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:It has a security hole every week (Score 1) 199

Congratulations. You are technically correct—the best kind of correct.

Let me clarify my original comment slightly. iOS App Store policies explicitly forbid the use of interpreters to run scripts downloaded from the Internet, and always has since the very first version of that document. It is technically possible to build apps that use a Flash interpreter internally to run Flash scripts that are bundled into the app. However, it is not possible to provide a generally functioning Flash Player Plugin on iOS, nor is it possible to provide general-purpose Flash support in a browser on iOS without jailbreaking or requiring users to build the app themselves.

The only apps that "support" Flash actually either A. support flash video only (by not using Flash to do the playback) or B. "support" Flash by running the Flash code on a desktop computer and streaming the video. The former is limited to only certain types of content, and the latter is a horrible bandwidth hog that still isn't 100% functional. No apps are actually running arbitrary, downloaded Flash content on the device.

Comment Re:The gov is just trying to level the field (Score 1) 283

That's what they say, but it's can block data from Google or Facebook. You can't from your ISP.

You're close, but your wording is slightly off in a subtle but critical way. It really has nothing to do with blocking Facebook. You choose what information to share with Google and Facebook. All of your Internet communication is routed through your ISP, so apart from using things like VPNs to explicitly block their access, they basically own access to all of your traffic.

You can choose to use a different search engine if you don't like Google's privacy policies (*). You are not in any way obligated to post every little detail of your medical history on Facebook for everyone to see. But your ISP sees all unless you explicitly prevent it. That makes it much, much more important to have privacy protection that prevents abuse by an ISP than it is to have similar protections that apply to any arbitrary website.

Now obviously to the extent that Google and Facebook run ad networks, they are more capable of monitoring you than most websites, but still way less than ISPs (*).

(*) Unless, of course, Google is your ISP.

The biggest irony, of course, is that staunch advocates of government surveillance just passed a law that pretty much guarantees everybody who hasn't moved to HTTPS will do so, and even had my aging parents asking about personal VPNs. Talk about the government shooting itself in the foot... but I digress.

Comment Re: Internet Rape (Score 1) 507

Whatever you think, Trump is either the cure or the symptom. He is not the disease, and he is not part of the problem.

What? Of course he is. He is not the whole disease, but he is part of the disease. Think of THE PROBLEM (greed) like HIV. It attacks the immune system and makes you susceptible to other illnesses (Clinton, Trump, etc.)

Trump is a hypocrite. What more do you really need to know?

Comment Re:It has a security hole every week (Score 1) 199

There has never been any version of Flash available for iOS, bundled or otherwise, because Apple doesn't allow any third-party interpreters on the iOS platform. (Maybe you're thinking of when they stopped shipping it preinstalled with Safari in OS X?)

SJ's refusal to allow it on the iOS platform was the final nail, though you're correct that Adobe's mismanagement caused a low-quality product that mostly built its own coffin.

Comment Re:Flash killed flash. (Score 1) 199

They literally did everything they could do to avoid improving the product. Little surprise that it eventually failed. They frequently spent more time and effort explaining why they couldn't fix something than it would have taken to fix it. Gross mismanagement doesn't even begin to cover it. I'm amazed Adobe is still in business. Then again, IBM....

Comment Re:HUGE number of vulnerabilities in Flash (Score 1) 199

This. At the time that the decision to not support Flash was made, one of the major driving factors behind that decision was its terrible reliability. Flash was responsible for... IIRC, the #1, #2, and #3 most common crashes on Safari on the Mac. Now bear in mind that for all intents and purposes, every single crash of the Flash plugin was a security hole. The terrible quality of Flash led to stricter and stricter sandboxing of the plugins, shifting it into its own process so it couldn't gain root, etc.

On iOS, at the time, Safari ran in a completely unrestricted user account with the equivalent of superuser privileges. The sandbox model was basically either "full access" or "access to the app's data", with nothing in between. It would have required a herculean effort to make Flash behave in a usable manner without it turning the entire operating system into a giant data leak.

And it seems very clear to me, at least from an outside perspective, that the problem is Adobe's management. Adobe has never taken security, stability, reliability, etc. seriously. If they did, their products would be much better than they are. Just take a look at the average Adobe app on OS X, which starts having serious reliability problems within one OS release after the last supported OS version, i.e. Adobe's code is so skanky that as soon as they stop patching it, it breaks. Now I'll grant that their code is considerably more complex than your average app, but the parts that break aren't typically the complex parts. They're menial things like file open dialogs—the sorts of things that should be written once and never touched again.

IMO, the problems with Flash can be readily explained by taking a look at a single bug I filed about Adobe's high-end apps not working on case-sensitive volumes because they linked to frameworks with incorrectly cased pathnames. They hemmed and hawed for years, repeatedly blaming Apple's tools for something that very obviously was caused by a typo in their Xcode project (or whatever build script they used instead of an Xcode project). They looked for every possible excuse to avoid fixing a problem that should have taken no more than a minute to fix (I've fixed the same mistake in my own projects, so I know it really is that simple). And you just know that every single one of those crashes was an equally silly bug that could have been fixed in a minute by an intern. But instead of spending the time to fix them, they kicked the can down the road and focused on adding features and bloat, all of which added even more security holes, ad infinitum. And they continued to do so for a decade until the situation got so bad that they were publicly shamed for it. I'm not entirely convinced they've learned their lesson even now.

Comment Re:Incoming (Score 1) 275

You did in fact say "drones". It was the very first few words of your post - "If you use drones/"

What I said was "drones/robots/self-driving cars or some combination" - clearly indicating any and all. Not "drones" per se.

But even military drones can't cope with all (or even most) weather.

Today's tech is not the end game by any means. So using today's capabilities to make claims about tomorrow's likely circumstance needs to extend the progress curve before it can be taken seriously. IOW, the fact that a military drone can't cope with some weather at this time is in no way an indication that the same type of drone won't be able to in the near future (and the progress being made in LDNLS systems is a very strong indication they probably will.) Same for everything else. What it boils down to: Yes, today there still are lots of delivery jobs. But in a not-too-distant tomorrow, there won't be. Same for many other sectors.

Prepare or be blindsided. It's just that simple.

Comment Re:Well, perhaps you *should* be worried (Score 1) 371

It sounds like you haven't used any actual software development/engineering skills in a long time

Heh heh. Yes, well, I suppose I can see how you might get that impression. However, no. It's just that a lot of the make work is gone, and so I can concentrate on the meat of the problem instead of having to write menu systems, widget systems, threading, etc. Here is an example of the stuff I write. That software is pretty much state of the art for the sector it addresses. It offers some things that nothing else in the market segment does, and it's very high performance. None of the core functionality comes from anywhere but my head. But having said that, there's a shitload of stuff I didn't have to write to make the app work, and I have the source code to all of it too, so generally speaking, nothing is "going away" such that it would get all up in my face.

As for my career, I'm retired. Already made my nest; I do this for fun now.

Comment Interesting (Score 1) 90

Ya have to wonder what this speculative subrosa funding operation would do when presented with a bill for the five billion dollar hit Samsung took with their stupid non-replicable battery, though. "Sure, no problem"?

At that point, assuming remuneration was not forthcoming, might be best to part ways with said public agency.

Comment Re:It's all about the battery (Score 1) 90

We know they want to create disposable phones, because then they get to sell you a new one.

However, this issue shows that this particular reduction in function can cost them billions in immediate costs, plus loss of reputation. If this doesn't change the approach, then we know they're stupid, and some people will make decisions on that basis.

Not that I'm surprised Samsung continues to act stupidly. After all, they can only see 1/4 down the financial road, because they have allowed themselves to be captured by a diseased financial system. Same for everyone else that copies the thin-over-all mindset.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.