Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Different protections for different threats, en (Score 1) 40

If he did -nothing- about security, that would be true. That's not likely the case. More likely, he's using protective strategies that are appropriate for his environment and the threats most prevalent in that environment. The most common threats for Linux machines aren't viruses. Viruses specifically are more of a Windows thing. Not that there are no threats that affect Linux, they are -different- threats.

Just because Linux doesn't have as many viruses for it, doesn't mean it's immune to viruses. In fact, Linux probably a very popular carrier for viruses - Linux host gets broken in (usually via a PHP exploit) and some files are dropped onto it and files modified so whenever a Windows host accesses it, it obtains the payload and gets infected.

Linux may not be harmed by it, but it certainly is an active participant in the propagation of viruses. Mostly because the malware authors want to target users, and 90% of them run Windows. But they can't target Windows servers, because 75% of the servers out there run Linux. So they will exploit those Linux-running servers to plant some WIndows malware on there so the Linux host distributes the Windows malware to everyone.

Linux is a carrier, and perhaps having an anti-virus may be handy if nothing more than to ensure that you're not being part of the problem and serving up stuff that infects other users. The best part is, these scanners need not be intrusive since the host can be assumed to be free of malware, so you're really just looking for bad files.

Same thing on MacOS - there's no reason to have a antivirus scanner other than to make sure you're not serving up infected files, or to alert you in case you get an email that won't infect you, but may infect someone else if you forward it on or something.

Google, for example, scans emails and documents for viruses and other malware, not because they can infect Google, but to prevent spread.

Comment Re:Who are the main characters based on (Score 2) 43

I started watching Halt and Catch Fire, but it never really held my interest. I don't think that I made it past the 5th episode. The portends to be based on 1980's experiences, but I can't think of anyone with whom they could base the main characters off of.

They didn't. It's based on real events that did happen, but like Silicon Valley, it features a set of characters who are basically living through the home computing boom of the 80s. There are some real life similarities, but I think they were done to tell more interesting side stories that happened for real that people may not know about,

Season 1 was about developing an IBM PC clone and basically delves into the design and coding of the most important part, the BIOS. They also explore side threads like a friendly computer that greets you and all that, bookending with the discovery of the Macintosh demo and its graphics.

Season 2 was developing an online service, timesharing systems, and worms (a recount of the Morris worm).

Season 3 is just developing, and it's too early to tell what stores it may tell.

It's less about real life 1980s, and more about a bunch of people doing tech stuff during the 1980s, completely independently of what happened. Sometimes they tell an interesting story like Senaris (Morris worm), which given how limited internet connectivity was in the 1980s, most people blew right past, but here it is retold (a programming bug caused it to spread over and over again).

Take it more for the nostalgia of what the 80s were like in the tech industry and less about real history. And enjoy it - Season 1 didn't get great ratings, but AMC felt it had potential and gave it a season 2. Season 2 had terrible ratings and for some reason or other, AMC renewed it. Chances are, though, Season 3 is it. (Let's say Walking Dead is penthouse. Halt and Catch Fire is somewhere in sub-basement level 10, only accessible via ladder from a dark corner of the underground parking lot because that's where someone decided to put a storage rack.

Comment Re:50 hours of crap. (Score 3, Interesting) 287

For those who have someone escaped the drama associated with NMS and want to learn what all the fuss is about, this review does a great job of explaining - not just listing the missing features, but showing the emotional impact it had on fans who were incredibly hyped for the game.

There are some scam games on Steam that are designed to last two hours to get past the refund limit.

No Man's Sky is one of these.

I think that may be accidental - at least, I don't credit the devs with the skill to cook that up. The problem here is that the game is missing nearly every promised feature, but there's no way to discover that until you leave the first planet. Then it all turns to shit. The timing, specifically, was likely a coincidence, but Hello Games definitely knew what they were shitting out.

Also, the game crashes frequently even on console, but it can go hours between crashes. For PC, we're used to that sort of shit, and while I think that's still worth a refund, you wouldn't get mass outrage. On the console OTOH, Just Works (TM) is the freaking point of console games.

Still, had the game not been missing almost every promised feature, I think the player base would have been content to wait for a patch to fix the crashes.

Comment Re:It's Sony - duh (Score 4, Insightful) 287

50 hours? No way.

You could spend 50 hours in NMS just looking for any of the 100 missing promised features. Sure it's not all a lie? Surely it's there somewhere? Dammit.

The marketing for this product was likely illegal under most nations' consumer protection laws - heck, it was so blatant that even under US law they probably crossed the line. When a product is "not fit for purpose", playtime isn't a relevant factor. If Sony's giving refunds, it's only because their legal team told them to stay clear of fraud. I'll give Steam credit for actually caring about customer trust.

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 1) 217

Their source is closed and yours is open. They make changes and you make changes. You can't see their changes, but they can definitely see your changes. If they may a certain change first, and they see you make a subsequent change that looks remarkably similar to their changes, they can take you to court for possibly stealing their code.

"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD".

Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.

It's just everyone who's a fan of the GPL doesn't want you know about it. Even RMS always digs at BSD as "close source theft! closed source theft!" without a thought that "open source GPL lockout!" applies just as well in digs at BSD code. So yes, GPL "openness" can be just as guilty of "locking up" BSD code as a company like Microsoft or Apple can. But you'll never hear a GPL fanboy admit that, because the whole "evilness" of BSD is locking up, and that only happens in the closed source world, right? Of course, it also ruins the whole "open source" and "free source" concept when the very license that is supposed to provide it (GPL), exploits the very thing it's against (locking up source code).

In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.

As for GPL enforcement, well, it's the same as when a company enforces copyright on someone who downloaded songs, movies, TV, or software. You can't really be "for" GPL enforcement and "against" movie/music/tv/software copyright enforcement, because they're actually one and the same. You can't enforce the GPL without copyright, and you can't really be for prosecuting GPL offenders without having all other IP vendors (and groups like the RIAA and MPAA) also prosecuting copyright offenses. Perhaps that's why Linus hates GPL enforcement, because put another way, it's like the music/movie/software industry suing people as well. It's the same concept - if you don't accept the GPL, you accept default all rights reserved copyright, so a GPL violation is a copyright violation, or piracy. But so is download music you don't own, movies you don't own, software (non-free) you don't own, etc.

Comment Re:The whole idea is stupid (Score 1) 202

Should be easy to determine...
Upon entry into the US, papers (notably I-94W) require(s/d) that you mark specific checkboxes if you're a WW2 Nazi criminal, if you've have or plan to kidnap kids, If you're a terrorist, if you're sick or a drug-user.
Now review how many ticked off that they are coming to the US to conduct terror, or to kidnap kids, and hold it up against the number of people caught coming to the US for the same reason.... this gives you a basis for how efficient this type of approach is.

Comment Re:No, but... (Score 1) 309

You seem to have a bug up your ass about Republicans, but I don't understand it. Most Republicans in DC are indistinguishable from most Democrats, once you look past the theater to what bills actually get passed, which are whatever the billionaire donors want. Everything else is just theater, on both sides.

Not all Whig politicians were able to get re-elected as Republicans, BTW. The platforms weren't the same and some had doubled-down on increasingly unpopular ideas (otherwise, the party never would have faded). I can't predict what coalition will arise from the ashes of the GOP, but Trump proves that catering to the religious whackos has become unnecessary and pointless - it never actually mattered that Trump is pro-choice, and not particularly religious.

And yes, today's GOP is "dead party walking", unless Trump somehow wins (Hillary would have to stroke out) and even then only the name would survive. Trump supporters are furious with the GOP, and without them it's a 40% party.

And of course, there's the legal cases still working their way through the courts where various entities are arguing that even saying to the insurer (who has no practical objection to birth control, it's a cost-saver for them), that they don't want to be involved, is a burden on them, to fill out a form, saying leave us out of it.

The court cases are about filling out a government form registering your religious beliefs. I object to that too: history suggests that sort of thing never ends well.

I'll at least expect a conscientious objector to report their status to the draft board.

Different case. The rule is that the State cannot not compel you to act against your strong moral beliefs unless there's a compelling state interest and the action is the narrowest possibly to address that. Registering as a conscientious objector is a perfect example where both are true. The court found no compelling State interest in having birth control paid for by insurance (rather than, you know, money).

Be open at some hours. Be closed at others. Access for people, even service animals.

You'd be surprised by what gets waved for legitimate religious objections. A strictly kosher restaurant, for example, doesn't follow all the same rules (of course, it has rather more self-imposed).

As for birth control, if it's against your moral principles for a person under your employ to make their own choices about their reproduction

Now you're talking about a very narrow subset of Catholics, and we're effectively back to fringe cults. But if you had it as corporate policy that employees couldn't use birth control, that would be very different legally from not paying for it via insurance. The former is an undue burden on the employee, the latter isn't.

Personally, I'm against any law mandating insurance coverage in all policies for that only women in a certain age range need - that's singling out a group of privileged people for elevated legal treatment, and again history shows that sort of thing never ends well.

Comment Re: It's research... (Score 1) 143

Tee hee! Back in the day, one of the points I made to the old farts was that I had passed the 20 WPM exam and had my K6BP call to show for it, but refused to use the code on the air until the requirement was gone. Nobody spat at me or punched me out, the worst that ever happened was a poor behaving slim using my call and a postcard from the ARRL observer who thouht it was me.

Comment Re:It's research... (Score 3, Informative) 143

WSPR tells you when communication paths are open between two points at a specific frequency and S/N ratio. This is useful but does not span the extent of research that HAARP is directed to. One of the most interesting things about HAARP is that it can incite the formation of radio-reflective regions in the ionosphere. That takes a lot of power.

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.