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


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:Anti-Trust (Score 1) 205

How does that analogy make me "incorrect for the most part"?

True or false:

(1) Google/Chrome have pushed new protocols as replacements for established standards (e.g., SPDY to replace HTTP).

(2) Google/Chrome frequently implement bleeding edge "standards" in ways that don't work in many/any other browsers/engines (e.g., numerous posts on sites like Codrops illustrating new effects that actually only work in Chrome because they rely on non-standard features).

(3) Google/Chrome have dropped support for older functionality, only to replace it with new tools to do the same things (e.g., basically any popular plugin now).

(4) Google/Chrome produce a browser that in principle supports lots of new CSS features but in practice has numerous rendering bugs if you deviate from the most basic use cases (e.g., radial gradients that are mostly unusable due to banding/pixellation issues).

  1. SPDY was implemented in firefox as well and became the basis of HTTP2, which most web browsers support. True, but they pushed a new open standard that didn't lock you in
  2. -ie-, -o-, -webkit-, and -moz- are all not supposed to be used, but because they are there, and because we have css preprocessors, many of them are used. The problem is that not only do people use -webkit- css extensions they sometimes don't bother with anything but the -webkit- extension. (which will be a problem when google drops support of the -webkit- extension they were using because it is officially unsupported beta functionality.True, but it is currently the standard practice of all browsers, and there is a movement to kill this off
  3. Flash and java applets were/are .... Well, let's just say I'm happy that they are dying.True, thankfully
  4. That's more or less true for all modern browsers. It's one of the reasons frontend developers make so much, and are so hard to find.True, But, that is the same for all browsers.

Comment Re:Backported to 2.6? (Score 1) 90

Compiling your own more modern kernel is an option for almost every system. (You might need to install a more recent gcc, depending on the age of the distro)

For many distros, once you find the documentation of their prefered way to package and install the kernel, it is almost trivial to build a new kernel.

Comment Re: Pro Bono? (Score 2) 90

That sounds about right. Contesting a mortgage in court one would expect to cost about $100,000 or so, if it is a fairly straightforward breach of truth in lending laws. That's why there are so many self represented litigants. Laws are only for people who can afford a six figure unexpected expense. Most Americans can't even afford a $600 unexpected expense

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

In finding no Fourth
Amendment violation, the Western District of Washington noted that "in order for [] prospective
user[s] to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to
unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward
their destinations." Id. at *2. The Western District of Washington noted that under "such a
system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete

Sounds like it makes sense to me

Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice
Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not
violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who
exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the
area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth
Case 4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK Document 90 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 58 PageID# 1134
Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other
circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken
system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the
risk associated with doing so

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

Comment Re:The message is clear: (Score 1) 309

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

Even though the warrant authorized the FBI to deploy the NIT as soon as a user logged
into Playpen, SA Alfin testified that the Government did not deploy the NIT against Mr. Matish
in this particular case until after someone with the username of "Broden" logged into Playpen,
arrived at the index site, went to the bestiality section - which advertised prepubescent children
engaged in sexual activities with animals - and clicked on the post titled "Girl 11YO, with dog."
In other words, the agents took the extra precaution of not deploying the NIT until the user first
logged into Playpen and second entered into a section of Playpen which actually displayed child
pornography. At this point, testified SA Alfin, the user apparently downloaded child
pornography as well as the NIT to his computer. Thus, the FBI deployed the NIT in a much
narrower fashion than what the warrant authorized.

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

Comment Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score 1) 309

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

To any sane person, if they need a warrant to come through your door to seize the data, they need a warrant to seize the data over the wire.

Let's examine that, let's see

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

Oh, they did have a warrant.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 1) 99

Some of this article is outright wrong. Specifically, that Type 1 Diabetics over-produce glucagon. http://www.diabetesselfmanagem... Also, a common factor in T2D individuals is that their muscles are starting to store fat. Your link fails to account for any of that. Now, as for how it's wrong about T1D (I should know, I am one):

Glucagon is prescribed as an emergency injection for hypoglycemia. If the body of a T1D would be consistently putting out glucagon, then glucagon would be worthless as an emergency injection of it.

Now, that said, T1D react differently when insulin levels are low (which since they are not making any/enough of their own, means not injecting any/enough.) As a result of low insulin, the body stops being able to use the glucose that is available. The body cannot recognize a difference between too little insulin, and too little glucose. As a result, the body starts starving, even though the body is full of glucose. As a result the body starts responding as would any starving person: upregulation of glucagon to have the liver produce more glucose, to meet the body's needs.

But remember, the body already has plenty of glucose, just no insulin to make use of it. So thus, the liver just keeps dumping more and more glucose into the system, which isn't being used, and it builds up. At the same time, it's making ketones for other fuel. As the glucose and ketone levels rise, it starts to make the body acidic, which is buffered by bicarb, until the bicarb stores are depleted, and then the body starts going in to acidosis.

There are some T1D who regulate their glucose levels with a ketogenic diet. After the glycogen levels in the liver are depleted, it can't raise the BG in response to starvation, which leads to an easier to manage BG level. However, for these individuals, glucagon injections will not help them with a hypo. But since their body normally has largely switched over to ketone metabolism, they're unlikely to experience hypos anyways.

Comment Re: Of course (Score 1) 99

Well, really anything that breaks the cycle works great. But yeah, keto is a good choice because it specifically reduces carb intake, which leaves the liver as the only source of glucose in the body.

This definitely can rest the insulin response and help reset it.

Comment Re:Wink Wink (Score 3, Informative) 36

Eh... this is more of a “we look forward to F/OSS developers developing ways of ensuring region coding matches the installing firmware.”

They're not really locking anything, they're just adding a region-locking value that must match before the image is flashed. Honestly, you could just work around this by providing the same image with all the different region-codes.

But I think they're hoping that the F/OSS community will develop a way of ensuring that specific region-codes get a specific firmware that ensures it complies with the RF transmission regulations of that region.

Comment Re:require markings for region locking (Score 1) 36

One should be aware that different countries have different regulations. Often those regulations concern RF transmitters and the like.

Unless someone or something tells you that your RF transmitting device will work in a foreign country, you should presume that it either a) won't. or b) would be against their regulations.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 4, Interesting) 99

As I noted on the FB page, Type 2 Diabetes tends to be caused by a feedback loop of insulin insensitivity increasing insulin secretion causing increased insensitivity.

Just a little nudge out of that feedback loop can do incredible amounts of good. All you have to do is just break that cycle, and you can potentially walk away from having to constantly worry about your blood sugar. (But of course, much like weight loss, T2D requires a lifestyle change to keep away. It's not a 'take this pill, you're cured!' it's more of a 'pay more attention to your diet regardless, and eat better for the rest of your life.' ... which as the argument I've seen goes, it's a question of which is better or worse.

This reminds me that a T1D can get a pancreas implant, and then no/reduced need of insulin for years... but then you have to take antirejection drugs and all the wonderful side effects of transplants... so which is worse, the cure or the chronic pedantic busy work being your own pancreas...

Slashdot Top Deals

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_