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


Forgot your password?
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:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 114

But who pays who what?

That's for businesses to work out amongst themselves.

If the internet goes out to whoever pays the most baksheesh, and therefore gets the most bandwidth, what if the rest of us are left with precious little?

You set the X% I referred to high enough to provide adequate service to the lowest tier customers.

Frankly a lot of the attention focusing on ISPs is misplaced. The real monopolization happens at the CDN level. No amount of bandwidth is going to make your TCP sessions run fast nationwide if all your servers are in California, that's just a fundamental fact of physics (speed of light.) Extending net neutrality rules to require private server farms to offer of fund common carriage CDN capacity is probably not going to happen under this FCC.

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 114

As a liberal who knows a thing or two about the guts of ISPs I had many arguments about the wisdom of many "Net Neutrality" proposals with my friends. Some of the requirements people wanted amounted to being expected to fill out your tax forms while riding a unicycle along a tight rope.

Of course we don't want low-end users conned into using ISPs that dictate who gets to "be on the Internet." But we also want ISPs to be able to keep the Internet usable even if the latest P2P sharing fad software is written in a way that threatens to pretty much destroy it. Of course we want a "public Internet" but we also will raise holy hell if Company X gets to use the public facility for free and uses more than anyone else to the point where service degrades.

The rational solution to this mess is to require companies to provide X% of public service alongside their buildouts for private endeavors, thus creating a safe harbor which avoids an accounting nightmare, while allowing businesses to do business, and to have a publicly funded watchdog surveil that that bandwidth is publicly available from the outside.

Comment Re:Are two hashes better than one? (Score 1) 138

It really doesn't matter for the most important use case, because X.509 does not have a way to use more than one hash in a certificate.

And there's a patent for that (US7793097, US20080270788), so unless the owners decide to be benevolent, there's a roadblock to actually implementing it.

Comment Re:They get you off your ass (Score 1) 93

implying increased general physical activity might be harmful flys in the face of logic

It flies in the face of American puritan mores, for sure, but not in the face of logic.

Given some of the recent research questioning whether the point of diminishing returns for general physical activity is lower than generally thought, and pointing out that not all types of physical activity is actually beneficial (housework apparently doesn't help much at all), and the known negative effects of a life of "hard work" it is reasonable to staunch your knee-jerk prejudices and look at evidence rationally... though we have precious little evidence compared to the amount that is assessable.

There's no question that there is substantial evidence that some people can benefit from more exercise. Most people just assume that means everyone can. Fitbit gadgeteers are only being marginally more responsible than idiots who make fatty jokes on social media... at least there is (I hope) fine print somewhere in the product literature saying to consult your doctor before forcing large changes in your physical activity levels.

Comment Re:They get you off your ass (Score 1) 93

isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

Answering questions like that is why we need scientific study. The answer could quite well vary greatly depending on the individual.

Also answering whether having an app tell you to get off your ass actually does get you off your ass will vary greatly. Personally I'm so contrarian I go out for a cigarette every time I see an anti-smoking TV ads. Except for the tiny guy in the wife-beater. That one's actually funny and somewhat true.

Comment Re:Leave it to the scientists.... (Score 0) 93

No app is going to force me to do something I'm not capable of just because it says on the screen that I should.

If your liver is not working right, and an app advises you to eat certain amounts of certain foods, you won't know you were not capable of eating those foods until your doctor is telling you you have only 4 days to live unless you luck into a liver transplant.

You're right though, the claim "I'm sure they are doing harm" would require some evidence.

Comment Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil (Score 2) 93

Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them. Science does not fit well into a devops release schedule.

I don't know whether to view this as the inevitable creep of snake oil into every market orifice, or tech giving snake oil a shot in the arm by virtue of people thinking "well, it took smart tech people to make this sniny modern 'app' so it must have the blessing of smart people."

Comment Re:Conflict between up to date and not rooted (Score 2) 43

I couldn't find a public "check my phone" link, or I'd've tried it.

I believe that would be because your phone is not enrolled in an MDM manager.

From the article: "Stethoscope is a web application that collects information for a given user's devices"

This implies it is a web app that, by itself, checks your device and maybe even enumerates/discovers
your devices. That would make it a scary security hole rather than a security tool since web apps really
should not be able to access any state of health information on a device (though some is quite leakable these days.)

Fortunately it appears not to be. It seems to be just a way to put a pretty front-end on devices that are using other
installable agents to assess their security. It goes to the backend databases of those agents, assuming you have an
account on them which is available through an SSO system or other authenticator, and pulls information
they have previously collected. Unless you have those backend egents installed and a database set up
for them to report to, this tool isn't for you. Basically it's for the enterprise.

Kudos to them for releasing their internal tools to github, though, I'm sure they will get some valuable
additions from the community.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.