Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:good (Score -1) 65

Let's Encrypt is literally terrible!

1) short cert life times so you can't use pinning to know if maybe something has changed
2) not even domain validated, if you control the web server you can get cert. Generally that means you could alter content anyway but frankly DV certs were not a good idea.
3) give a false impression of authentication, where there really is none, see #2. Sure you can look for EV or whatever in your URL bar, but automated process and such don't really have a concept of class where certs are concerned. Your software updater will see a Let's Encrypt cert as authentic.
4) They don't even make the most minimal effort to try and filter phishing domains like

There are literally no valid reasons for any site to use Let's Encrypt certs. They provide no guarantee of authenticity beyond what a self signed cert does; which is just as effective for using to setup TLS sockets. What they do is brake older automated trust logic and give other users who don't really understand the whole CA trust chain concept a very false sense of security. Seriously Let's Encrypt sucks!


Comment Re:So what's the issue? (Score 2) 211

Because validation rules like this are actually pretty important when it comes to detecting and preventing fraud. The failure here was not that the software could not deal with here being more than 110.

That is sufficiently an edge case that as frequently as it comes up a call form a bank manager to HQ where they can say something like well enter the date a 1/1/1900 than and we will have an engineer update the record to the correct value ASAP should work.

Comment Re:We scientists must improve our reliability. (Score 2) 267

Science as a whole has a serious boy-who-cried-wolf problem. As scientists we need to be far more careful about the claims we're making, so that people continue to take us seriously.

You are partly right, but science is all about making /testable/ claims. Scientists absolutely need to advance their hypothesis backed up by the research and allow others to find counter or confirming evidence.

What needs to stop happening is people trying to make public policy based on less proven theory. Climate science is a good example its been used as a basis for policies since the 1970's and its predictions and impacts have changed a lot since that time, it was and is an immature field. As is a lot of this psychology that has us putting in special bathrooms in schools etc. We need to step back and let scientists do the work before we start legislating based on it.

Comment Re:ATT is NOT a charity (Score 1) 166

I am going to get hard flamed for this, but I would still make the argument that the vast vast majority of people have no need or even practical use for more than the 50Mbps symmetric speeds VDSL can "practically" deliver.

I telecommute, I would LOVE something better than LTE, because the caps are an issue, the speed around 6Mbps really isn't the problem. That said if I had the choice between VDSL and gigabit fiber at a price difference of $30 a month, I would not pay fiber.

We don't need fiber the premises most places, even decent copper based broad band to our less densely populated regions would be a huge win for a lot of people. Hell real unlimited data plans would be a huge win.

Verizon's plan is a f'ing joke. The throttle 'mobile host spots down to 600Kbps" after 10 gigs, they have the never to classify the fixed LTE solution they sell, which bolts to the side of your home or business as a mobile hotspot! Now if they would at least treat it as well as a handset and give you 22 gigs it would be an entertain-able choice. As it is me and the neighbors remain stuck on un-advertised but capped large plans.

Comment So its another socialist attack on the family (Score 2, Insightful) 517

with participants receiving up to $17,000 annually if single, and $24,000 for families.

Discourage people from actually getting married by essentially paying them not to! Can't have those pesky independent families, with their ability to depend on each other rather than the state can we. Can't have people loyal to each other rather than our glorious government.

This is a seriously distressing policy.

Comment Re: It has its uses (Score 1) 416

It is a first class object. I passed an argument to it but there are all the usual methods on that method object. You absolutely can do something like:


its valid and you'd get back its original name in this case. You could even define new methods on the object! It is a first class object in every way but how you happen to access it syntactically.

Comment Re:Like what? (Score 1) 287

Right this is what the UBI folks don't see to get. I plays out in one of two ways.

1) You still end up with a large group of disaffected people who are unhappy with their lot in life because they have nothing to do but watch TV all day and see fancy people doing fancy thing they don't get income to support and have no path to get there. Hard work won't help them, there are no jobs left suitable for their talents. They get their check and their soviet style block apartment and that is their life and all their is to it. Humans even those who are not in on the leading portion of out intellectual bell curve won't be satisfied living that way. People *need* goals, they have to have some hope of improvement, and for most people that is improvement with respect to their peers, not "I feel good about myself because I sat and read all the classics" and not "I made this art for me, and I don't care if everyone else just sees it as garbage." some people are like that but the vast majority are not so self actualized.

2) We literally destroy the planet! Robotic workforce with unlimited cheap labor or not other resources remain limited. You will have the people on basic income asking why they should not get a bigger house, a faster car, travel to the other-side the world at super sonic speeds. After determining that there exists no path to earning these things, they will declare them to be entitlements. "Its not fair I was not born a winner of the genetic lottery, who can still find work in an automated world" and to some extent, I might be inclined to agree if man made economics as you say severs to cut them off from the things others have rather than provide any path to getting them. Earth can't sustain 9Billion people each living the life style of the say top 30% of what is considered middle class in the United States enjoy. There isn't probably enough land to build that many suburban houses and while a lot of people like and will choose cities enough will want their own little private patch of ground to lay out in the sun shine on. It just won't work.

Technology has always and will always allow more of us to have more, but physics will never allow all of us to have everything. No economic policy can change human nature. Either the population rebels against it, or if you look at say Chinese or Soviet communism human nature is corrosive of it until it starts to look like sadder, capricious, lawless forms of capitalism or fascism.

Comment Re:Like what? (Score 1) 287

But machines shouldn't replace what humans can do

If that was adhered to there would have been no progress in the last two thousand years!

Humans can clear and plant fields by hand! If we still did the bulk of our agriculture that way most of us would be over worked and badly nourished; and as far as art, culture, and entertainment go most of us would be lucky to see an EVERYMAN play on Sunday afternoon, having worked every other waking hour of the week.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure