Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:And publishers complain about ad blockers (Score 0) 120

Safe is not a binary yes or no. It's more of a spectrum.

No, it's not. You are safe, or you are compromised. The millisecond you get compromised, you change state hard from one to the other.

There are things that are more or less likely to get you compromised. You apparently confuse that. But there is no confusion. An image has a specific purpose. A scripting language does not. If I allow you to send me an image to display, my intention is clear - I want to see an image. If I allow you to run a script on my machine, my intention is not clear.

GP is correct. Ads need to move back to display-only functionality. All the tracking, malware and other shit is because we have given greedy fuckers too many toys. The horse is out of the stable, we won't get it back in, we will not get any kind of "responsible advertisement". Too late. Static only is the solution. Ad blocking the other. Nothing else will work. Exactly because there is no spectrum. If you give advertisers, who have proven time and time again that they are shady, something that can be exploited, then it will be exploited.

Comment advertisement is evil (Score 4, Interesting) 120

And with that, all the "good advertisers" bullshit is dead. Not just scammy and shady ad networks deliver malware. Advertisement is evil and needs to die, at least the way it is handled right now. The whole thing needs to be made illegal and restarted fresh with a clean slate and the first question should be "what do we, the users, want from advertisement?".

I like product information, for example. I'm a big fan of sites that compare products. These days, there are a thousand mobile phones, or printers, or vacation destinations, or chairs or cars or really anything, and it's not easy to find the one that's perfect for you.
There's also new and interesting stuff coming out all the time, and most of us miss most of it. Something that focusses on these aspects, on the customer desires, that would be wonderful.

Comment Re:open mouth, insert gun... (Score 1) 140

As much as I cringe on the mentioning of VB, bad software is made by bad programmers, not by bad languages. I have seen many, many, MANY pieces of really crappy software in C, C++, Java as well as in PHP, Perl, Prolog and a dozen other languages. Some languages are better than others, no doubt about that. But idiots will manage to write shit in any language, and with any tool. The solution is not to give the idiots better tools, but to not allow the idiots to write software.

Comment No...the answer is 'no' (Score 1) 264

Can We Avoid Government Surveillance By Leaving The Grid?

No. Refusing to send emails, use credit cards, or social media doesn't mean your personal information isn't still in databases.

Take it further and you're crossing into a 'lifestyle' of infosec where staying 'off the grid' will basically consume all the time in your day and becomes your life. Maybe *comparatively* to others a dedicated infosec lifer could say "I am 'off the grid'"...from a functional perspective they are as far as a person can get, but no one is entirely 'off the grid' unless they were born without a birth record...born 'off the grid'

This is waaay older than Prism or Snowden or even the NSA itself, and it is inherent to any situation where information is being mediated by a 3rd party.

It's part of existence in the modern world for large entities to have information about what you do...whether you are a serf in Europe in the 1500s or today.

Comment "asked" (Score 1) 136

When they are asked? Hell no! You do that even once, you will be on my list of vendors I will never, ever work with, and recommend every client I consult to not touch with a ten foot pole, either.

When served with a proper court order? That's a different story.

Comment open mouth, insert gun... (Score 2) 140

By removing the need for would-be programmers to learn esoteric programming languages, the method has the potential to significantly expand the number of people engaged in programming

Because we really need more amateur programmers fucking things up and creating software with exploitable bugs. Who needs information security anyway...

Comment Re:$78,000,000,000 (Score 1) 102

Like another poster, you confuse monetary or economic value with the value of education. These are not the same things and they don't cleanly exchange into each other.

The reason we spend money on a childs education is that education takes time. If you could get the same education in, say, one day via brain implants, it would be smarter to wait it out until you are 18 and can decide by yourself which education you want. But since it takes years, you need to start early because life time is limited.

These are really trivial arguments to follow. Why do I have to spell it out?

Comment Re:$78,000,000,000 (Score 1) 102

lol what? Do you really believe that nonsense?

Scientific evidence is not a belief. We understand a little bit about economy, you know? It's taught at universities.

The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.

That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time.

The reason circulating money adds to the economy is that if I spend $100 at your shop, you can now spend $100 on buying something, and the person you buy it from can spend $100 on some service and that person can donate $100 to the poor and they go to ten shops, spending those $100 and those shops come to me to buy something for $100. At the end, the $100 has made a full circle, so no money was created or destroyed and everyone has as much money as they had before, but everyone also got goods or services worth $100 that they didn't have before. Or, in other words: Those $100 of money have turned into $700 of wealth.

That's simplified, of course, ignoring a lot of details, but that's the basic principle.

In reality, if I discover a great unknown artist and give him $100 to paint something, that produces more value than if I give a crappy unknown artist $100 to paint something.

You are clearly confusing cultural value with economic value. Besides, great or crappy in the arts is very often judged long after the artist and the original buyer are both dead.

The question is whether you think stuff like fighting malaria with $1 billion is subjectively worth more than a bunch of poor people spending $1 billion on big screen TVs from China

Again, you are confusing values, in this case moral values with economic values. Those things are not the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_