Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:its basically a sun shade that you can see thro (Score 1) 172

All it is is a heat disposal system. A building has heat. I'm sure you understand how you can use an IR camera to "see" a heated structure in total darkness. The heat on the inside is absorbed and emitted towards outside in a spectrum that isn't absorbed by the atmosphere. It's effectively "dumped" into space. (And shielded by a mirror that prevents it from absorbing the infrared coming from the sun.)

Comment Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless? (Score 1) 37

In the sense of them using the associated contract against you, that is true; they can't really force you to agree to it.

But if you're the one taking some legal action against them regarding the code, then the existence of the contract may or may not make a difference, depending on details.

So the point is defense. Actually, defense is what the Department of Defense does, so it should be no surprise.

But note that there is no red tape, just a declaration of claimed facts.

Comment Re:"In the wild" - slight exaggeration (Score 1) 118

Right, it is still just like Linus said about the git sha-1, not really a big deal because it isn't even the security layer.

If developers with write access to your repo are malicious, you have much worse problems. This is not a serious threat, it is just an edge case that the future will prevent.

The real lesson IMO is, if you do roll your own security, use a library for the password hashing. And if the algorithm ends up having been the wrong one, you'll just update the library. If it is on the network, use ssh or similar. Trust is bad, but that doesn't mean trusting yourself. It means to minimize the need for trust whenever possible. If you absolutely have to trust something, trust the normal generic Best Practice. Being able to look that up in the manual with all the noisy info glut might be non-trivial, though.

Comment Re:Here's what it means (Score 1) 118

Or, it means more generally that updates are bad, and true security will only come from removal of code thrash. We have to figure out what features we actually want, and implement them, and then stop changing those features.

As long as everything is thrashing, everything is vulnerable. Protections will be temporary and new bugs will be introduced even into the protections because those too are always experiencing code thrash.

Comment Re:Also in the news (Score 1) 163

"94% of all programs won't run properly without those rights."

This has not been true since Vista.

Vista introduced virtualization for the filesystem and registry. Apps would think they had admin rights, when in fact they were sandboxed and contained.

These days most apps run fine without admin rights. You can install them and run them without any special access. Older apps that attempt to access protected paths like Program Files and the registry actually write to special per-user and per-app hives.

If an app really needs admin rights you get the dreaded UAC prompt.

This is why Vista was so painful. Too many UAC prompts, the virtualization was slow... But it was necessary.

Comment Re:Too good to be true. (Score 2) 172

It doesn't work like that. Radiative heating/cooling works via exchange of IR. You're not just giving it up; everything you're radiating at is proportionally radiating back at you. So you cool the most when you're radiatively exchanging with something that's very cold. Aka, you want to be radiatively exchanging with the cosmic microwave background, not with low-altitude clouds. That's the whole point of radiating at low absorption frequencies in the atmosphere: so that you're exchanging with space, not with atmospheric air.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 512

That distinction is entirely within the realm of people who have resources to allocate to start with. If you don't, you don't get a chance to be either a good investor or a bad investor; you don't get to invest at all, because anything 'allocated' to you must immediately be spent servicing unavoidable debts (like rent or mortgage interest) to others who then get to spend it again on someone who will just have to pay it right back to another capital owner.

Comment Re:You don't own common sense (Score 1) 911

the side that goes along with the overwhelming amount of research (not to mention common sense) that suggests more guns = more gun accidents (and of course, more gun violence.)

Then I'm sure you can cite some of this research? The actual fact is that in recent decades, firearms accidents and murders by firearm have both decreased while the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine; like abortions, if you don't like one, don't have one. But if you're going to talk about an "overwhelming amount of research" about crime, you'd better be able to cite some criminology papers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...