Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
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:The big question is, (Score 0) 96

Will they be courageous and get rid of the charging cable? Wireless charging only!

For a moment I thought you were describing something Apple might do. But then this "wireless charging" sentence happened. See... the Apple thing to do is get rid of the charging cable so when the battery dies, you just buy a new phone.

Convenience, capability, and capacity are not Apple's design goals or else they'd have user-removable batteries and slots for memory expansion. Nope. Style and flair and status are their design goals.

Comment Re:Seems like a good idea to me... (Score 1) 307

It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built.

The problem is too many fucking people, literally. We can start by placing limits on how many we import when we already have housing issues.

I know you're a troll, but I'm going to one-up you.

How about "we" place limits on breeding and instead import existing perfectly good people from shittier places. "We" win. "They" win. Perfect.

Comment Re:KeePass (Score 3, Informative) 415

"i dont trust the cloud, but use the cloud"


You're either being deliberately ignorant, or the point hasn't been made clear to you. I'll try to help.

With cloud-based password managers, your data is at risk. If they are hacked - and because they are online, they are vulnerable to attacks - your data is compromised unless it is always encrypted. In essence, you're trusting that they will never be hacked, and that if they are, they did best-practices to protect your data.

With Keepass, even if the cloud-storage you use is hacked, you know the data isn't accessible because it's strongly encrypted. Because you did it.

So yeah, the original comment makes perfect sense.

Comment Re:dubious business pretices (Score 3, Informative) 27

The problem that I have with Namecheap is that I tried to get a domain from them. Here's what happened:

I thought of a domain that I would really like to have. I first tried to go to it in my browser and got a 404 error.

I don't pretend to know everything, but I believe the moment you get a 404 error, that means a web server responded with HTTP response code 404, which requires a} a web server and b} the hostname you typed to have a DNS record resolving to that web server. All of which means: the domain you thought of was already registered before you tried to register it. That you got a 404 the first time and a parking page the second time only suggests the web server is crap.

Domain squatting sucks, but the sniping activity you're trying to accuse them of doesn't match the symptoms you describe.

Comment Re:What are the use cases for these drives? (Score 1) 232

As many a wag has pointed out, that a 16TB drive means that there is more of your data to lose in a crash. I also have to think that the latency for finding specific files on the drive - especially in a server - is going to be a concern.

If the choices are: 1} do not have anywhere to store data, and 2} have somewhere to store data but it might be lost, #2 is preferable. Also, how much data at risk of loss is an acceptable amount? Perhaps we should have stuck with 20MB hard drives because anymore more would just be more data to lose in a crash. I think this is a silly way of looking at things.

Also, as for performance, typically finding specific files on a drive, a.k.a. random seek time, is mostly a function of rotational speed and head traversal speed, not data density. The head traverses to the cylinder necessary, the drive rotates until the data blocks are under the head, and the data is read. If the drives stay 3.5", the head traversal won't change, and if the rotational speed remains the same (typically 7,200 RPM), the random seek times will remain roughly the same as smaller drives. Server or not. What is nice, is that as density increases, typically sequential transfer rates increase. So there's a net win as drives get bigger, typically.

Comment Re:Still using (Score 2) 232

You realize that spinning disks that size are "archive" only usage. Not actual usage. By that measure, tape is really cheap. There is a reason why you hardly see that any longer.

Typically "archive" hard drives mean that they have relatively poor performance, not that that they're bad. For instance, if you're looking to put together a NAS to store a bunch of media like TV shows or movies, they're just fine. You're going write infrequent changes, mostly when you're adding new content, and you're going to read sequential streams, both of which archival drives are just fine for. That's actual usage. They are not intended for, say, write once, then store in a closet offline for years. They're not like "archival" quality optical media, which is intended to not decompose for a longer time than non-archival media.

Just keep your high IOPS activities like databases off them and they're an excellent tool.

Comment Re:Read Only (Score 1) 215

How do you custom Memory if you can't write to it?

Do you even Member what ROM means?

No. Nobody here (except you) knows anything about anything. Thank you for your educational post.

Unless... you're just unaware of this minor technology invented nearly 50 years ago, in which case... troll.

Comment Re:Just sayin' (Score 3, Informative) 48

They'll get it back out of you somehow. Either by raising some other fee, or by reducing the quality of service.

If by reducing quality of service you mean increasing the quality of service, you're right. My notice from Teksavvy reduced my bill $9/month while simultaneously increasing my link speed 10%.

Comment Re:What about stop making stuff super thin? (Score 3, Insightful) 289

big thick phones don't sell well.

We don't know that. Every time there's a new chipset or screen that increases efficiency, the manufacturers reduce thickness and battery life at the same time. We stay at maybe four-hours of full-power usage. Nobody's made a phone that gets a next-generation efficient SoC but keeps its thickness and markets it as "last year this was thin enough, only now we've got 16 hours of battery life!"

Comment Re:My PowerPoint Rule of Thumb. (Score 2) 38

Don't use it. People's eyes glaze over as soon as they see the first slide.

Makes sense. A presenter generally boils down what they want to convey to four or five bullet points to make a slide. That slide get displayed, the audience reads it, and then the presenter reads it and talks for five minutes. Most of the time the audience got the message from the bullet points. Now they're slipping into a coma, waiting for the presenter to move on.

A good presenter can still use this, by engaging via interesting, useful, amusing anecdotes at each point. Problem is, if the presentation is about oh... product features, or sales projections... there's nothing interesting, useful, or amusing about it. So don't try. Just show us the slide and hit "next". If the presentation in on "ways to avoid getting mugged", or "how to tell if you're a raccoon", maybe you should talk about each point. Maybe.

Comment Re:What you know... (Score 1) 215

So, before electronic storage, the police shouldn't have had access to paper storage? Why memorize a phone number if you can write it down?

The problem with encryption is not that the police shouldn't have access to the data (with a warrant), it's that there's no way to grant only the police access. Those who want strong encryption believe keeping the data private from third parties is the greater good.

No, the police shouldn't have access... if you scrambled/encrypted the data. Only your knowledge can decrypt that data on the paper. If it's in plain text... you haven't really made the data knowledge-dependent. Writing something down in plain-text is equivalent to saying what you know out loud.

I hear you, but I don't agree I consider my mind a sanctum that is mine alone. Period. Ever. Not the least... I know I've had had "don't think of the purple elephant" horrible thoughts. Thoughts that don't actually reflect my opinions, or that I would ever, ever act upon, but were more or less random. If taken out of context, they remain merely horrible, and misrepresent me. So mind is a thing I don't think anyone should have access to without permission, EVER. Which I feel applies to mind-extension technology.

I totally get it that law-enforcement may fail to get access to a perp's "Terrorist Buddies" contact list if they can't crack a phone. I accept that as a worthwhile price, but I also understand that's a personal judgment.

Comment What you know... (Score 5, Insightful) 215

To a large degree, data storage is an extension of what a person knows. Why bother memorizing a phone number when you have hardware to do it? Why bother memorizing a hundred passwords when you have hardware to do it? Even our music collection is on hardware purely because our ability to memorize it is imperfect.

The moment a law is passed that mandates law-enforcement access to our electronic devices, we are giving them access to what we know. Today that may or may not be reasonable. But tomorrow, the day after, or a hundred years from now we will have these devices integral to ourselves. Implants within us, most likely, that augment our memories. It's not unreasonable to predict a (likely distant) future where a device taps our optic nerve and provides us "augmented reality". Can't remember the name of the person you're looking at? The device will do that for you. But it will also be able to record what you see, or hear, for future perfect recall.

So what happens when the iPhone law is applied to internal storage? It's mind-reading. This legislation is one step shy of "police must be allowed to read your mind if it is possible". That disturbs me.

Comment Re:Then what's the point? (Score 1) 280

The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".

So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?

First of all, given the choice between CMD.EXE which can only do file type activities and PowerShell which can perform those plus a massive number of other things, worrying about (default) script policy isn't worthwhile. With CMD.EXE you can do so much less that you might as well be running with a policy of "there are no scripts".

Secondly, most people - by far - will never have need to run a PowerShell script. If they do, they're the sort of people who can read "step 1: set your execution policy". Joe Average has no business running PowerShell scripts that they don't know what they are and how they work. Which is why a default policy preventing unsigned scripts from running is a good idea.

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)