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


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

Comment Re:It crashed (Score 1) 36

Even though we say that projectiles land, I think that when we use the word "land" for any controlled craft, we mean that it alighted and came to rest in a controlled manner - otherwise we tend to use the word "crash".

Using "landing" for a deliberate crash seems somewhat wrong to my language ear, much like saying a car parked in a brick wall, or a boat beached at the sea bottom.

Comment Re:Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 1) 116

I don't think that it is quite that simple. Requiring use of all possible characters (up/low/digits/symbols) does ensure that the search space is the largest possible, at the cost (as you point out) of giving the attacker extra knowledge of the parameters of that space - but for most cases, this results in increased difficulty for the attacker.

That depends on what the attacker is after. If finding the first password as quickly as possible, a dictionary attack against a list with no restrictions is the way to go. But more often these days, the attacker wants either one particular account, or all accounts. For one particular account, a dictionary attack is over and done with in seconds, after which it's back to brute forcing. For all accounts, you can do the same, but the yield is lower - getting a few percent of passwords early is not as time saving as making the search space a fraction of what it was.

The way good cracking apps work these days is that there's a generator that generate all possible passwords, using lemma frequency order from existing cracks to determine the order, and filtering out any passwords that fail the criteria for that site. Then the resulting passwords are distributed to multiple crackers.
The start of the brute force list can even be generated ahead of the actual cracking.

The filtering out part is important. It can easily reduce the amount of hashing needed by orders of magnitude(!). A crack that would take years can be done in weeks, because of an IT manager who came up with very complex password rules.

If really complex, it allows for rainbow tables for much longer character lengths than what would otherwise be feasible, and if a hash table has been obtained, that near instantly catches a lot more passwords than dictionary attacks do.

In effect, the IT manager gambles on the hashes never getting out, to gain a small advantage against a type of attack that never occurs these days - brute force against normal logins - for which there are far superior protection methods.
Chances are that he or she doesn't even know the real world effects, and believes that if it frustrates the employees, it will frustrate hackers even more. Not so.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 1) 239

Why shouldn't they get sick?

It's not like our species is about to die out - at least not from diseases. The belief that every life is sacred seems to me to be just so much religious and cultural based delusions - all feelings, no rationality. And the fear of pain is very much cultural (in some cultures, surviving pain and illness has been valued).
Let people get sick. Reward the survivors. As long as fewer succumb than what reproduction can make up for, overall the net effect is that the genes with the least amount of potential for survival and reproduction get culled from the gene pool.

Vaccines are fine, as long as they come with a vasectomy. Let the cowards live, but not breed.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 1) 239

However, you're going to have to provide reasonable arguments if you want to change my mind.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind, except on that "anti-vaxxers" like any other sack classification is going to be diverse, and that people need to attack the actual arguments with counter-arguments - attacking groups as if they were a unified whole with strawman arguments is not helpful to anyone (except for exposing idiots).

I know fully well that my ideas are not going to gain any kind of purchase with today's society. I think people are just too touchy-feely and have too much invested feelings for their own to be willing to entertain the idea of a bigger picture where we let people die, including "our own", for a potential far future benefit. It's not sellable, so I'm not trying to sell it.
All I hope for is that some people open their mind just a little - not enough to accept anything - and that in the far future, long after I'm dead, we'll get a society that's ready and willing to let sentimental baggage go, and look at long term strategies, for better and for worse.
But not now.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 1) 239

My 2-month-old grand-daughter is not yet vaccinated. She will be - her parents believe in it. But she's not yet because we can't/don't vaccinate babies in the womb or immediately upon birth. For various good reasons.

Not entirely true. For some diseases, an infant is protected by her mother's resistance for some time after birth. In some cases, if the mother had the disease, immunity can last for several years. TB, for example - I was still reacting strongly to the vaccine at age 12, because my mother had encapsulated TB when I was born.

Comment Re:Power Outages (Score 1) 163

If you and your wife are giving birth to batteries you may be on the wrong planet. :)

If both you and your wife are giving birth, I think you may be on the wrong planet :p

Anyhow, 8? These days, there are these little latex balloon-like thingies that work pretty well to reduce unintended consequences of intended pleasure. Just sayin...

Comment Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score 1) 163

Looks like it, as from his biography he did a stint in the Israeli army.

He's not what I'd call an author, but an entrepreneur, being the CEO or president of a multitude of companies like EyeBuyDirect, Clearly.ca, Coastal.com and other online sales companies, mostly in the eyewear business.

The Internet

Author Says Going Offline For 24 Hours a Week Has Significantly Improved His Health, Sanity and Happiness (businessinsider.com) 163

You don't need someone to point out to you that you probably spend too many hours on the internet. Maybe it's your job, maybe it's a growing habit, maybe it's both of them. An anonymous reader shared a link on Business Insider, in which an author named Roy Hessel shares what happened after he started to force himself to go offline for 24 hours every week. (He chose the duration between sundown on Friday to sunset on Saturday as the time for disconnect.) From the article:No emails, no calls, no Tweets, no tech, no matter what. For anyone who's struggling with finding time for self and family, I'd like to share what I've learned. For health, sanity, and happiness, I think it can make all the difference. It's not enough to carve out time in your schedule. You need to approach this blackout period with an unwavering belief in its benefit and a commitment to see it through. For me, this means abstaining from work and, in the deepest sense, simply resting. It grounds me and allows me to re-energize and focus on what's really important in my life. The key is to be unapologetic rather than aspirational about unplugging. As soon my family and I get home from our workweek, there's nothing, with the exception of a life and death situation, that would cause me to compromise that time. As far as business and my income is concerned, it can wait.We understand that not everyone wants or afford to go offline for a complete day, but do you also ensure that you are offline for a few hours everyday or every week or every month?

Paul Miller, a reporter at The Verge, went offline in 2012 for a complete year and shared his experience when he got back. You might find it insightful.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 0) 239

arth1 is a eugenicist. He doesn't want to admit it, even to himself, so he'll wrap it it all sort of 'let nature do it' arguments.

Rather the opposite. I see vaccination as done in the Western world as eugenics - as long as it isn't distributed to everyone, regardless of the recipient's economy, geography, race or creed, it's choosing who gets an advantage.
Giving our children an advantage over, say, children in Bangladesh, is eugenics. No ways around it.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 0) 239

If vaccines could convey absolute immunity, this debate would look quite a bit different. But vaccines don't work that way, and therefore herd immunity becomes even more important; it protects both those who cannot get the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine isn't completely effective.

In terms of effectiveness, having had the disease and survived it is, for most diseases, far more effective than vaccination.

Because my mother took me to a measles party, I have been safe from infecting anyone later in life - my immune system's response to measles is very effective. The reaction to the actual disease was much stronger than the reaction to a vaccine.
For childhood diseases like measles, I see it as a risk/reward thing. If we're not willing to take the risk of children having the disease, and a small amount of children dying or becoming sterile as a result, we also don't reap the rewards of (a) stronger immunities and (b) culling the herd of those with health factors that would cause measles to be a lethal problem.

Comment Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score 0) 239

Herd immunity.

What about it?

Scenario 1, mandatory vaccination:
You have a large population, and most of them are vaccinated, except for people who are not vaccinated because:
1 - the health risk of being vaccinated is greater than the health risk of not being vaccinated.

Scenario 2, voluntary vaccination:
You have a large population, and most of them are vaccinated, except for people who are not vaccinated because:
1 - the health risk of being vaccinated is greater than the health risk of not being vaccinated, but would have chosen to get vaccinated.
2 - people who choose not to be vaccinated for other reasons.

In both cases, the people who are at risk are those not vaccinated, and they are only at risk from other unvaccinated people with the disease in an infectious state and visitors from or visits to other areas.

The latter, direct infection from visitors from or visits to other areas, will not change between #1 and #2, so you are left with the number of cases where someone in scenario 2, type 1 is infected by someone in scenario 2, type 2, who caught it through a visit from or visit to other areas.
Precisely because of herd immunity, that number is exceedingly low.

Try to educate yourself even a tiny bit before spewing nonsense.

Alas, this kind of rhetoric is all to typical for the pro-vaccination side. It adds nothing to the discussion, except saying something about yourself.

Comment Re:guess again (Score 1) 239

I'm afraid to say that I'm stunned by the foolishness of this answer.

You shouldn't be. It's an answer that has been filtered through faith. It has to be read in that context.
Looking for truth in an answer filtered through faith is like looking for sugar in water having been filtered through a foot of sand.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.