Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:Yes, Because Optical Media Is Durable (Score 1) 363

Except that optical media isn't that durable or reliable. Every DVD or CD I've ever burned has become unreadable after a few years. The inks just don't hold the data for long.

HTL BD-R uses an inorganic phase-change alloy sputtered onto the disc surface. I have media files going back 4 years or so backed up to a bunch of Blu-rays at work, and they've mostly held up pretty well. I recently scanned all of them to see how they were holding up, and out of 300+ discs, 5 had some unreadable areas. They would've been recoverable because I augmented the images before burning with dvdisaster, but it was faster to just mark their contents as not backed up and let them get burned to a newer disc.

LTH BD-R, OTOH, uses the same organic dyes as CD-R and DVD-R, and is just as susceptible to bit rot (though in all honesty, I have plenty of DVD-Rs and CD-Rs kicking around that are still readable.)

Most BD-Rs on the market are HTL. They tend not to be marked as such, but LTH media are. Verbatim seems to be the most prominent of the LTH BD-R brands, though I think I've heard that Taiyo Yuden also produces LTH BD-R. dvdisaster identifies my backup set as a mix of Ritek, Philips, and CMC Magnetics media; they carried a variety of other brands on them (some well-known, some not so much).

If you're not set up for Blu-ray, M-Disc has applied its inorganic recording layer (they describe it as a "rock-like carbon compound") to DVD as well as Blu-ray. You need a drive that can burn them (not just any DVD burner will work), so if you're in the market for a compatible burner, you might as well get one that also handles Blu-ray. Wikipedia says the discs, once burned, are readable in any drive.

Comment Re: Archival grade (Score 1) 363

Leicester (spelling) = lester (phonetic)

That applies to all of the *cesters (there are more than a few...used to live not too far from Bicester, for instance), so at least they're consistent.

You want weird? Try to puzzle through how they say Derby should be pronounced "darby." I don't see an A anywhere in there.

Comment Re:WTF are they proposing to improve exactly? (Score 3, Informative) 92

When they talk about the "user experience" they mean someone who is buying ads, not the person who is posting "Look what Hillary Trump said last night" every day. Think in terms of Facebook's customers.

Knowing who is talking to whom is an important part of Facebook's marketing. Look at how Facebook targets and consider item #19 in that article. It's not just about who you are, it's about who you know. Whether you think this is a good idea for Facebook or not, it is what they do.

User A and user B are friends in real life, use Whatsapp, and have Facebook accounts -- but they're not "friends" on Facebook (maybe they only use Facebook for work, or something like that). (Or maybe they don't have Facebook accounts, but Facebook has profiles on them gathered by "like" buttons, and has some way to deliver ads to at least one of them.) They communicate with each other using Whatsapp. This lets Facebook connect the two profiles, even though within Facebook alone, they are unconnected. The result: Now user A can see shopping ads for user B's upcoming birthday.

The advertiser has a good products experience.

Comment Re:Science (Score 1) 85

It's dead simple to synchronize wireless gear on completely different networks, if you so choose. The gear just needs to support it.

GPS input to produce accurate timing, and configurable RF parameters. Polling so that the AP can tell what client to transmit when.

Sure, banging it into 802.11 is a bitch, but even it's been done; take a look at Cambium's ePMP products.

Comment Re:Failbook knows NOTHING about me (Score 1) 183

There's extensive datacollection from Facebook on other web sites, tied to cookies, browser fingerprinting and various other means.

That largely depends on whether you allow third-party cookies to be set. Anybody who cares about privacy in the least would have third-party cookies disabled. Let Farcebook try to snoop on my /. activity...it's not gonna work.

Comment Re:Solution: Buy legislators. All of them. (Score 1) 188

I ended up donating the printer and the ink cartridges to a local charity, got a tax write-off for the donation, and bought an Epson printer. The Epson works great with refilled ink cartridges.

...until it clogs up and refuses to print until you waste half a set of cartridges on cleaning cycles. Even that might not get it running right.

Comment Re:What is it that you say? (Score 1) 445

No, they're not dropping that veneer.

Saying you compete with someone, isn't the same as saying you're the same kind of business. e.g. courier bikes, courier pigeons, telegrams and email can all compete with one another, but work differently and might have really good reasons for being regulated differently.

(BTW, I'm not taking a position about how Uber should or shouldn't be regulated; I'm just saying that there is nothing about their reaction which implies they're admitting anything.)

Comment Re: Worldwide news are always US only. (Score 1) 256

Fractional values are easier to come by with measurements divisible by 2, 3, 4, or 6 than with measurements that are only divisible by 2 or 5. Liquid measures are mostly divisible by various powers of 2: two tablespoons in an ounce, eight ounces in a cup, two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, four quarts in a gallon. (Three teaspoons in a tablespoon is the exception.)

Comment Re:Microsoft broke my scanner once... (Score 1) 220

More people need to be made aware of VueScan. Cross platform, acceptable price, unbeatable scanner support. My father has a SCSI Minolta Dimage with APS support. Drivers up to Windows 2000, XP worked with a bit of hacking. SANE doesn't want to know about it.

VueScan? Just works.

I have no stake in this. I am just a happy customer.

Comment Re: Do they really ignore them? (Score 2) 124

Oh, so you're manually inspecting the self signed certificate every time you visit your website? If not, then how do you know nobody is intercepting your communication, making your self signed certificate as useless as having no encryption at all.

No, and he didn't imply that. Here are several situations, in increasing order of security.

1) The connection is not encrypted or signed. No certs exist. Nobody knows who they're talking to. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, while they can't impersonate, can at least read what everyone is saying. No warning.(?!)

2) The connection is encrypted, but with unknown parties' public keys. Certs exist but are essentially worthless. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, can't read anything. DANGER! DANGER! FREAK OUT!!

3) The connection is encrypted, and if you believe certain faceless parties who are totally unaccountable to you and who you don't know anything about, you think you probably know the other side's identity. Active attackers can't do anything, unless they're active enough to coerce or trick the CA. Passive attackers can't read anything. No warning.

4) The connection is encrypted just like above, but the CA pinky-swears that they really tried hard to make sure. Green URL bar.

5) As case 3 or 4, but multiple CAs, which might be hard for a single attacker to simultaneously coerce or trick, have all signed the cert. We don't have this in our browsers yet; it's early 1990s level tech that we're still waiting for.

6) As case 3 but the user has verified the identity through a different channel. No trusted introducer was needed. The cert need not be signed at all, or might be signed by the user himself. No warning, but also no green URL bar. (Yet, this is the very best-possible case, definitely more secure than any other.)

See anything wrong here? Scenarios 1 and 2 have their warning severities reversed. (And there's also a UI defect at high degrees of security, too, but that's less important.) This trains the use to think of warnings as not necessarily meaning increased severity or risk. A user will adjust to this by ignoring warnings. This is bad communication, and it's making us all a little stupider.

What you should do is add your known self signed certificate to your local certificate store, which means that the warnings will stop

He's talking about a situation where it's not known. Adding it to the local store would be inappropriate. That would be an attempt to treat scenario 2 as scenario 6, just to get around a UI bug. It'd be much better to just fix the bug.

Comment Payoff table shows whose guys they are (Score 1) 272

Maybe they're our guys, maybe they're not.

Country A is full of citizens, businesses, and government orgs which routinely depend on working computers and networks. Country B is similar, but a little behind, because they're not as wealthy.

Both countries' citizens, businesses and government orgs pretty much run the same code. Same OSes, same big applications, etc.

For the most part, everyone's computers run pretty badly, and outages and various fuckup are frequent. Criminals in both countries are very happy with the situation. Both countries have a pretty easy time with espionage, but a nearly impossible problem with counter-espionage. Everyone can attack, but hardly anyone seems to be able to defend.

Well, they're about the same, but not exactly. In Country B, due to the lower tech, more people use cash, more things are done low-techy, etc. Computer crime isn't quite as easy there. Fewer government systems (both civilian and military) are vulnerable to cyber-attack simple because they're not as computerized. Fewer businesses depend on networks. The airlines' schedules in Country B are run by a guy who has a big notebook, but Country A has an airline schedule that's run in some datacenter.

A group of nerdy people figure out part of the problem with everyone's fucked up computers. Turn out, there are bugs in popular software. Sometimes the symptoms just happen (bad luck) and sometimes they are exploited by adversaries.

The nerds have to make a decision: "Do we tell software industry about the bugs and have them fixed, so that everyone (both our country and the other country) get a defense advantage? Or do we not talk about the bugs, thereby preserving everyone's attack advantage?"

The group of nerds chooses the latter, opting to not have the bugs fixed.

Tell me this: judging from the nerds' actions, which country do you infer they working for? Who has more to win or lose from the computers continuing to work so badly?

Slashdot Top Deals

The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows. - Frank Zappa

Working...