Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:keepass (Score 1) 415

KeePass, or any other offline password manager, is a good first step. I really shouldn't need to go into the inherent issues with using an online password management system. However, to improve the security of the database, go with two-factor authentication by adding plugins such as OtpKeyProv and configuring KeePass to use it in conjunction with a Yubikey token.

(Disclaimer: I am not associated with either the OtpKeyProv developer or with Yubico. I use them as examples based on past successes.)

Comment It's not cynicism. It's realism. (Score 1) 44

There is not, and never has been, any such thing as "online privacy". Those either unwilling to recognize that simple fact, or incapable of doing so, seem to be either businesses selling "online privacy" services or their customers.

Want a completely secure computer? Never plug it in. Ever.

Anything else is bells and whistles.

Comment Re:Hatred of High School Principals (Score 1) 379

It's pretty easy to guess the average age of posters in this thread. No one over eighteen cares.

Wrong. ALL photographers, no matter the age, should care about this case. School bureaucracy aside, it would set an incredibly dangerous set of precedents if left unchallenged.

I'd be willing to send that student a copy of the book The Law (In Plain English) For Photographers. Perhaps the principal should read it as well; it would show the principal exactly how wrong he is, before he has to sign off on spending a huge chunk of district money on legal fees.

Comment Re:People? (Score 0) 78

Show me a chip vendor Linux toolchain or embedded building framework (buildroot, Yocto, etc.) which does NOT use GCC. There are exactly zero.

Incorrect. I can think of one right off the top, and while it's arguably a highly-specific niche market, it's still a viable market: GNAT Pro Ada. It very happily builds zero-footprint executables on a variety of embedded hardware, including the ARM M5 family. And the toolchain plays very, very well with Linux (and Windows, and Solaris, and...).

(I'll leave the argument over the relative merits of each language as a separate discussion.)

Comment Re:STL (Score 1) 757

John Barnes, author of several Ada programming texts, sums it up:

If software is safe, it cannot harm the world. If software is secure, the world cannot harm it.

I have yet to see a non-trivial application written in C++ which is both safe and secure.

And that's as far as I go.

Comment Language (Score 4, Insightful) 217

You can code sloppily in any language.

True, but some languages make it more difficult to do so. Ada, for example, won't allow code to compile with (what should be) obvious logic or syntax errors that most C/C++ compilers will happily ignore, and hence allow to go undiscovered until runtime...errors that could be catastrophic in the real world.

Ada has acquired a reputation as a niche-market language, but that niche market takes heavy advantage of Ada's strengths: strong typing and a requirement that the developer properly design the software before writing code. Unfortunately, deciding to develop commercial software in Ada also comes with a fairly steep price tag, because it's a niche market...thus perpetuating the cycle.

DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with any company which produces or sells Ada compilers.

Comment Re:well (Score 1) 200

I think there are a lot of missing caveats here since if your statement is taken literally, then you are not allowed to take a picture from the sidewalk of me standing in my front yard which is on my private property. It would also make a lot of the Google StreetView a crime.

...which is why it's a general rule of thumb. And Google Street View would be required to obtain a model release before publishing a photo with you in it, if you can be recognized in that photo. Also, while they could conceivably publish that photo, they could NOT publish a photo of you standing inside your house, because that would be an intrusion on your seclusion.

There's also a new anti-paparazzi law coming onto the books in California, meant to strengthen the one passed a few years ago by including celebrities' children under its umbrella. Whether it passes Constitutional muster remains to be tested in court.

Comment Re:Redundant laws weaken the system (Score 1) 200

Then why don't the paparazzi get convicted when they take long range shots of people on their own property? I see little legal difference between a drone hovering off property and a person climbing a tree or standing on a hill off property. Just look at the number of helicopters around celebrity weddings. What is the difference between a drone and a helicopter except size and placement of a pilot. Those helicopter shots are not illegal; why should similar drone shots be illegal?

One question: are any complaints being filed against the helicopter pilot?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry