Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:"More Professional Than Ever" (Score 1) 313

You are aware that you can run Android itself on PC's right ?

Yes of course.

That there is an X86 build which runs just fine on commodity PC hardware ?

Yes but what does that have to do with Chromebooks? The defining characteristic of a Chromebook is that it runs ChromeOS. You can get x86 Chromebooks onto which you could install Windows and say run Solidworks but you wouldn't then go saying "Chromebooks can run Solidworks" because the very thing that differentiates a Chromebook from any other laptop is that it runs ChromeOS.

The line between PC and device isn't as clear-cut as you suggest and that was my point.

I don't think I suggested anything like that.

Comment Re:User friendly (Score 1) 313

But the command prompt is part of the GUI

The command prompt, by definition, is not part of the GUI (Graphical User Interface), it is a Text-based User Interface, you don't even need a GUI for the command prompt to work. In fact when problems cause the GUI to fail to load the interface you use to fix that is the command prompt precisely because it is not part of the graphical user interface. If it were then when the GUI fails there would be no interface and no way to fix it.

Comment Re:You new here, or just completely ignorant? (Score 1) 79

OK, 7-digit ID or not, are you really so new here you think that Slashdot summaries (or even articles) are an always-accurate representation of the world? Out here in the real world, where I've been working in information security longer than you've been on this site

Yes ok your life revolves significantly around this site, I get that but not everybody's does.

The fact that the summary implies direct access is required is stupid, but the fact that you (and, apparently, a significant number of other people) took that implication as fact says much more about you all than it does about the exploit.

I don't think I said or implied "direct access". I quoted "on the machine" which could be remote, it could be by proxy.

Try reading the actual exploit writeup rather than dumbed-down ThreatPost article, and you'll see that no such claim is made.

So the claim I didn't make is also not made by Threatpost, well glad we cleared that up.

Hell, even in the ThreatPost article, it doesn't say (or even imply) anything about physical access.

Neither did I.

You can do this exploit if you get non-elevated arbitrary code execution (via remote compromise, or Trojan download, or anything else of that sort) in the account of a member of the Administrators group. You cannot click "Allow" via non-elevated code execution

If you have already achieved that you don't really need this exploit.

Comment Re:Doesn't break what UAC is intended for. (Score 1) 79

It isn't even an extra layer of security if this isn't fixed, since the attack is a complete bypass.

But if you're doing the attack why go through that process when you could just run your code and click "Allow" on the UAC dialog instead? You need to be admin to do this attack anyway so you already have the privileges to run whatever code you want.

Comment Re:Not quite right, but it's stupid anyhow. (Score 1) 79

Elevation from limited-user access to "root" (Administrators-level access) is definitely a threat.

Of course it is, but if you actually read the article - or even the summary - you will see that that is not what is happening here:

An attacker would already need to be on the machine to use this technique, Nelson said. The attack allows an admin user to execute code

So without this technique the only difference would be that the attacker would have to click 'Allow' in the UAC prompt.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

I have a charger at my house and one at work.

That's great but you need to understand not everybody has that and not everybody is just going to and from work all the time with time to charge in between. But the fact that you do that makes me happy because your life fits into the use case for existing EV car technology and so you have adopted it, that's a good thing. For me it would be about changing my lifestyle to fit that of the vehicle, which is a backwards approach.

As for hydrogen... Most hydrogen generation starts with a fossil fuel.

Yes I know but the bit in your situation that solves the problem I have is entirely dependent on fossil fuels too, outside the range you need to use petrol. When the time comes that the petrol starts to get too expensive for general use I might consider something else but by that time I'm hoping that whatever the solution happens to be it is as convenient as the current one. I need a decent size car (family, dogs) that can tow a trailer of dirtbikes and be somewhat decent offroad, I could buy an EV just for commuting but that negates the whole purpose of both environmental savings and cost savings.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging?' (Score 1) 990

The Tesla Model S90D has a range of 302 miles. That is an up-market car, but when the Tesla Model 3 comes out, it will have a base range of more than 200 miles, and will certainly have options for increased range with a larger battery. The Model 3 is set to cost $35000 base.

Doesn't really replace offroaders though, maybe one day they'll make a viable offroad vehicle with decent range and towing power but I think it's more likely that we'll see a split between those who can get by with electric vehicles and those who switch to fuels like biodiesel and ethanol fuels. I'm not fussed if it costs a bit more and by all means as I said if there comes a decent electric vehicle that suits my needs I'm all for it. But you can't sell me on a solution that doesn't exist.

From a physics point of view, hydrogen is fundamentally inefficient. It is difficult to compress, store, and transport.

This was the same case with batteries once upon a time. If it doesn't work out, no biggy but I'm hopeful.

Try to understand I'm not advocating any solution, electric doesn't solve it for me now but if it does one day then i'm all for it.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Hydrogen power is a dead end.

False, your lack of education doesn't make it a dead end.

Nearly all of it is derived from fossil fuels

But it doesn't have to be, whereas batteries are an envrionmental nightmare to produce and dispose of.

there are too few stations

That's just being a defeatist, there were too few petrol stations once upon a time too.

it is difficult to store and expensive to compress

Yes lots of things are hard, obviously if you're the type that is willing to give up just because a problem is complex you're not going to achieve much.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

If you don't want to be disingenuous then let's not ignore the first car anyone thinks of when they say electric car: The Tesla with a nearly 300 mile range.

Well if you read the thread it was about the Nissan Leaf, not the Tesla. And when people say 'sports car' they think of Lamborghini, that doesn't mean every discussion on sports cars is immediately only in the context of Lamborghini.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

If you go over 100 miles in a day 3-4 times a month, you're in the minority.

Well it's not even necessarily in a day, but I don't always go where there's power. Plenty of people go camping for example. A hybrid might work but there's no decent 4wd hybrids, probably because the gas mileage would be rubbish with a small engine in a heavy car so probably not worth it. In any case whether I'm the minority or not isn't really relevant, if it works for you that's great.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 2) 990

No waiting.

Ok come on now, let's not be disingenuous here. If you want to travel more than 100 miles there is a pretty damn long wait in there.

Yes they have significant advantages and that probably suits a lot of people but let's not pretend it isn't massively inconvenient if you want to go on a roadtrip. For my commute an EV would be great but 3-4 times a month I do want to drive more than 100 miles in a day and there isn't necessarily a charge point where I'm going. Maybe they'll get cheap enough that I can afford one just for my commute but I wonder what the battery lifetime is like, what happens to the range when they start to wear out and how much they are to replace.

In terms of the future I'm holding out hope for hydrogen powered cars rather than plug-in electrics, they come without the dependence on fossil fuels of petrol cars and without the inconveniences of the range limitations and cost of replacing batteries that plugins have.

Slashdot Top Deals

The nation that controls magnetism controls the universe. -- Chester Gould/Dick Tracy