Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Utility poles ? You must be kiddin (Score 1) 291

why would i ignore the rural parts? the original comment started by saying he lived in rural denmark on a farm.

Developed land in the united states is about 3% of the total land, so 113,820 square miles. (6.8 times the total size of denmark)

75% of the population lives in that space. The U.S. population is about 317 million people, so about 237,750,000 people.
denmark's population is about 5,607,000 people.

So if we just use the developed land in the United States, it's 6.8 times the size of denmark and has 42 times the number of people living in it. And it's broken up into separated pieces of developed space that exists in different regulatory and physical environments.

I still don't think they're comparable situations.

Comment Re:Predictable (Score 1) 174

i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?

My point is that if that is indeed an accurate representation of their point then they are advocating the position that you should not use anything that you don't own and control, because to do so would require you trust that the owner/maintainer has installed the locks properly and that they haven't been tampered with.

yeah. i'd say that is probably a fairly accurate description of the FSF position.

well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.

And what exactly did you inspect and verify?

well, i worked at apple. i had servers in the data centers so i had to know and adhere to all of the security policies relating to the data centers.

Comment Re:Predictable (Score 1) 174

If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction.

So do you feel the same way about say, Google?

i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?

Have you inspected the locks on their infrastructure? Up until recently they weren't encrypting traffic between their datacenters at all. Actually I'd be interested to know which company's communications infrastructure you have inspected the security implementation of.

well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.

Comment Re:Why is MS encrypting your stuff? (Score 1) 174

well, the only way that microsoft could be doing that server-side would be to pass the key to the server from the client, which you could see in the source code. It doesn't tell you what they are doing with it on the server, but there's no reason to store the encrypted data and the key on the server unless you intend decrypt it without the involvement of the client, and that'd be a big red flag that something questionable was happening.

Comment Re:Predictable (Score 1) 174

A somewhat better analogy might be "My neighbour's house was broken into because they had poor quality locks on the door, so I'm going to change my locks for better models." The quality of your silverware is unrelated to the actions being taken.

To go with your analogy, it'd be more like :

The company that built the houses in your subdivision put shitty locks on the houses and installed them improperly.
Your neighbor's house just got broken into because of this.
The construction company is now going through the subdivision and replacing all of the locks with a new, better lock.

The FSF's position is this :
That's nice and all, but we don't trust you to pick a good lock and put it on correctly this time.
If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction.
How about you just give us the specifications for the door and frame and we'll just go buy whatever lock we feel comfortable with and install it ourselves?

Comment Re:Predictable (Score 2) 174

In addition to your points, the option for people to look at your code makes your code better because it makes you more diligent when you write it.

I suspect everyone has had a conversation like this :
Bob : check out my awesome-sauce application. it's bad ass
Boss : cool. give Jeff access to the source code. i'd like him to integrate it into our Fabulosity suite.
Bob : er, ok. just give me a couple of days to clean up the code so it is ready for integration.
(translation, give me a couple days to fix all the fucked up hack shortcuts i took and add some comments so the code is remotely presentable/maintainable before i let someone else look at it)

The fear of someone else looking at your code makes you write cleaner, more readable code. It also makes you more diligent in checking for errors and exploits (nobody wants their code release to embarass them).
It should also make people and companies hesitant to put back doors and other sketchy things in their applications.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 370

Here's to hoping for the death of the "boy bands" and talentless whores who take off their clothes and call it a musical act.

In that case, we need to act quickly and decisively to protect the talentless whores who take off their clothes. As long as they are willing to do that, i'll do my part by loading up their music video, muting it, and listening to good music while i enjoy their best attributes.

Seriously though, i don't care if shitty music i don't like continues to exist. I'll do what i do now... which is not listen to it.

Comment Re:So, they returned a server (Score 2) 267

First, according to TFA:

Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.

In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.

Well, if they were renting space on a server owned by the hosting provider, informing the hosting provider is probably sufficient as they are the property owner for the server that was taken. I don't know if that's the case, but it is possible that this particular item is not a 4th amendment violation.

The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.

I would say, even without a pretty well documented history of the FBI abusing its power, it is generally a good thing for people and organizations to watch and question the actions of any law enforcement organization; especially if something looks amiss. It keeps them from getting lazy and it keeps us from getting caught napping by those whom we give power.

Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.

Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. In 2009, in Herring v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used in court as long as it wasn't deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that led to the evidence being illegal. (that case was about a man who was arrested on a warrant that was left active by a clerical error. When arrested he was found to have drugs on him. The court ruled the drug evidence could still be used against him even though they had no proper cause to search him and find it in the first place.)

I expect you will argue that in this case it meets the deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct requirement; and that may be true. I am not saying their actions wouldn't invalidate any evidence they collected. I'm just saying that there is an avenue for them to argue to keep the evidence, even if it was determined they had violated the 4th amendment in collecting it.

Comment Re:A has-been celebrates an ending. Sad. (Score 1) 185

well, technically Doohan is a has-been considering he's dead. That shouldn't take anything away from the quality of work he did when he was alive or the impact it had on anyone's life.

On topic though, I don't get why it would be a problem that a person who played an iconic character in popular culture that relates to space exploration did this. It would certainly make less sense for someone who is currently popular but has no relationship to the subject matter to have been selected.

Comment Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (Score 1) 164

Programmers without marketing still produce important work,

Programmers without marketing produce work which languishes in obscurity until the company goes bankrupt. For people to become aware that your software exists, someone needs to let them know. That someone is doing marketing, even if it's the programmers themselves pimping their work on blogs or slashdot. Someone is doing marketing.

they'll just have to get the word out by reputation instead of glossy print.

What reputation? Awesomesoft and their new Awesomizer application have no reputation until people discover that Awesomizer really is awesome and buy it in droves. Then their new Fabulosity Engine can be sold on the reputation they built. Until they've built that reputation, how do they get people to buy Awesomizer without someone advertising its existence?

It's just that it's *impossible* to succeed if you don't have something to sell.

Well.....that's not true across the board. The financial industry proved you can succeed for a long time without something to sell.

Seriously though, marketing is a support structure for the company, like IT. And like IT, the company could survive without that department, but it'd be a miserable pain in the ass and make everything harder for everyone.

The real problem is that groups like IT are viewed as cost centers because the costs of the department are tangible and the benefits tend to be abstract, so they don't get as much respect from upper management as they should.
Marketing produces exposure which drives sales. Generating correlations between good marketing projects and increases in revenue are fairly easy, so upper management views them as profit drivers and they get disproportionate credit.

Marketing is valuable, but not moreso than the rest of the support infrastructure of a company.

Slashdot Top Deals

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.