Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Which is more important: edge or app? (Score 1) 133

Huge efforts and money are spent protecting the edges of the network - whether it be firewalls and other router configurations, OS level configurations, and other filtering tools (such as virus detection and scanning, and log and packet inspection and analysis tools). There are also plenty of security companies willing to sell you a magical black box that will solve all of your security problems.

The opposite seems to be the case when it comes to spending time and money on the security of applications used by internal and external customers - either through retrofitting existing applications, or when building new applications. Companies don't want to spend money to retrofit sunk capital, and I don't see security firms talking about or creating tools and common standards for building new secure applications.

Given this dichotomy, do you think that is a correct characterization of the problem space, and do you think we are spending our time and money in the right places as a result?

Comment This result isn't surprising... (Score 1) 143

Millennials are just starting in the workforce so they have much less to lose if they do get compromised. That also means that whatever setback occurs can be quickly recovered. While I can understand why they may not care now about exposure of their content and information today - that isn't to say that will be a constant throughout their lives.

Ask them the same question in 10 to 20 years and see what they say. If they have significant savings or other holdings that are compromised that took many years to acquire - or their credit gets trashed - you can bet they will change their answer. There may be edge cases - but the vast majority will have families, mortgages, and other issues that disruption through faulty security will be unacceptable.

Polls like this are of limited value unless you can look beyond the poll itself to what is really behind how people are responding. Don't fall for the hype. Be a critical thinker.

Comment Re:What about (Score 3, Insightful) 530

Yes - lets squabble about this little blue marble, when there are quadrillions of tons of rare earths to be found in the asteroid belt.

Let's get off our collective butts, slap ourselves out of our collective malaise, and get the space elevator/ private sector affordable space launch vehicles/ Mars mission technology working NOW - so we can solve these problems without further destroying the earth.

Comment One Word: Bloatware (Score 2) 137

Processors today are orders of magnitude faster and more capable than just a few years ago. There shouldn't be a question that our apps run faster on them.

The problem is we are loading them down with extraneous cruft. Remove the bloat and you remove the problem. Throwing hardware at it may solve some of the problem - but that is just a bandaid, and definitely won't allow you to lead the market if your competitor is producing leaner, faster code.

Comment Re:Sooo..... (Score 1) 120

The 8 track was a continuous loop - you can see a great picture of the inner workings at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It used a pinch roller system to drive the tape - it was pulled from the center of the spool, and fed back onto the outside of the spool. Of course that means you couldn't rewind the tape - only go forward - so if you wanted to hear the last track you just heard, you had to fast forward all the way around until you got back to the original track.

My dad's stereo system only played albums and 8 track tapes - so I bought a few 8 tracks (Jackson 5 Triumph was one; can't recall the others) to hear what it sounded like on something other than my boom box (which back then didn't have much bass). It sounded pretty nice.

The whole nail and hammer bit was a snarky crack about obsolete technology and its relative usefulness. Of course, if you want to take that to its logical conclusion - the rules require you to hammer the nail through the device without modification to secure it to the wall. Hanging it on the nail after hammering the nail into the wall is cheating. As a result, technologies that provide a void/hole at some point are more successful than technologies that don't.

Comment I expect Apple... (Score 1) 175

I expect Apple to use their collective lips to kiss unmentionable parts of my anatomy.

There, now we are even (considering how I've been figuratively and financially bent over every time I've bought an Apple product). My Mac Mini from 2008 is still chugging along after 8 years...I expect nothing less from my other technology. Guess my next phone/watch purchase will not be an Apple product.

Comment Sooo..... (Score 1) 120

I got my vinyl album, a nail, and a hammer. I guess I'll just mount it on the wall here next to my CD, LaserDisk, Betamax, VHS, 8Track, and Compact Cassette tape.

I rate the most viable technologies by the level of damage the nail does to the technology in question. Right now the LaserDisk, CD, Compact Cassette, and vinyl record are leading, as the nail did a real number on the others.

Comment And another thing... (Score 1) 527

If people would focus on their own life and actions, and treated everyone else with respect and tolerance rather than trying to insert their beliefs into someone else's life - maybe the rest of us who just want to be left to pursue happiness in our own way, wouldn't have to waste time calling BS every other day of the week.

Comment Re:Reasonable accomodation (Score 1) 527

... People lose rights when they are put in prison - that's the whole point of a prison sentence.

No - the point of imprisonment is not losing rights - it is primarily a means to reform the person so they can function in society again when their time is up, and some would see the time doing that as a just punishment for their crime.

Otherwise, what you said made rational sense.

Comment Oh the irony...and hypocrisy (Score 1) 527

It both saddens and amuses me that the very judgement handed down by this court could be equally applied to ALL religions. Is something not real because you don't believe in it? Conversely, is something real just because you believe in it? NO to both questions.

If we as a society are going to put limits on religion in these kinds of contexts - then they need to be applied equally to all religions in that environment.

The reason the framers of the Constitution made separation of church and state a key component is clearly illustrated here. We can not allow government bodies to give preferential treatment based on identification with 'acceptable' religions, at the expense of any other way of life. The tyranny of religious bigotry is no less dangerous than any tyranny that threatens freedom to choose.

Comment Laws/Regulations protecting customer info exist... (Score 3, Funny) 67

Information privacy or data protection laws prohibit the disclosure or misuse of information held on private individuals. These laws are based on Fair Information Practice, first developed in the United States in the 1970s by the Department for Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The basic principles of data protection are:

For all data collected there should be a stated purpose.

Information collected by an individual cannot be disclosed to other organizations or individuals unless specifically authorized by law or by consent of the individual

Records kept on an individual should be accurate and up to date

There should be mechanisms for individuals to review data about them, to ensure accuracy. This may include periodic reporting

Data should be deleted when it is no longer needed for the stated purpose

Transmission of personal information to locations where "equivalent" personal data protection cannot be assured is prohibited

Some data is too sensitive to be collected, unless there are extreme circumstances (e.g., sexual orientation, religion)

Comment Re:The fallacy here... (Score 1) 546

Yes, 1984 was what I was going for there.

Law enforcement has got to accept that while technology has made some aspects of police work more efficient, we the people cannot accept general exposure to any outside parties of our finances, personal thoughts and ideas, or any other 'intellectual property' be it in our computers or in our brains - just to allow law enforcement to have push button investigation power.

As others have also pointed out, government is not also willing to allow its systems to be thus exposed. Quid pro quo. Having general exposure of a person's personal life is no less deserving of protection than that of the government - and I would argue it is more so because the random exposure and possible destruction of any single life through misuse of these powers can never outweigh the good that can be found in exposure of government corruption. This is why non-classified government documents are in the public domain, and classified documents have declassification schedules and the Freedom of Information Act to provide a process for requesting those. Government is for the people - not the other way around.

At the end of the day this whole discussion centers around something that is impractical to fix. If tech companies start building back doors in their systems - people with half a brain will find other means of securing their intellectual property and communications. Law enforcement will find itself back in the same place they are today - with one exception: billions of people around the world using the software of these companies will now be subject to abuses - either through criminal organizations compromising those systems via those back doors, or the misuse of those back doors by government entities without legal authority to do so.

Comment The fallacy here... (Score 1) 546

The fallacy of President Obama's statement can be easily shown by replacing the 'device' with the human brain:

"If, the human brain is an impenetrable device where there is no key, no door at all, how do we apprehend the child pornographer, how do we disrupt a terrorist plot?" He cited the fact that law enforcement can get a warrant to search your room, "rifle through your underwear," if you are suspected of terrorism, and yet your brain is somehow off limits.

In that case, shouldn't the government also be forcing technology companies to use their resources immediately to build devices that can bypass the encryption inherent in the human brain? If we had perfect monitoring of everyone's thoughts, wouldn't it be a wonderful world? No independent thought to challenge the status quo. No radical ideas would flourish. No change would be allowed.

Finally - this also illustrates a substantial problem with this from a congressional standpoint as well: if Apple is expected to create back doors within their systems, then everyone who writes software will have to be held to the same standards. The problem with this is that anyone can write software - from firmware, the OS, up to applications running on such a system. So effectively you would have an unenforceable law on the books because there is no way to effectively police this.

Essentially you would have a large set of innocent people who follow the law, you may catch a few stupid criminals who don't realize there are back doors in commercial systems, and you would still be left having to use more traditional police techniques to catch the remainder - just as you do today. The only thing you would have really accomplished is exposing the vast majority of innocent people to exposure when the back doors are cracked by criminal organizations using their own software which doesn't have those back doors.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We live, in a very kooky time." -- Herb Blashtfalt