Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:fun fact (Score 5, Insightful) 91

We spent 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives to protect the oil industry. Heck, overthrowing democratically elected leaders for oil companies is one root cause of the radicalization of the middle east.

I think I can cut clean solar/electric industries a little slack when i consider what we spend t help the oil industry.

Their subsidies are buried so deep in the government, they don't even look like subsidies any more.

But imagine if 5 years from now, Oil demand had dropped another 10% due to electric cars? We'd be a lot less tempted to get involved in foreign entanglements.

Comment Re:Subsidies (Score 1) 294

Aye! And a glut of as little as 3% is enough to absolutely destroy the price of oil per barrel.

There is a strong feedback loop between alternative energy and traditional energy.

As electric cars grow more popular, gasoline will become cheaper (and impair the value proposition of owning an electric car).

Of course at the same time, unprofitable oil leads to less production which eventually leads to a shortage.

Comment Re:Subsidies (Score 2) 294

The oil companies didn't have to pay for their own security and they didn't have to pay for the true cost of oil.

It's also very expensive to maintain a naval and coast guard fleet to protect oil tankers. The oil companies should be paying for it.

If they had to pay for those things- their prices would be much higher. So their prices are subsidized by tax payers.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 334

TellarHK said:
And I'm this case the information they were given was hacked and given to them by Russian intelligence. And, they've made absolutely every possible effort to hurt Hillary's campaign by hyping releases, staggering them, and releasing them at time when they're calculated to do the most potential harm. They are in no way acting like a neutral party.

The only way Wikileaks can have credibility is if they release things on a fully non-partisan basis and that has clearly not happened here.

You are correct sir.

The headline jumped out at me and I thought it a good idea to post it here. The original story was posted by Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache. They source the following article on Motherboard by Thomas Rid: All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack.

I think by now, itâ(TM)s a foregone conclusion that the bad actors that Wikileaks is releasing information from are state-sponsored and are from Russia. Putin has made no secret of his political love for Trumpâ and Republicans have used the occasion to make great hay over the DNC and itâ(TM)s terse relationship with Bernie. . . .not out of true concern for Sanders, of course, but because they have had to embrace a very undesirable candidate as their standard-bearer.

The big takeaway from the Motherboard article is the following:

        The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named âoeÐÐÐÐÐÑ ÐÐмÑfнÐоÐÐÑ,â a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.

        Then there is the language issue. âoeI hate being attributed to Russia,â the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboardâ(TM)s Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0â(TM)s English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical mattersâ"an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

Rid went on to add:

        The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.

(article continues.. follow the link above).

Comment Already thought of two counter measures (Score 1) 281

I just read the heading and I've already thought of two ways to beat this.

Oh wait, two more since i started the heading.

I'm not going to list them but this is pretty trivial to beat.

Meanwhile, you've created a way for any member of the general public to release vomit inducing gas in theaters, restaurants, and any other crowded spaces.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 334

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 281

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment Re:Were the users randomized? (Score 1) 524

I have never had those problems or had anyone on my team of 9 and my team of 15 have those problems on windows PC's either.

However, I agree the Mac has a more polished operating system. That's usually been at a higher initial cost however. I went to PC's in my personal life because Mac's were 3x to 4x the cost for less capability. The ratio is much lower today but even five or six years ago, macs were still significantly more expensive.

Comment Re:DDOS will continue until we decide to stop them (Score 1) 264

(1) The owner of a device attached to the Internet must make a reasonable effort to maintain it. Specifically, they must install security updates in a timely fashion. In addition, they must disconnect the device if they are unable to maintain it. No device or piece of software lasts forever. You don't get to keep using a PC with Windows XP, or a 10 year old router with dozens of known security holes -- you need to throw them away. Failure to do so will make the owner liable for damages if their device is used in a DDOS attack.

Useless. New devices are at nearly as much risk as old devices; that it's new should not in any way make you feel secure. You'll also be fighting legitimate businesses with legitimate use cases for, say, Windows '95. Specifically, that their legacy software and drivers have never been upgraded by the people who wrote them, and don't work on newer versions of Windows.

(2) Network operators shall be required to ensure that packets originating on their network have a valid source address (e.g. use filters at all ingress points). Failure to do so will make them liable for damages related to the DDOS attack.

(3) Network operators shall be required to provide rapid technical assistance to trace DDOS traffic that is passing through their network, so that it can be traced back to it's source. Failure to do so will make them liable for damages related to the DDOS attack.

Also useless. The modern day DDoS isn't necessarily about flooding a site with spoofed packets from a small number of high-bandwidth machines. It's about sending a tiny number of legit packets from an enormous number of compromised hosts. No outbound packet filter is going to be able to discern the good from the bad (and since the host is already compromised in the first place, there's no help there either).

There are exceptions, of course; for example, many IoT devices should be nuked from orbit, as they have no legitimate reason to EVER talk to most web sites.

I do agree that people should be held accountable for having insecure crap on the Internet and allowing it to participate in attacks. Detection and enforcement, however, is much more difficult than one would think.

Comment Re:The eternal balance question... (Score 4, Insightful) 264

The dynamics of this issue have changed considerably.

Five years or so ago, going offline was a Big Deal. Nowadays, people (both users and CxO's) don't seem to care as much; outages are transient, and accepted as a part of the cost of doing business. It's kinda sad for those of us who build high availability systems, but at the same time it's probably a lot more realistic for the budgets of most businesses.

Part of it, IMO, is that the Internet has been around long enough now (in a commercial sense) that the users are finally more prone to saying "my Internet is down" than "my Twitter is down".

Perception is everything.

Comment Re: Advertising/Commercials Killed TV (Score 1) 199

Tell that to Netflix.

And to my $70/mo "basic cable" bill (of which only about $20 is 'taxes and fees' -- wtf?!).

I don't mind paying for what I use; that's fine. What I do mind is that the content providers are so entrenched that they can charge far more than their content is actually worth. I also object to both paying for cable, and being saddled with a ridiculous number of commercials, some of which actually play over the program I'm trying to watch!

Enough is enough. I'm moving in a couple of months; I'm going to put a TV antenna up in my attic. Cheaper, better quality, and carries the four to six hours a week of TV that I actually watch.

Slashdot Top Deals

The IBM 2250 is impressive ... if you compare it with a system selling for a tenth its price. -- D. Cohen