Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:migration paths per distribution (Score 1) 76

4.8 is a large step, however ive compiled a list of migrations for major distributions

Ubuntu: apt-get install...wait...apt-cache update && apt-....isnt there a widget? ignore the update its probably already happened or systemd already did it...

There is a widget for this. It's called Software Updater and it's found in System Tools in the menu. If you want to upgrade to a newer distribution version (eg: from 16.04 to 16.10) you need to select the appropriate option in Software & Updates.

Comment Re:Halfway There (Score 1) 417

It's not "gun controllers bringing it up", it's manufacturers working on them. What do you have against manufacturers developing new products?

I have absolutely nothing against manufacturers developing new gun safety products and offering them on the market. The concern with these "smart" guns is that they'll be mandated by law. This has already happened in New Jersey. The 2002 Childproof Handgun Law says that three years after "smart" guns are available for sale in the US, all guns for sale in New Jersey must be "smart". The law doesn't require that the guns be in any way reliable or have obtained any significant market share, just that they've been available for sale. So if these actually make it to market people in NJ who want reliable guns are screwed. And if any other states, or Congress, passes a similar law, then all of us are screwed.

Actually, I'd have no problem with smart guns if they were really reliable. And there's a really simple reliability screening test we can use: offer them to military and law enforcement personnel. Cops in particular should see a lot of value in smart guns because cops occasionally get shot with their own guns. However, they also need their guns to be extremely reliable, and big departments and the FBI have the institutional resources and motivation to seriously test them. So, once the technology reaches a level where police are not only willing to use smart guns but actively want them then it's fine to mandate them for civilians.

Of course, thanks to the NJ law, civilians are going to fight like hell to keep these things off the shelves, which means that the years of refinement needed to make them reliable is never going to happen. Not in the US, anyway.

Comment Re:VeraCrypt designer is an authoritarian idiot (Score 2) 71

VeraCrypt forces long iteration on shorter passphrases (>70 sec on my laptop, i.e. unusable), regardless of how secure that passphrase actually is. There is no way to switch this off. No response on a complaint. This and some other things lead me to not trust this person. I am back to the last TrueCrypt version that does not have this brain-dead and insulting limitation.

I agree with you completely, and it's the reason I'm still using TrueCrypt.

Secure high-entropy passwords aside, what the people responding to you don't get it is that the user should be allowed to have a more convenient, but more less secure encryption solution if he chooses. I have a short, low entropy password. I could write software that would crack it and it would complete the work in a day or two. I **know** that, and I don't care. I'm not protecting state secrets with it. I'm not worried the NSA will get hold of it. I just want the random person who finds my lost USB flash drive to not have immediate access to the data. Most people wouldn't care to crack it, from those that would most wouldn't know how to go about it. In the statistically unlikely case whoever finds it both wants to crack it and is able to, the data they'll find will be disappointing to them and not a big deal to me. Some of the things I encrypt are more for privacy than security.

Basically, any decent criminal can lock-pick my front door. I still lock it, and it protects against the opportunist criminal. That's the level of security I want, and it makes no sense to tell me I can't have it. They could just pop a big red and flashing warning when I first create the volume that says, "based on the password and number of iterations you've chosen the average desktop computer would be able to crack your encrypted volume in 32 hours. Are you sure you don't want to choose a more complex password?" At that point, they've done their due diligence.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 1) 420

Exactly. Unless you have my name on your warrant and have a reasonable suspicion backing that warrant, you can do a cursory safety check and then go fuck yourself. I'm not doing anything wrong and I live in a country where I don't have to prove that. And for what it's worth, every police officer I've counted as a friend hates this kind of fascist crap.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 342

With vastly more decentralized installations, you have far greater risks around electrocutions, falls (primarily for wind and rooftop solar, e.g. falling off the roof), and let's not forget those poor bastards trapped atop a partially assembled wind turbine that caught fire. One of them jumped to his death and the other burned alive. It isn't a huge number of deaths, but nuclear just produces so much power and has so few deaths associated with it throughout its history that the comparison is hugely favorable.

Comment Re:Cheap? (Score 1) 342

Government policy. Seriously, that's the reason. In fact, we've built one (EBR-II in Idaho) and it worked great for 30 years. Then we shut it down.

France reprocesses its high-level waste without any issue. As a result, they have vastly less waste to store and what's left to store is mostly low-energy garbage that doesn't present a significant threat.

Comment Re: Budget and Timelines (Score 1) 342

Any reactor with a negative void coefficient is safe, barring a major compromise from the outside (such as an earthquake and tsunami). And Fukushima's problem wasn't that the reactor was old or unsafe, it's that a known design flaw published by the manufacturer decades ago wasn't corrected at that particular plant per manufacturer guidelines. They simply decided it wasn't worth the cost and their regulatory agency allowed them to run with it.

And even with all that - a decades old design with a decades old known flaw left uncorrected, an earthquake, a tsunami, incompetence bordering on negligence on the part of the operator and the regulator - how many deaths as a result? There's a reason why nuclear ranks far better in safety for human life than all other types of electrical power generation (yes, including wind and solar).

Comment Re:Account Recovery (Score 2) 105

Google no longer supports non-security questions for account recovery.

FTFY. Security questions are a joke. The answers are almost always easy for an attacker with a little bit of information about you to find, and a lot of the time the legitimate user can't remember them. Moreover, those two traits are strongly correlated: the harder it is for an attacker to find the answers, the more likely it is that the user won't be able to find them either.

Everyone should stop using them.

Comment Re:Reason (Score 1) 105

Google doesn't actually want your phone number for security. Google wants your phone number so that they can link the account in their database to other information that contains your phone number.

The number is to make account recovery possible in the event you've forgotten your password. The assumption is that attackers won't have access to your phone. That assumption is violated if your telco will transfer your number to the attacker's phone, of course.

If you prefer not to give your phone number to Google, don't. Just turn on two-factor auth using a non phone number-based auth method, either the Authenticator app or (better yet) a security key, or both. Then download and print out some backup 2FA codes and keep them somewhere safe. Google won't have your phone number and you won't be vulnerable to mistakes by dumb telco customer service reps.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 5, Informative) 342

Someone on Reddit already ran these numbers. For the money spent on this nuclear plant after it was stopped/restarted/held up by red tape/hit by NIMBY BS/etc, you could build enough solar to power 274,000 homes; a fraction of what the nuclear option provided. You also have to consider how much area that much solar or wind would cover and the impacts to the local environment and wildlife. Finally, there's the death toll. Both solar and wind power - per kWH generated - cause more human deaths than nuclear power. And I don't believe any of this considers actual power generation vs nameplate generation. That solar plant is going to generate roughly 30% of what it's slated peak output suggests due to weather, night time, etc. In the US, we run our nuclear power plants at about ~93% with the remaining time lost to maintenance, refueling, etc.

In other words, your "renewables" cost several times as much even with all the red tape thrown in nuclear's path, they generate far less power, they kill more humans, have a much greater environmental impact, and basically just fucking suck in every comparison. When we're talking about solar, the panel construction requires all kinds of horrifically toxic stuff to be put together. Both wind and solar require huge amounts of batteries; also a toxic mess. Reprocessing nuclear fuel cuts the waste down to almost nothing. A family of four that has their entire lives powered from birth to death by nuclear will be responsible for nuclear waste that fits in a Coke can. And once you're reusing the high-energy waste products, almost everything that's left is so low-energy it poses no significant risk.

Comment Block It (Score 3, Informative) 60

The Feds should block this one if it ever comes close to being attempted. We have an absolute dearth of competition as it stands now. I looked at moving from Time Warner for my internet and found AT&T is the only option in my area. TW is okay, but overpriced and I have never heard a good thing about AT&T. Allow the two to combine and I get the worst of both worlds.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.