Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 147

I didn't predict it would fail, but I didn't predict it would succeed either. In my heart I couldn't think of many bigger wastes of money (maybe spending $1.5M on Trump's election campaign?) but frankly products from Apple I thought couldn't possibly gain traction have ended up leaping off the shelves.

The talk about the Apple Watch felt like the talk about the iPhone - which if you remember, when it finally came out, wasn't programmable, had a 7 hour battery, was stuck on EDGE, and in some ways was inferior to some of the better flip phones (which had apps, and SD cards, and you could Opera Mini on them, and the battery would last for days, etc.)

But it was a success, even in its crappy 1st generation form, and most of us who shrugged at the time feel like we probably shouldn't predict the impending doom of a new Apple product hyped at Daring Fireball, lest we be made to look stupid again.

I still don't see why you'd want a watch that requires you do more than glance at it to tell the time.

Comment Re:Secure the gateways (Score 1) 319

The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.

The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on!") vs ("I see you're on IP, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.

That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 3, Interesting) 350

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 350

Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:


Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.

Comment Re:Basic Scrutiny (Score 1) 894

Your problem is you've fallen for a beloved fallacy of conservative politicians: conflating price with cost.
Cost is defined as price minus return on investment.

You know what NASA, The G.I. Bill, Universal Healthcare and Universal Basic Income all have in common ?
High prices with but NEGATIVE costs.

They are not expense at all. They are profit-generating investments.

Comment Secure the gateways (Score 4, Informative) 319

Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.

You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.

The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.

Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.

My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.

Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.

Comment Re:You are wrong. Elon is right. (Score 1) 269

Erm yes, absolutely. It is inappropriate for media concern to be significantly higher than the risk of an event - that will never change because if that's true the media is contributing to an unsubstantiated panic and panics are a PROVEN risk to public safety (and coincidentally, among the most common and severe public safety events). Mass hysteria kills people, hurts economies badly (which also kills people) and happen frequently.

A few years ago, a private fax from a secretary at the South African weather service to a friend mentioned casually that they were tracking some tornado-like cloud patterns (which is a pretty bad laymans misunderstanding of what her bosses were doing). The friend forwarded the fax on to dozens of people, including the media and it morphed into a massive e-mail, social-media and fax warning campaign that somehow ended up declaring that the weather service were warning people of a tornado expected later that day. Radio and TV were reporting it as an actual warning from the weather service (but somehow, despite being in daily communication with them for weather reports - none of them actually called the service for comment - which would have seen the myth debunked)

Schools were closed, businesses shut down and sent their workers home early. The single worst traffic jam in the history of Johannesburg happened that afternoon. The economy of this poor country is estimated to have lost 7-Billion rand that day as it's most important economic city came to a shutdown. Dozens of people died from heart attacks and other mundane emergencies while the emergency services were unable to get to them through the traffic.

All because of one fax which had a weather service letterhead mentioned the word 'tornado' in a country where those happen less than once in 30 years on average and never with warning.

Oh, by the way, the typical damage and death tolls from actual tornadoes in South Africa is far, far lower than the what was caused by that one day of panic. Media response being hugely out of proportion to the actual incidence of events is massively inappropriate because it kills and starves people.

Comment Re:Slapping time (Score 1) 627

>No, it wouldn't. In Japan the authorities have postponed the MMR by one year after the controversy broke out, and the new cases of autism immediately went down spectacularly. Later the government idiots resumed the original schedule and up it went again.

Correlation does not imply causation. The only fluctuations in autism cases in decades have all been caused by improved diagnostic criteria - there is no reason to believe the number of cases has changed at all. Moving the MMR vaccine later would have one and ONLY one effect. Far fewer people would be diagnosed with autism shortly after their vaccine - but the ONLY reason it would have that effect is that those people are now diagnosed a year before they get the vaccine.

>For the rest you call a lot of things bullshit in screaming and shouting capitals, but fail to supply any reference to any randomly placebo controlled double blind study in an epidemiologically relevant part of the population published in a peer reviewed journal, so I just as well call out bullshit on your claims.
Which of the thousands ot studies that disproved this claim would you like a link to since you are apparently unable to use google to find anything that alters your expectations ?
What does NOT exist is any study that supports your claim.

>As long as such a study has not been published my doubts regarding vaccination are justified and any claims to the contrary are unproven.
No. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is not on vaccine makers to prove it doesn't cause autism, it's on those who claim it does to prove it does. Either way - it's been tested thousands of times and all the studies prove it doesn't.

Comment Re: You are wrong. Elon is right. (Score 1) 269

No. Im just once again informing you that nobody ever claimed awareness influences likelihood. That is not what the sentence "if you see it on the news it will not happen to you" means.
That sentence means the same thing as the one you agreed with. Just more poetically expressed. Your strict literal interpretation is simply false.

Comment Re:Trump 2016! (Score 1) 627

>they are a domestic problem but one unlikely to grow larger with christian immigrants.
[citation needed]

>Muslim terrorism is likjely to increase with muslim immigrants, so they should be discouraged.
[citation needed]

Anyway, even if your unsubstantiated bullshit is true - you haven't dealt with the much bigger issue. The former problem is much more severe - and your proposed solution for the latter (much smaller) problem is provably aggravating the larger problem. That makes it a stupid plan. What makes it even stupider is that your explanation for the former problem - exactly applies to the latter. The Muslims who wish to enter the United states are fleeing oppression by fundamentalists within their own religion, just like your protestant ancestors did - and you would THINK then that those protestants would apply the Golden Rule - the single most important thing that their Jesus ever taught them and do unto others over there. Remembering that they got there after fleeing oppression by another sect of their own religion, should make them WANT to welcome other people doing the same.

Sorry, but this is the most insane idea ever that you are proposing because it fundamentally ignores human nature, both the best and the worst of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

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