Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:OSS Licenses (Score 1) 75

> The copyright holder can revoke the license.

Not every type of license.

> I know Stallman is a smelly old fool to you "open source" retards, but he perfected copyleft decades ago. You would know that, if you weren't insanely obsessed with exploiting intellectual property to make yourselves wealthy.

Are you going for the world record attempt at the number of false assumptions in a single sentence?

I highly respect Stallman, I know exactly when he perfected copyleft, I prefer Free Software to other types of Open Source license, and I have a preference for GNU licenses. I don't particularly care for making myself more wealthy either. And I'm not quite sure whose intellectual property you think I'm exploiting when it's me writing the code in the first place.

Comment Re:Security cleared (Score 2) 89

> RFC6520-- WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS EXIST? Because it's too computationally expensive for clients to re-establish SSL sessions...?! Really? My dual core 2.15ghz smart phone begs to differ.

No. It's not about CPU time, but about the time taken to establish a connection due to the TLS and TCP handshakes. I think it's only a single round trip for the TLS part (someone will surely correct me if not) but that's on top of the TCP 3 way handshake, which all adds up. You can't mitigate network latency with a faster CPU.

These are partly the same reasons for http2 by the way. Re-using a single connection means avoiding the TCP and TLS setup happening more than once.

Finally, keeping a connection open for a long time and re-using it goes some small way to avoid revealing as much metadata to snoopers, as does multiplexing a single TLS connection rather than creating many.

Comment Re:The Naked Truth (Score 4, Insightful) 1592

Please don't tell us (the whole of the UK) to f**k ourselves.

I am one of almost half the voters who wanted to remain. Almost all of my friends wanted the same. I work with people from across Europe and elsewhere on a daily basis. Some of us are very pro-Europe (although Europe is not perfect) and want to be in the EU as much as you probably do.

Some of us DO want Schengen and more open borders.
Some of us DO want a common currency. (or at least don't hate the idea)

I think I stand with much of Europe and half of the UK in saying "GO F**K YOURSELVES" to the Leave voters.

Please don't forget about us Remain voters and don't hate us! If you do, the Exit voters really HAVE won.

Comment Re:Encryption is useless (Score 2) 796

Of course it's not useless.

I use full disk encryption all of the time. The threat I'm protecting against is losing my laptop, having it stolen, or selling it and risking someone getting their hands on all my passwords etc that are saved on there.

I'd quite happily decrypt it given a warrant.

Most reasons for using encryption and other privacy tools are not about avoiding capture by law enforcement - far from it.

Having said that I am troubled by cases (and I don't know the details for this particular one) where forgotten keys or passwords somehow imply guilt.

Comment Re:This right here... (Score 1) 120

If the UK leaves the EU, that doesn't automatically mean the UK won't have to comply. Various non EU countries already have to abide by all kinds of EU rules as part of trade agreements with them.

The major difference in leaving would be that the UK no longer has any power in influencing these kinds of rules.

Slashdot Top Deals

/usr/news/gotcha

Working...