Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Should be legal, with caveat (Score 1) 961

No need for $8000/month. A natural death can follow quickly, especially if your order says to give you no food or water.

My aunt suffered from ALS for years, and at one point toward the end she basically just said "I've had enough", and refused food, and I'm pretty sure water as well, except maybe an occasional sponge swab to keep her mouth somewhat moist.

She lasted 21 days. I'm not even sure how that's possible, given the rule of threes for human survival; unless someone was watering her behind the rest of the family's back. I wouldn't wish that version of hell on anyone.

Comment Re:A big improvement indeed (Score 5, Insightful) 181

I assume you can list all the undefined behaviors in the C standard off the top of your head, yes? And you've never actually written a line of code with an error in it, right?

I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after security bugs written by people with that attitude. None of them could make mistakes either. Maybe you guys should form a club, so the rest of us can identify the special beings walking among us.

Comment Re:Hangings (Score 1) 1160

Just make a mechanism tied to an electronic trigger that fires the guns when the output from a random number generator, generating numbers from 1-100 with five second intervals, matches a predetermined number picked out of a hat by a chicken.

The probability is there will be enough time for dramatic tension to build without making everyone hang around so log to put them sleep, and you don't have to burden the executioner's psyche, because ultimately, the chicken is the executioner. Because, as we all know, chickens just want to watch the world burn anyway.

Comment Re: Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope. (Score 1) 568

Why not model regional ISPs on Credit Unions and Rural Electric Associations / Utility Cooperatives? Cooperative in nature, each member is also part owner, and they provide better service than the larger purely private equivalent (in my experience), and often at a lower price.

The biggest problem outside of funding would probably be to get right of way access from municipalities. Cable and telephone companies would naturally fight tooth and nail against it.

Comment Re:The way I see it is this... (Score 1) 277

You lost at equating the slaughter of food animals to the torture of sentient, thinking people, who are pretty much just like yourself, with hopes and aspirations and families of their own. I think part of it is the empathic realization that you might have just as easily been in that person's place.

I've hunted, and had my hands in the blood and guts of my prey, which I later delighted in consuming. I've also witnessed people die terribly bloody and painful deaths. Animals may have a general sense of panic when you look them in the eyes as they die, but for me at least, it's not at all on the same level as when its a person looking back at you. Not even close.

I have an uncle who is going on 70 who will not eat pork, not because he's Jewish, but because his family on the farm made him watch the slaughter of 'his' pig when he was a child. He viewed that pig very much as people view their dogs and cats. Of course it's anecdotal evidence, but I'd say he was scarred by the experience.

Comment Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score 1) 565

The thing most people never seem to get is that corporations do not pay taxes. Taxes which are levied against corporations are indirectly levied against their customers. They simply raise the prices of their goods and services to offset the difference, similarly to how they optimize their position in the marketplace through pricing strategies.

This makes corporations in general act as an invisible collection branch of the government, and an easy target for new taxes that the people would never vote to put on themselves. I've long said that there would be a overthrow of the government by next Thursday if people had to come up with just the difference in commercial property tax which most communities expect their local businesses to pay.

Comment Re:I don't get it, sorry. (Score 3, Insightful) 166

Yes, yes it is.

In security, you're trying to change the behavior of corporate drones, idiots, and people who are invested in the status quo. People use these papers as ammunition for that.

The drones will call your attack "theoretical" and "impractical" unless you spell out exactly how to do it, step by step. If they hadn't detailed exactly how to do it, the attitude would basically have been that nobody could possibly figure out the impossible complexity of weakening a REAL RNG. I mean, look at the self tests! Nobody could get around that! In fact, even people who weren't complete idiots might have guessed, at first glance, that the self tests would be hard to defeat, or that you couldn't do this hack without screwing up the chip.

Even with a detailed paper, they will probably be ignored until somebody actually does it in the field. If you wrote a one-pager that said "Warning! Somebody could alter the behavior of gates by tweaking the dopants", they would 1000 percent ignore it.

As for the verbose background information, it's standard in the field (although they went a bit heavy on it). It has zero cost, and readers in the field who don't need it simply skip it. So I don't know why you're getting so upset about it.

Please don't trash people's work in fields you don't even slightly understand.

Comment Re:Well he showed the problem (Score 1) 588

There was two or three people in this world who know approximately what happened in those few moments. One of them is dead, and the other is acquitted. None of them are the two of us, so any conversation about anything other than the material facts is pure speculation and mental masturbation. Did Zim take it in the shorts or did he just get ambushed? Who knows.

Not everyone can be goddamned $Hollywood_Martial_Artist, no fight is ever $Hollywood_Fight_movie, and even your formally trained fighters are capable of being unlucky. A firearm merely is a tool that allows more options for more people, in many circumstances. Like it or not. I for one, do not give a shit.

Comment Re:Things people can do (Score 1) 298

That's all true, and reasonable, of course. However, the only consensus that we really need is the idea that our two parties are walking hand in hand, and they're taking us all on on a one way trip to hell.

Divisiveness is the best weapon our enemy has, the more the people can be divided up into little chunks of intellectual minutia, the better for them. We all have more in common than we think we do.

Comment Re:Well he showed the problem (Score 1) 588

Zimmerman had a permit to carry a gun because he's a shitty fighter. If he wasn't such a useless lump of shit, maybe he could have fought back and controlled the situation.

I carry a gun, because 1) even though I'm a fit 6'+ man with boxing experience, I recognize that I truly am about as good as a 'useless lump of shit' when facing down multiple aggressors or those wielding deadly weapons like guns and others, and 2) bullets tend to fly further and do more damage than my fists. Fortunately, I was able to survive and learn from the above experiences which prompted me to get a carry license and buy the training to defend myself and my family in the first place.

He's lucky Trayvon didn't just take his gun and shoot him to death with it.

That's very likely the exactly reason Tray-Tray got shot. If you carry a gun and you're rolling on the ground in a struggle with someone, it becomes a life or death situation, or at least exponentially more quickly than otherwise; getting your head bludgeoned against the concrete notwithstanding.

Comment Re:What good is tor (Score 1) 374

I've been following this stuff since the 1990s, thanks. Let's just say that I have strong enough credentials on Tor and related systems that detailing them would out me.

If you want to see exactly how irrelevant encryption is to deanonymization by a global adversary, start around the year 2001 or 2002 in this bibliography:

Once again, layering TLS over Tor will not do a damned thing to protect you from widespread traffic analysis. It protect the content of your communication, but it will do no more than bare Tor to protect the fact of the communication itself. Even the content protection is very limited; the attacker can make a lot of very firm inferences, especially if she can learn the content of the same Web site you're hitting.

And, as far as we can tell, yes, there are approximately global adversaries out there.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.