Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:I dont get it (Score 4, Informative) 97

Roku and Apple send Facebook, and anyone else that cares the pay, the information on what you are streaming, along with your IP and whatever else they care to send. Facebook then uses that information to send an ad to you.

Exactly wrong. It's not the device-side that's selling out your privacy at all.

  • --User points his media player (e.g. Roku) at some streaming service (e.g. A&E). As a result, A&E knows the IP address that is requesting streaming video.
  • --Streaming service shares data with some other party (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) using this IP as an identifier
  • --Other party correlates those IPs with the IPs making requests against its services and makes decisions (e.g. ads) based on that.

It is a fundamental part of the design of the internet (as it exists today) that two different service providers can cross-correlate requests based on a semi-stable* identifier (IP) if they chose to share data. There's literally nothing the client application can do to remedy this, it's in the network-layer. You can try to fix this at the network layer with some multi-VPN setup (not just a VPN, one that assigns a different external IP to each outgoing request) but that's sort of not how the internet was designed to work. The internet was designed to be sort-of pseudonymous, but it was not designed with true anonymity (in the sense of having no identifiers) in mind.

If you want a meatspace analogy, this is like two different dead-tree newspapers comparing their subscribers for home addresses. You want the newspapers to end up on your driveway in the morning, so you either have to give them your home address or use a different PO Box for each newspaper (which seems expensive).

[*] Yes, IPs are not really stable identifiers. But within the timespan of a few hours/days, it's good enough to get a few extra ad views. In other words, the downside of using a stale/incorrect identifier here (multiple parties on the same IP, router rebooted and got a new DHCP) is pretty low -- they show an irrelevant ad to those folks.

Comment Re:Rule the waves? (Score 2) 432

Brexit prevents most EU military cooperation so this supply failure seriously weakens British power.

Spot on for the rest of the comment, but I think NATO is still alive and well (OK, maybe Trump something, for now I haven't the foggiest what he'll do with NATO and I'm betting he doesn't either) and is the primary conduit for military cooperation amongst the European states.

In any event, Brexit,Natexit or otherwise, EADS isn't going to be split apart.

Comment Re:Rule the waves? (Score 4, Interesting) 432

y thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well

Where is this stockpile going to come from if you don't develop, test, build and train with it in advance?

And how is the budget going to help when you've got a lead time in years to get something through the pipeline? I know PHBs are fond of the idea they can have 9 women make a baby in a month by throwing money at her, but that's just not how it works.

Comment Re:If you can touch it, you can own it (Score 1) 89

"If you can touch it, you can own it"

Which is of course not true if "own it" means "access data encrypted with a strong key and a non-trivial-to-brute-force password".

And of course this vulnerability gives you root access in the initramfs, but no access to any of the LUKS protected drives. At best, it's an easier way to perform an Evil Maid Attack, but we already knew that about whole disk encryption.

So really this is just about making it much more convenient to perform an attack that we already knew was feasible (feasible here means not something that can be protected against cryptographically). In the final analysis, only a fully trusted boot path (in some flavor or another) will actually solve that problem.

Comment Re:Not exactly a high bar to clear (Score 3, Insightful) 170

It's not about modern hardware, it's about hardware with a particular TDP. The engineering choices around the design and the weight/thermal/battery performance gave a certain wattage to be divvied up amongst the components. Maybe you don't like the particular tradeoffs they made, but that's not "bad design".

Those other laptops running Nvidia 10-series chipsets made different tradeoffs. Some are heavier (I saw some on Newegg for 5.5lbs, the MBP is 4.5lbs), some consume battery quicker or take longer to charge. They just picked different points along the power/performance/thermal tradeoff space.

You might as well say a sedan is not a good design because the transmission and tires cannot handle the torque from a sports car engine. Sure you could upgrade the transmission and the tires and the engine, but then you're just asking for a different car entirely.

Comment Unknown who would have won in a Popular Vote race (Score 1) 1081

I understand that Hilary (& Gore) got more votes in the existing contest. But that was in a contest where it was decided in advance that there was a different method of deciding the winner, which in turn informed the campaigns' strategies. In the counterfactual case that it was known well in advance that the contest was going to be decided by popular vote, the campaigns would have adopted different strategies and the outcome of the PV might well have been different. Would Hilary have won that one too? Maybe! Could Trump have won? Maybe!

You can speculate about those maybes and even make an attempt to quantify them. Fundamentally though, it's fundamentally a wrong to state that because Hilary won the PV in an EC race that she would have won the PV in a PV race.

Comment Re:Where have I heard that before (Score 1) 609

Let's keep in mind that leave was 52% to 48%. Although it is an outcome to leave by the measure of democracy, it's hardly a decisive result.

USian here, but 52/48 is a decisive victory in our Presidential elections (the only really national poll we have). We haven't seen a higher margin since 1984 when Reagan walloped Mondale 58-42 and Madonna released her debut studio album.

Comment Re:Verge of being cost effective (Score 2) 231

"Tentative Conclusion: The battery is right on the verge of being cost effective to buy across most of the US for day/night arbitrage. And itâ(TM)s even more valuable if outages come at a high economic cost."

Except that as the prevalence of storage becomes higher, the day/night arbitrage gets lower and so the cost effectiveness of storage goes down.

California has already hit this for solar, the peak load on the system is now right after dark when the solar cuts out and people get home and turn on their gadgets. People that bought panels and computed the lifetime cost curve based on the old peak plans are now never going to recoup their investment.

Comment Re:DoS (Score 1) 351

without just rate-limiting (which rate-limits your other genuine clients)

What's wrong with rate-limiting my genuine clients for values of "rate" that are not realistic use cases? For instance, if I were DYN and I said "clients (by IP) making more than 100 DNS requests per second are sent to the back of the queue to be processed after requests from other clients", what harm would be caused? If my DNS is not overloaded, it doesn't matter since all requests are processed (e.g. I drain my input queue, so being at the back of the line is not a big deal). If my DNS is overloaded, the clients most responsible for the overloading are de-prioritized and some of their requests are dropped (my input queue is not draining faster than it's being filled, I have to drop requests).

Comment Re:And yet (Score 1) 412

Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information. Hackers, Private Investigators, whatever.

It does boil down to this: If you're going intelligently elect a leader, you need to know all there is to know about them. There can be no secrets.

Except the first and second sentences have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Hackers with an agenda aren't "telling you all you need to know", they are curating the information according to their own motives.

By allowing ourselves to be drawn to these revelations (no fault there, it's irresistible) we are allowing those agents to feed us the information they want us to know, timed to have the maximum impact on the views they are trying to shape. It's just another weapon the powerful use, mostly against each other.

Comment Re:Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 1) 204

In case you do not know the scam, you go buy low value gift cards and empty them. You then imprint them with the card data from stolen gift cards of the same brand. The scratch off pin is supposed to help prevent this but does not. The stolen numbers may come from skimmers or data breaches. Now you can spend the stolen numbers.

In case you don't know the scam, retailers have known for ages that mag-stripe is easily copiable, can be skimmed at the reader and that there exist much stronger chip system (not even chip+pin or chip+signature!) cards that are a few  more. They've known for ages that their backend systems are vulnerable to all manner of exploits. But instead of securing their own systems and process, they foist the cost on the rest of society to enforce the law.

Not that the law shouldn't be enforced or that the scammers are blameless. I don't condone them and I'm fairly law-and-order (by internal liberal standards anyway), but when a victim has the historical data of fraud and the means to prevent it, well, blaming the victim a bit for their negligence seems reasonable. Especially when it's costing us a ton of money.

Comment Re:Good luck (Score 1) 357

And they have the right to build a pipe line through Native American land....think again Potsy.
Reply to This

You mean Dakota Energy land or the river that's run by the Army Core of Engineers?

Or the latest claim that since there are Native Americans buried under some of it, it's all subject to their whim and not that of the democratically elected government?

Slashdot Top Deals

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison