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:Why do people care... (Score 1) 88

I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

You seem to be missing the entire point here. It's not about what you think. It's about what the guys at that bar you walk into wearing a camera think. And they're not reading Slashdot.

But they do act predictably. If you go out in a storm with no rain gear, you're going to get soaked. Don't do that. If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well. Don't do that.

How you feel about that is about as important as how you feel about the weather.

Comment Re:Workaround (Score 1) 173

Of course, you lose the security updates if you do that too. Whether that's massively important to you depends on how often you run executables downloaded from the Internet, and what TCP/IP services you run on your computer.

Your security beliefs are about 10 years out of date, unless you consider JS to be an "executable downloaded from the Internet". Almost all malware targeted at home computers is "no click required": mostly malicious JS, but occasionally PDF, or even jpg (remember what that was a joke?), served via ad networks.

So "whether that's massively important to you" depends on whether the machine is used to visit any web sites that serve ads, unless you completely disable JS.

no security updates might be the better of two evils, especially if you don't use IE or Edge

Is MS combining OS and browser updates (and Office?) here? Or is it only the OS updates in the cumulative patch? (Pretty sure the browser and Office patches are regularly rolled into cumulative updates already, but independent ones).

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 80

limited participation blockchain is redundant because the trust is already established by the exclusivity of the system.

Imagine that not all of the participants turn out to be honest. Or, imagine this is finance, and 0% of the participants are honest.

Majority-signing works well when the majority are honest, even if a substantial minority are not. It also works well when everyone is dishonest, but very unlikely to collude. This is solving a different problem than Bitcoin tries to solve. This is an implementation of "mutual auditing", not an alternative currency.

The thing that establishes trust on bitcoin is that no one miner can easily own a large portion of the compute power on the system,

Perhaps. I think it's possible the NSA has the compute power to take over bitcoin, After all the NSA had "ASIC miners" for at least 7 years before BTC existed. (You don't think the NSA published SHA-2 before they had ASICs, do you?)

Comment Re:Not a bad guess (Score 1) 153

Human population has expanded tremendously in the last part of those 800,000 years, and all of us consume oxygen.

It's worth remembering that Earth's total biomass is:
* 99.9% Prokaryote bacteria
* 0.1% Other (mostly plankton)

The tiny remainder that's not bacteria or plankton is mostly fish. Humans, sure, are reasonably successful within what's left over, but so are cattle, termites, ants, and krill.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 88

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

)there's no rational basis to be worried about it

Says you. Most people see it differently.

When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

Says you. Most people see it differently.

Comment Re:In other words (Score 2) 80

In other words: They are doing something completely different, but still call it "blockchain" because that's the current buzzword.

A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants. If the participants all trust one another, or trust the system to protect them from the others, it serves its purpose, even if they are in fact pathologically lying shitsacks like financial companies.

I'm dubious of the "editing", but if it's really just new records that say "this record replaces record XYZ", i.e., it's still write-only except by convention, that's fine too.

Reminds be a bit of what "cloud" should have stood for until it became a generic moniker for simple online storage.

Not sure what you mean here. Sure lots of marketeers talk about "stored in the cloud", but most often that does mean "stored with AWS or Azure, behind the scenes". And there's plenty of "cloud computing" too: more and more distributed scientific jobs are moving that way, as well as naturally-distributed work like animation rendering. Heck, it's the new fad for small software companies to build and test jobs in the cloud.

Comment Re: I am? (Score 3, Interesting) 206

So you have no ethical issues pirating content?

I have 0 ethical issues pirating content when the company won't take my money. Give me a (practical) way to pay for that thing I want to watch, either directly or through my Netflix sub, and I do. Companies are (finally) wising up to this, and beginning the fight against the legacy of region-specific distribution deals, culture of delaying release in some formats, and so on.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer