Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 2) 103

That actually does not sound too unreasonable of a process.

Except that it depends on
1: All PCs that open the file being uncompromised.
2: The distribution method for the file being uncompromised.
3: The printer used to create the hard copy being uncompromised.
4: If a network printer, no possibility of sniffing the unencrypted data going to the printer.

Modern printers and copiers are underrated as hacking subjects. There's no limit to what people print out, and they assume that it's a very safe thing to do. Yet if i have access to a modern printer or print server, I can ask for a copy being mailed to me of every printed document. When was the last time the IT department eyeballed the configuration for each printer, looking for anomalies?

Comment Re:Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 3, Insightful) 103

But beyond that, all it has is a history of encrypted strings.

And if they reject the password you used before the last one, it's a strong indication that they either don't salt, or use the same salt over again.

What gets me is the systems that have intricate requirements for the password, like it having to consist of both upper and lower case letters, and at least one digit, but no more than two, and at least one character that's not neither a letter or a digit. Don't those who create those rules know that each rule reduces the amount of valid passwords for a given password length, making the hacker's life much easier? Requiring a password that doesn't fall for a single-pass crack is far superior to a password of the same length with plenty of restrictions.
Requiring an extra letter in the password is a much better way of ensuring strength than deliberately reducing the strength.

Comment Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods (Score 1) 166

Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported. Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly.

Exporting it is capitalism's "solution". If that becomes illegal, what makes you think they will suddenly switch to a nice solution, instead of, say, filling up the areas next to national parks, because the land is cheap, or other not-so-nice solutions that are the lowest possible expense?

Anything that's important to other than the capitalist is a decision that should not be made by the capitalist.

Comment Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score 1) 287

The answer is that he thought he could bring humans to Mars, and now faces the reality that he won't, so he's changing the name.
Note that the new name does neither promise Mars or beyond, nor does it imply humans. It allows for limiting the scope, while spinning it as progress. And people buy it, because it's Howard Hughes, I mean Elon Musk!

Comment Re:And thus the Internet of Things collapses (Score 1) 211

Internet connected TV? No.
Internet connected vibrator? No.
Internet connected automobile? No.
Internet connected heart rate monitor? No.
Internet connected refrigerator? No.

So you have recently bought a non-internet connected vibrator and a non-internet-connected heart rate monitor from a company that doesn't make internet enabled ones? If not, you're not punishing these companies or voting with your wallet by rewarding the competitors.
As for TVs, I don't think you any longer can find a company that doesn't make internet enabled TVs.

Comment Re:Tax (Score 1) 538

Again, the gallup poll doesn't exclude money given to religious goals, which seriously skews the numbers.

And it also very skewed because it asks "last month", which greatly disfavors countries that have a tradition of a tax free month per year when donations usually are given.

And the index also measures aid given directly to someone in need, which greatly disfavors countries with a strong social network. If you don't see people in need because the system works and catches them, giving everybody a dignified life, you're unlikely to find anyone to give anything to directly.

And last, but not least, it excludes money given by the countries. People in these countries have voted to have their governments contribute on their behalf.

Comment Re:Tax (Score 1) 538

Yes, there is a correlation, and it is negative. Republicans donate more than Democrats.

This is only true if you also count RSIs (Religious Self-identified Institutions). If you exclude those, the numbers no longer favor the republicans.

One problem is that religious recipients for the most part spend the money on themselves.

The latest figures I could find was that the average charity in the US spends around 75% on actual charity, and around 25% for administration and other local costs. However, and this is data from a religious organization, religious charities spend less than 25% on actual charity, and use more than 75% for administration and other local costs.

Someone paying tithe to their church, which is mostly used to pay pastors and preachers and pay for church buildings and whatnot does not help others much. But it seriously skews the figures.

But if you don't believe me, look at the pro capita spending for different countries. There is a direct and strong correlation between the spending pro capita and the ratio of self-identified godless to the overall population. Countries like the Scandinavian countries give the most per person - far more than the US god-botherers give even if counting religious contributions - and also have the lowest ratio of religious citizens.

Comment Re:Tax (Score 0, Troll) 538

Plus, religious people are just a lot more likely to give to charities of all sorts.

I highly doubt that.
From what I can see, there's a correlation between being religious and being conservative, and also a correlation between being progressive and donating. Which combined would make me believe that atheists donate more than religious people.
That makes logical sense too - an atheist can't get away with praying for people.

Comment Re:Shouldn't customers get 40% of their money back (Score 1) 120

yes, you'll get your money back. I traded my wife's note7 for an s7 edge and it just changed the payment.

Then you're still under contract with the phone company. The question was whether Samsung would pay off your contract, so you can be back to where you were before.

Comment Re:Shouldn't customers get 40% of their money back (Score 2) 120

They're offering customers 100% of their money back, the trouble is getting people to actually return the recalled phones.

How does that work if you "bought' the phone as part of a several year long contract? Will Samsung buy out your contract?

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_