Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Devices? (Score 0) 70

But there is evidence everywhere that you can make them use devices they don't want if the marketplace is lacking any real alternatives. The public has been asking for devices that THEY are the owner of since the beginning. When are they going to realize that smartphones are just computers. I'll use the operating system of my choice and I shouldn't have to hack my own device to be able to do so.

Comment Security industry quiet (Score 0) 133

Why has the security industry never came out and unequivocally stated that locking owners out of their devices, regardless of what that device is, is a security risk? Malware is broadly defined as any software that makes a device act outside of what is allowed by the owner of the device. Whether that is locking an owner out of their own device or limiting where they can use it or making it surreptitiously communicate with people/companies not explicitly allowed by the owner of the device. By all definitions most modern software is now malware. It needs to stop and consumers need backing and education on this.

Comment IT professional here (Score 1) 1144

It really does come down to.... Why??? I don't want technology anywhere near my firearms. I want a gun to be as simple and failsafe as absolutely possible. The people that do this are the problem, not the firearms. Even so, the technology you speak of is meant to prevent someone who knocks a gun out of your hand from being able to pick up the gun and use it. Given a few hours and an instruction manual a gun with this technology can be re-trained to another owner. There is not a single case of these mass shootings where the shooter just took a gun from someone and then committed the crime.

Comment Only time I'll ever root for patent trolls (Score 0) 108

Is when they are giving walled gardens and artificially limited app sources a hard time. I hope anyone that lets Google or Apple limit their device to only where they say it can get apps from gets bit by it too. Buying a device and letting a company limit who you can get software from just so they can enforce that they get a piece of the pie is just ludicrous. Apple or Google don't have the slightest fuck of a say what I do with my own device once I have bought it. Go get 'em troll!

Comment Hell No (Score 1) 257

And my reason is different than most. The hardware builder should not even be in control of the OS at all. So why should I pay them for updates to it? I should be able to run the OS or OS variant of my choice on my hardware. There should be consumer protections that keep hardware builders from tieing you to their pre-installed OS. If the hardware inherently supports changing and updating the OS, then it should be flatly illegal for companies to cripple that feature set to create lock in. That would create competition in the marketplace. It would give you options if a OS bundles crapware or spyware or tracks you in ways you don't like.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 65

Many things are awesome in concept and suck in implementation. Many "update" systems for electronics, which now even includes cars, used to honor the concept of ownership, where the manufacturer listed changelogs and information about the updates and then the owner made the decision to update. Sometimes updates break things by accident, sometimes updates cripple things that used to work on purpose. Sometimes updates bring along unwanted "features". The owner should get to choose and also to control what the thing being updated says and does including when and if the "thing" to be updated communicates anything back to the mothership.

Comment Re:For certain values of "basic needs" (Score 1, Troll) 1116

Myself included. Typical bleeding heart liberal crap. I take a MUCH stronger stance on that. Whether the math works or not is irrelevant. It is purely the principle of it. If an able bodied/able minded person continually makes bad decisions that put their livlihood in jeopardy or worse yet, plain out refuse to work, then they NEED a little hunger incentive. Hunger to better yourself YOURSELF or go hungry.

Comment Re:Another outbreak (Score 2) 127

Yes... it looks like just another implementation (outbreak) of an app store. An app store where "security" means secured against us (the owners of the devices and computers) more than against any bad actors. I hope to be proven wrong, but that is usually where these sandboxed environments end up.

Comment Re:two for T (Score 1) 766

Absolutely not this. I live in NC. I know my own wishes intimately and I've spoken to lots of other people about this. I'm talking about ordinary people, not the policy makers. Most of us in NC honestly had no idea that bathroom privacy issues weren't ALREADY protected with common sense law. Now keep in mind... in this particular strict usage of "common sense", I mean common sense from the point of view of the traditional/historical context. Charlotte forced peoples hands with an over broad ordinance, if Charlotte would have left well enough alone everyone would have been happy and moved on with their life and used the bathroom of their choice with nothing being said. But as written, the Charlotte ordinance gave anyone the ability to choose a sex as they see fit and use the bathroom of their choice with no legal protections if someone abused it. No one targeted legitimate LGBT people. Only the dipshits who would claim "attack helicopter" status on a whim to get thrills. The liberal media has spun this into the shit storm it has become. Basically we didn't know that you weren't ALREADY required to use the bathroom of your birth sex. Everyone used the bathroom of their choice and no one abused it. But by Charlotte trying to remove ANY protection requiring people to use a certain bathroom, they made people stand up and demand some sort of common sense protection against perverts. In THIS use of common sense, I define common sense as what I believe the majority of normal people in NC have reasoned out and that is this: Males in male bathrooms and females in female bathrooms and we really hate that transgender is a grey area, but since someone decided to make a law out of it, and since it is impossible to look into someones brain and tell if they are legitimate transgender or a "woman for the day" just to get thrills, then the law must err on the side of safety and protection.

Comment Re:Yeah, do they remember the past? (Score 1) 83

Ridiculous. I'm talking even whitelist the sites that people should be going to as part of their work day and nothing else. Not opening 80 and 443 wide open to everything. That is part and parcel of the problem. I am saying whitelist EVERYTHING. Apps, ports, sites, everything. It works. It works for work, but it is not politically sensitive to the executive level because they are too good for that.

Comment Re:Yeah, do they remember the past? (Score 1) 83

I see the single biggest threat to security is that decision makers in companies feel they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and should never have to ask for anything. I work in security. Security is only made difficult by the fact that security people are forced to make security utterly transparent to the "entitled ones". Whitelist based security in layers is exceedingly easy to keep secure. When you configure layered systems so that only truly needed things work and everything else fails by default you protect yourself from almost all known vulnerabilities and even purposeful backdoors in any one layer. But Fuck no, executive level thinks its an attack on their manhood if they have to request something to be whitelisted because it isn't a documented and approved use of a system.

Comment Untrusted certs (Score 4, Insightful) 67

I'm not sure he is talking about what I think he is talking about with untrusted certs. Self signed certs are MORE secure as long as the party at both ends understands the process. You simply cannot have a true secret when there is a 3rd party. Certificate authorities are only there to make the process acceptably easy for those who don't know what is going on.

Comment Re:Illegal phone running (Score 1) 140

It is actually more (and older) than that. It is a war over who owns the device. This is a continuance of the war over who controls the operating system of the devices. Even in the current state, they can ship me the device in whatever state THEY want it in (they being either the gub'ment or the carrier or the device manufacturer) but the shit is still mine. Stop trying to control what I put on my own fucking devices. This is absolutely the wrong battle that is being fought. Separate the damn code from hardware in law and be done with it.

Comment Users? (Score 2) 539

Where are the users when adblockers and advertisers duke it out? The adblockers only exist because we have a fundamental right to receive at our computers exactly what we ask for exactly where we ask for it from. I don't trust who CNN, slashdot or any company decides to trust to supply them with ads. I don't want content being pushed to my system from any server except the exact one I chose to receive info from. I reserve the right to use any program of my choice to make it so, whether it is "in-browser" adblockers, hostname blocking, blocking at the firewall, whitelists etc. Get over yourself advertisers, not a damn thing changed when we went from newspapers to web. You buy advertising at your own risk that people won't look at it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_