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: Trump (Score 1) 857

You are confusing two things. One is "is it a good reason to vote for Trump if you want X done?". The second is "Why do people vote for Trump?".

Trump gets people's vote for a change that is needed. That Trump will not bring that change about is besides the point.


Comment How does that make matters worse? (Score 2) 101

To make matters worse, Google says it is aware that this critical Windows vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild.

How does that make matters worse? Exploit being used in the wild is the standard reason to expedite public disclosure. If the bad guys already know about the bug, there is no sense in keeping the legitimate users in the dark.


Comment Re: Trump (Score 2) 857

There's a perfectly good reason for this. Some of Trump's points about the system are good one. Don't get me wrong. I think he is the worst possible candidate to try and do something about those point. He's as corrupt as the system he's claiming to fight, so the chances of change there are really not high. The points, taken on their own, are good ones, however, and deserve to be addressed. Ignoring that fact, or being surprised at the amount of supporters he has, is to ignore a relevant important issue. Shachar P.s. Not a US citizen or resident, so not going to vote.

Comment Re:Attacking the source (Score 1) 171

Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what?

Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.

Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.


Comment Re:So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 212

Akamai cached sites don't move between IPs. They are hosted on all of them. Anycast is used to direct your request to the DNS server nearest you, which then goes on to direct your actual HTTP request to the server nearest you. If the attacking computers are geographically located in a certain area, that area will suffer gravely, but other areas won't be affected at all.

As such, ANY Akamai hosted site is DDoS protected by nature. A few years ago, an iOS update was slugish to arrive. Afterwards, we were told that there were considerable slowdowns to web sites not hosted by Akamai. In other words, it was not that the Akamai network couldn't handle the load of many people downloading the update at once. The Internet couldn't handle that load.

There might be something technical I'm not aware of, but as far as I know, the DDoS protection product is a marketing thing, not a technical thing. You are, essentially, buying insurance against having to pay Akamai a whole lot of money for the DDoS traffic it served on your behalf. I am not 100% certain, but I do not think Akamai serve DDoS protected sites and regular CDN hosted sites differently.

Whether it is bad PR or not is not for me to say. I do think that a host provider that gives a pro-bono service has a legitimate claim to say that non-paying customers should not be costing it more than it is willing to give. On the other hand, I also agree that, in this case, the DDoSers won.


Akamai used to publish real time information on how much traffic the entire network was carrying. The page is still there, but it no longer carries that information. I don't know why.

Comment Re:So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 212

I believe that the reason Akamai kicked him out was because they didn't want to risk their entire network for one client, at least not without him paying considerably more than he does. At the end of the day, there is a limit to what even Akamai's network can take.

Which is another way of saying that the attackers won.


Disclaimer: I've worked for Akamai for a year and a half, up until two years ago, in a technical role. I do not speak for Akamai.

Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

To be fair, though, the comment you refer to is not a good comment. It is argumentative, tries very hard to push an agenda, and bears little relevance to the comment it is replying to. Then again, the exact same argument (only swinging to the other side of this argument) can be said about the original comment, and that one got +5 insightful.


Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

It was only moderated that way because Slashdot refuses to add the much sought after "-1 I disagree with your opinion and your challenging my prejudices offend me deeply".

Some go the extra mile, and seek out other comments by the same user on that article and mod them as well. This is how I got a point knocked out on this comment (also marked as troll). Not because of anything I said on that comment, but because I expressed a pro-Israeli position in another comment in the same article.

Human nature at its best...


Just to be clear, I've seen some pro-Israeli moderators do this as well. I find it equally unjustified.

I'm less certain how to handle cases where the commenter was probably not trying to troll, but is so hateful and misinformed that the comment does not contain any usable signal. I usually prefer to answer the comment rather than moderate it, but maybe that's just me.

Comment Re:How about.... (Score 1) 232

That is not 100% accurate.

This is not a question of forgiveness. It's a question of context. Israel has an obvious obligation to try and minimize civilian casualties, and had it ignored it, you could go ahead and not forgive it. Hamas doing its thing is no excuse for Israel. However, judging whether that is the case cannot ignore the context in which Israel has to operate, due to Hamas's actions.

If you judge its action in the context of Hamas's use of civilians as shields, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel does above and beyond that minimal obligation.

It is only if you ignore this context, and simply count the number of civilians hurt, that there is any way you can conclude anything else.


Slashdot Top Deals

A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer