Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:At least someone has balls (and common sense) (Score 1) 919

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

I know this is semantic bullshit, but I don't think his intention is to interfere with the operation of the US, or help it's enemies. I think his intention is simply that the information should be leaked, come what may.

Comment Re:.NET (Score 1) 331

".Net" isn't a UI platform. You probably mean WinForms. Or maybe WPF. There are other UI frameworks for .Net, I used to do a lot of work in Gtk#, before I switched to WPF.

I've never used WInforms for anything serious though. Gtk# was always better than it, back then.

Comment You are all wrong. (Score 1) 544

First off, his technical points are correct. The fingerprints cannot be used to discover anything specific about you by themselves.

The second point is more complicated. Are we comfortable with being compelled by the government to carry around with us material that they can identify, correlate to discover where we travel, and then use to build a profile of our activities?

I'd say the second point is a duh. We already are. I have on me now a government ID, which I scan to get into a bunch of bars. Which I'm compelled to show on demand to a cop when driving. My car's license plate correlates to me, and lets any camera anywhere identify where I am. I guess I'd wonder how much easier could it get to them? I guess if every hair I dropped could identify me, that'd be a bit worse. But certainly not much.

If we care about the second point, we should really start showing it. You know. Stop driving. Ride a bike. Don't carry ID with you. Since I doubt we're going to do that, they've already won. We should just give them the DNA fingerprints so they stop wasting our tax dollars on doing it the more difficult way. :)

Comment Silly (Score 1) 549

This is silly. Nobody even distributes Linux binaries. They distribute Linux packages. Hell, even on Windows, the number of distributed .exe's has gone down. Most things get packaged into MSI. This is fine.

Maybe what he wants is an easier way for developers to package their stuff for many distros.

Comment Re:Nice (Score 2, Interesting) 123

What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.

I guess the same as every other Android phone? A signed flashing process that needs to be cracked?

The only reason people can install custom Android copies on the G1 is because of a leaked SPL and the root console bug. Oh, and the ADP.

Comment Re:Ha ha (Score 3, Interesting) 448



I have over 100+ boxes at work that depend on this plugin. When I get into work tomorrow, if they're not working (they run FF), then I'm not going to have much choice but to switch back to IE, am I?

I frankly did not know you guys had this ability to unilaterally disable things I depend on. That is a bit disturbing. It's going to unexpectedly cost me HOURS tomorrow.

Can you at least switch the block to only block unpatched versions? I'd agree with that.

Comment Re:MS kinda overstepped its bounds on this one. (Score 2, Informative) 448

A vulnerability which has already been patched. I use this functionality on over 100+ machines at the office. I've already deployed the patch. As far as I can tell, there's no easy way for me to disable the block list. I'm going to get into work tomorrow and switch 100+ boxes back to IE, if they don't reverse it. And I won't be switching them back to FF.

Comment Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score 1) 459

I don't know. This makes sense to me. The IE frame spawns processes with less privledges than the user has, when running on Vista. This means plugins that are harmful cannot actually access the hard drive or registry, nor a

Since Chrome does not do this, then yes, it is less secure.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.