting on or how clueless they are about what leading a project actually entails. Managers in my experience very rarely lead projects. They assign teams to projects under a team leader who is responsible for getting the stuff done.

Some people need very little direction given to them and some people refuse to take direction completely, but most technical teams of 5 or so people will have a mix. The job of the technical lead is to help the people who need it when they need it. Either through advice or actually doing the job for them in the rare occasion when someone is totally out of their depth. If you are technical lead of an amazing team the job is easy, if you are a technical team of a bunch of people like me it is hard. (I'm joking, I work as a lead developer)

Generally though being a technical lead is a far more technical role than being a manager. It does involve knowing how to manage people effectively though as it involves far more people skills then just being a member of a technical team.

The reason companies always like people with leadership skills though is simply because as you work for a company you accrue more and more technical skills. Companies want you to have the potential to impart those technical skills into other people through leadership. This is what the interviewer is probably referring to, the linked article the guy posted is just a red herring where he misunderstood what was being asked of him in my opinion.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 398

I don't see how criminal copyright infringement is more enforceable than civil copyright infringement. Unless you're referring to the copyright holder having effectively the entire law enforcement community as extra unpaid (well, taxpayer paid) manpower...

Because in civil enforcement you can only go after people who have money with the idea of being awarded some it as a settlement if you are going after them after the fact. If the person you are going after is a student or teenager with no assets you can't really get awarded much. In criminal law you can hand them jail time and criminal record which actually a meaningful punishment.

If petty shoplifting was a civil offence rather than a criminal one far more people would do it. This is not saying that shoplifting and streaming are the same thing because obviously they are different but this is another example of something that has to be covered by criminal law in order to be effective as the loss from a single incident is very small but someone who simply went to every shop stealing everything then only having to give items back when they were caught could make huge gains from many different victims.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 0) 398

They did ask. In fact, they asked him not to leave the country ... his response was to promptly flee the country and then talk about how THEY weren't accommodating HIM.

I was saying the swiss prosecutor could ask the ecuadorian embassy to enter to have a private chat with Assange after he had entered. The thing is it would be at Assange's discretion, he may say yes but he would hold all the power in that interview so the prosecutors office would not be interested.

As to the rest of your rant it seems you are just have some sort of anger issues judging by the profanity (this seems a regular occurrence in your posts judging by your history). Never mind, one day you might start getting laid and that should help calm you down a bit, otherwise try a valium or dope or something.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 398

Try as you may you will always be in violation of some law or provision.

Maybe, but the real question should always come down to whether a jury will convict you.

You mention the UK, that make me think you are actually a UK citizen like me (sorry if I am wrong). In our case we are pretty lucky in terms of still having some semblance of a legal aid system that allows us to actually go to court if we think we broke the law but they jury would agree with our reasons for doing so and getting the state to pay for our defence. The problem with copyright law though is that most of the population eligible for jury duty (that includes me) actually supports it. Without copyright law you would be able to take other peoples digital works and then sell them as your own, that is simply not right.

There are a million problems with copyright law as it stands but throwing it all in the bin and having nothing in its place would be no better apart from for people who just want free access to everything and have no money to pay for it. The only time I think we can get rid of copyright law completely is when we also do away with the concept of money.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 398

What should be a civil case where some corp should sue a private citizen becomes a thing with a DA and a possible prison sentence.

The problem with keeping things like this as civil torts is that they become unenforceable so the infringer effectively wins. Maybe that is your aim by saying this but then why not simply roll out the usual "there should be no such thing as copyright" argument instead.

If we made this covered as a civil tort then what do you give back if you stream the superbowl or something to 50,000 people over the internet when it eventually reaches court? You had a licence that enabled you to watch it over cable TV or whatever that you breached by sharing it with loads of other people, do you have to pay a subscription for each person who watched your stream equivalent to what you paid (hello bankruptcy). Do you pay some arbitrary value that the content owner chooses?

If your real aim is the complete abolition of copyright law you need to start making coherent decent arguments toward this aim if you want to be taken seriously not suggesting systems that are just unworkable in the real world. I know the studios / content owners are just as adept at this but stooping to their level does not help anyone.

Slashdot Top Deals

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray