Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Unacceptable! (Score 4, Funny) 105

This sort of reckless openness in communications sends the message that so called 'disasters' are a free-for-all for pirates, child pornographers, and terrorists.

Any right-thinking citizen would agree that a few unimportant people staying buried in rubble is a small price to pay to secure the internet against intellectual property theft and anonymous communication by evildoers.

Comment That's honestly pretty surprising. (Score 1) 141

It's not a huge surprise that the reliability of Apple widgets isn't appreciably better than high end Android gizmos; Apple is hardly the only company in the world that knows how to shove a bunch of solid state hardware into a tight space; and to the degree they are atypically skilled at it they usually end up focusing on extra skinniness and similar aesthetic considerations that don't necessarily enhance reliability.

What is surprising is that 'Android devices' as a whole would perform so well. It is the blessing, and the curse, of Android that pretty much anyone can slap it into almost anything; and vendors take full advantage of that. I would have expected the floods of dire crap to drag down the average reliability rating considerably.

Submission + - Malibu Media stay lifted, motion to quash denied

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the federal court for the Eastern District of New York, where all Malibu Media cases have been stayed for the past year, the Court has lifted the stay and denied the motion to quash in the lead case, thus permitting all 84 cases to move forward. In his 28-page decision (PDF), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke accepted the representations of Malibu's expert, one Michael Patzer from a company called Excipio, that in detecting BitTorrent infringement he relies on "direct detection" rather than "indirect detection", and that it is "not possible" for there to be misidentification.

Submission + - Animation Explains Multi-GPU Load-Balancing Tasks and Memory

Scott Michaud writes: While DirectX 12, Mantle, and Vulkan allow developers to list all GPUs in a system, and communicate with them individually, Crossfire and SLI accomplished that task in DirectX 11 and OpenGL. Apart from the very early implementations, which interleaved monitor scanlines (or otherwise cut up a single frame) between devices, these systems used the Alternate Frame Rendering (AFR) algorithm to divide work. Because neighbouring frames require roughly the same amount of work, and old APIs submit work through restrictive interfaces, memory was mirrored across GPUs and, except for AMD's Hybrid Crossfire and LucidLogix HYDRA Engine, GPUs needed to be roughly identical. The new APIs open the dialogue between software and hardware, but the load balancing algorithms, themselves, have their own limitations.

Comment When will there be Pi2/Pi3 images? (Score 1) 132

The archaic ARMv6 architecture CPU in the original Pi is radically different from the ARMv7+NEON of the Pi2 or the ARMv8 of the Pi3. When the Pi2 was released you said the performance advantage of ARMv7 builds optimized for the Pi2 wasn't big enough to justify the complication of having a separate OS image. But after the introduction of the Pi3, as people migrate to newer Pis and the rest of the open source ARM world takes v7 and NEON for granted, don't the scales start to tip in favor of builds for modern processors?

Mathematica devs in particular have said that having to target such disparate architectures in a single binary prevents them from using a high-performance BLAS, which slows many kinds of algorithms down dramatically. And many multimedia codecs have had extensive NEON optimizations but these don't always get enabled at runtime on Pi2/3.

Comment Huh? Most are software exploits (Score 1) 57

Their argument mostly disproves their claim. I agree that security is much more than eliminating software exploits, but at least 3 of their "top" 5 examples ARE software exploits (because of either a fault in the implementation or in its spec). 1. abuse of weak domain user passwords -- used in 66% of Praetorian pen testers' successful attacks The software should prevent bad passwords by default, but for the sake of argument I'll grant them that one. 2. broadcast name resolution poisoning (like WPAD) -- 64% That's a software exploit. If your protocol is vulnerable to poisoning, your protocol has a problem. 3. local admin password attacks (pass-the-hash attacks) -- 61% Software exploit. Hashes are supposed to *not* be equivalent to the password they were derived from. This is a well-known software exploit. 4. attacks on cleartext passwords in memory (like those using Mimikatz) -- 59% If an untrusted program can see cleartext passwords in memory, there's a software exploit, they're not supposed to do that. 5. insufficient network segmentation -- 52% Okay, that's not a software exploit. So #5 is not a software exploit, #1 is arguably not a software exploit (though it suggests a software problem), and the rest (#2, #3, #4) are software exploits (there's a software vulnerability in the protocol or its implementation). I would agree with them that security is much more than software, but software has an important role to play. The *REASON* that #2, #3, and #4 are problems is because people weren't paying enough attention to security.

Comment Re:Time to update firewalls. (Score 1) 87

Some software attempts a compromise(Chrome's certificate pinning isn't applied to certificates authenticated against a locally imported trusted root; but is otherwise); but anything that either refused to make exceptions or simply doesn't integrate with the platform's certificate handling very well should break SSL decryption with just certificate pinning.

That's often not the only inspection mechanism in place; but anyone who can actually break SSL without access to a trusted cert is currently being very quiet about the matter.

Comment Re:Why blame wealth? (Score 2) 154

Probably because lying poor people are rarely in a position to mount a slick astroturf campaign through an apparently-neutral third party entity they are covertly buying influence over.

That makes it pretty tricky for them to foster nearly as much cynicism, unleash more PR flacks on the world, or get their objectives turned into policy.

In a vague abstract sense you can condemn all liars equally on moral grounds; but when it comes to the consequences of their behavior the ones with no power simply aren't in the position to be as dangerous.

Slashdot Top Deals

% "Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work" -- Robert Orben

Working...