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


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

Comment Re:Obama.... (Score 1) 277

IANA doesn't issue individual IP addresses. It allocates blocks of addresses, and assigns them to regional Internet registries, which then in turn allocate them in their respective regions. So it can't deny you personally an IP address. At most, it can deny your entire country an IP address block, but that is basically the cyber equivalent of nuking someone - it's just not going to happen, because the whole thing will go down if anyone tries.

Comment Re:GAO is right (Score 1) 277

How exactly then will this work when one DNS server has a record for one Ip address and another points to another such as an anti Putin site?

In exactly the same way it works with the mail system.

The top-level international agency - Universal Postal Union (which is a UN agency) - defines the overall standard for what an address looks like (and they allow for plenty of leeway), and how mail addressing and routing works between countries.

Then every country defines how mail addressing and routing works inside the country.

So suppose I live in US, and me and my neighbors successfully petition to rename our street to "Putin Sucks St". Does the UPU block such an address? No, because they operate on a level where it's not even visible. On the other hand, if I send a letter from this address to Russia, or if someone in Russia sends a letter to me, then Russia can block it at/within their boundary.

What we're talking about here is the management of top-level domains and IP block allocations. So the international organization that'll take over will be dealing with the questions like "should we assign a domain and allocate some IPs to this country, that doesn't have unanimous international recognition of independence". Not questions like "should we DNS-block this politically subversive subdomain". The only way they could do the latter is by blocking entire countries.

Comment Re:Rising prices and declining content (Score 1) 242

Any of you actually sit down and watch TV lately? It's seriously for morons. Fantastically stupid shit shoved in to your eyeballs. I used to wonder why we've got such a cultural divide in the US. No longer. TV turns you in to a fucking idiot.

This is one of the reasons I cut the cord three years ago. All the channels I used to enjoy went to shit. Discovery, TLC, A&E, History, SciFi (or SyFy) and even the weather channel were all shells of the former selves. Hell, you couldn't even get the damn headlines anymore from CNN Headline News or whatever they were calling it when I left. I found myself watching less and less TV until I realized I wouldn't miss anything and it was costing me $165 for my bundle each month. Now I have Netflix, a roof antenna, MythTV, and internet only. It costs me about $68 per month for all of it. I save nearly $1,200 every year and I don't miss it at all.

Comment Re:They'll come crawling back (Score 1) 275

Absolutely nothing can beat Microsoft software at crapping out. They achieved their position with pure marketing and kickbacks. If those advantages are somehow countered there's simply no way Microsoft could be seriously considered for anything.

Amen. Just yesterday, I had to clean up two Windows 10 machines that "updated" over the prior night and no longer worked correctly. One machine had a network printer that just quit working. The other had a local printer AND a wireless network device which quit working. Every day is a new Windows 10 repair. I get more jobs from making Windows work after updates than I do cleaning up malware anymore.

Windows 10 users are all beta (or alpha) testers.

Comment Re:What about the NBA? (Score 1) 463

The crusades were a defensive response to the armed conquest of over half the ancient world by a group that converted by the sword and who attacked Europe as recently (before modern times) as the 15th century.

They were? I didn't realize that e.g. Prussian pagan Slavs and Balts were trying to convert European Christians by the sword.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 438

With this particular law it is, actually. The problem is that the class of weapons banned by SAFE Act, and other similar "assault weapon" bans, is fuzzily defined, but more importantly, that definition doesn't have any rational explanation. An Australian-style full semi auto ban is at least justifiable on the basis of increased lethality, and there is an objective difference between semi-autos and manual action. Banning "military style" rifles with features that are mostly or wholly cosmetic does nothing useful whatsoever.

To remind, the firearm used in the single deadliest mass shooting spree to date - the one perpetrated by Breivik - was done by a firearm (Ruger Mini-14) that is not considered an assault weapon under any existing or past AWB laws, nor under any AWB proposals on either federal or state level, that I'm aware off. That alone should tell you all you need to know about those laws.

Why it's a slippery slope? Well, if you can enact a ban without a rational justification for the list of banned features, then that list of banned features can be extended arbitrarily in random directions at a whim.

Worse yet that these laws are usually written by people who have no clue about guns, and so they e.g. ban "barrel shrouds", and define them in such a way that practically every forend on any shotgun or rifle manufactured to date would be considered one (and so make it banned). That's not a hypothetical - it actually happened with an AWB bill that was proposed in Washington State this year:

"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel"

This definition practically implies that it's illegal to shoot a firearm while gripping it anywhere around or under the barrel. Makes you wonder if the person that wrote this have ever shot a rifle or a shotgun, or at least seen one being shot.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 438

They may not have tried yet, but when both Obama and Clinton reference Australia as a model to look at for ideas, it's not a far-fetched conclusion to make. A large-scale confiscation of guns (practically every semi-automatic rifle or shotgun) is precisely what Australia is famous for in the gun control department.

If they were to cite, say, Czech Republic instead - which does have shall-issue concealed carry, doesn't have assault weapon ban, but doesn't have shooting sprees, so arguably it's a better model if you want to solve this problem in a politically viable manner - that would have been a different story.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 438

This is 100% legal...you just cannot resell it.

You can sell it, although you'd need to put a serial number on it if you want to do so.

What you can't do is manufacture it with intent to sell.

Pretty similar to that whole straw purchase thing. If you buy a gun for yourself, and then later decide to gift it to someone else, that's legal. But if you intended to give it away when you were buying it, that is illegal.

Slashdot Top Deals

When we write programs that "learn", it turns out we do and they don't.