×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon Re:It doesn't. (544 comments)

Absolutely! This isn't something that could have been foreseen, but I've been noticing more of a tendency toward "well, I can't stop everything, so why bother" lately, and I'm beyond not sure I like it; I'm sure I don't. You seem to get this, thank you for giving me hope for humanity. :)

2 days ago
top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon Re:It doesn't. (544 comments)

Or, you know, fuzz the hell out of it until you find something, like I said in my post. No source necessary. At least with open source, I can fuzz it until I find a vulnerability, then find the code that caused the vulnerability and fix it.

I mean, I suppose if I got my hands on the source for IE, I could fix that, as well, but why go through the trouble when I can readily obtain the source for a number of other browsers?

2 days ago
top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon Re:It doesn't. (544 comments)

Thank you for clarifying that... a bit frazzled today, bad day at work.

2 days ago
top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon Re:It doesn't. (544 comments)

Reading comprehension? You just agreed with me... I ended my comment by pointing out that fuzzing is super-effective. You can ignore the source and just fuzz away with open source, just like you're forced to do with closed. And, as a user, you can fix vulnerabilities in open source software, rather than having to wait for the developer to do so. In fact, as a user, you can fuzz *and* fix your open source application.

That is to say, having the source doesn't make finding vulns easier (or harder, as you imply), it does, however, make fixing them easier.

2 days ago
top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon Re:It doesn't. (544 comments)

And anyone who's serious about security is taking mitigation steps for every scenario that can conceive, known exploit or not. That should be SOP whether or not you have source available.

2 days ago
top

How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

BronsCon It doesn't. (544 comments)

It's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

Anyone can view the source of an open source project, which means anyone can find vulnerabilities in it. Specifically, hackers wishing to exploit the software, as well as users withing to audit and fix the software. But, someone who knows what they're doing has to actually look at the source for that to matter; and this rarely happens.

Hackers must black-box closed source software to find exploits, which make it more difficult than finding them in open source software; the flip-side is that they can only by fixed by the few people who have the source. If the hacker doesn't disclose the exploit and the people with access to the code don't look for it, it goes unpatched forever.

Open source software does provide an advantage to both sides, hackers can find exploits more easily and users can fix them more easily; with closed source, you're at the mercy of the vendor to fix their code but, at the same time, it's more difficult for a hacker to find a vulnerability without access to the source.

Then, we consider how good fuzzing techniques have gotten and... well, as it becomes easier to find vulnerabilities in closed source software, open source starts to look better.

2 days ago
top

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

BronsCon Re:lol (126 comments)

Exactly! One is copyright infringement and the other is fraud and, semantically, much closer to stealing.

about a week ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Distributing without selling or licensing is still distributing, and is still covered by copyright.

As the photographer, I hold the copyright on my work. You must be confused.

about a week ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

You do realize you failed to disagree with me at all, right? I can distribute something without selling or licensing it; it's called putting up my own website.

Okay, you did disagree with me regarding the model's level of involvement in the sale or licensing of the photo. And you're wrong; as a photographer, I hold a fair hand of cards cards. The model can decide who I *can* not sell or license to, and I can decide who I *will* not; if the model had all they say, I'd have to sell or license the photo to whomever the model dictated and that is, simply, not the case.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Okay and now I *am* going to natter on. Since you can't see how your approach failed, let me point it out. This is an effective response when someone admits they were wrong and this is an appropriate way to present an opposing viewpoint, what you wrote was neither of those things.

While you did "[invite me] to consider whether [my] position would change if [I] knew one of those victims"; you also, immediately before that, managed to insinuate that I didn't give this any thought, rather than accepting the possibility that I was working off of incorrect or incomplete information, as was the case, and took the liberty of making another bold assumption about me; I'll leave it to you to figure out what that assumption was and why you were wrong to do so.

Stating that you disagree with me and providing your opinion, as you did in the first paragraph of your initial reply to me, was spot-on. Everything you've wrote after that was inflammatory, and I think you know that. Stopping at the end of your first paragraph would have garnered a more positive response; simply, me stating that I had actually been presented additional information and an alternative viewpoint on the subject, and had already reconsidered my position. I would have had nothing to call out out on and, therefore, would not have done so.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

At least one of us can admit they were wrong. Who's the one nattering on and behaving dickishly? Seriously, rather than politely suggest I reconsider my position, taking into consideration that I may have been coming from a position of ignorance, rather than malice, you chose to take a stab at me, and you're attempting to do so.

I've admitted everything you're trying to point out about how I was wrong in my postings on this topic. I've learned, I've grown, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. That's more than you can say.

Go ahead, have the last word. You know you want it. But if you choose to take another stab at me, don't expect me to let it stand.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

It's not a matter of me being too delicate, it's a matter of me being willing and able to call it as I see it. Did I say I was hurt by the attack? Nope.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Actually, yes it is. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has some say, but distribution rights lie with the photographer in all cases.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.

Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Single as in not a group, not single as in not in a relationship...

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

And here I am with my tail between my legs. Don't bother wasting your time replying to point out my own misunderstanding of the law; I've just made myself quite aware of this (ironically, as I no longer hold that misunderstanding).

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

Oh, I read it. And you're correct, libel is a subset of defamation, not all defamation must be libelous, but all libel must be defamatory. The information needn't even be provided out of context or in a false light, as you say; it need only be contrary to one's generally known character. There is no argument to be had, here; instead of just reading posts on Slashdot, go read up on the actual law.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

You're confusing libel with defamation. Libel must be false, or believed by the person spreading it to be false. You can defame someone's character by making public some private piece of information about them, which is 100% completely factually accurate, which the general population of people who know that person would find to be out of character for them.

Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that perception of you, your character has been defamed.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

And by consenting to being photographed, they're waiving some of those rights. Like the right to tell the photographer who they can share the photograph with.

about two weeks ago
top

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

BronsCon Re:Freedom of Speech? (328 comments)

It is not reasonable to expect everyone around you to be decent human beings. It should be, and ideally it would be, I know that's a world I'd like to live in. But that's not the world you and I live in; we live in reality, where we know there are people out there, a large number of them, who are not, and are probably not capable of being, decent human beings; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that of them.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Should John Seek Overtime Pay or Insist on Maintaining His Current Arrangement?

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  about 5 months ago

BronsCon (927697) writes "A friend of mine recently came to me for advice regarding how to handle a situation with his employer. I advised him to contact an attorney, because any advice I could provide would likely be poor. But, his situation has made me curious; so I'd like to describe it here and pose the same question to the Slashdot community.

My friend, we'll call him John, has been working for a California-based company for several years in a position covered by IWC Article 4 (PDF warning, sorry) under the assumption that he was exempt from sections 3-12 (which includes the section relating to overtime pay); he recently decided to read over the law, as well as the exemption that could possibly apply to him, the Professional Exemption and the Employee in the Computer Software Field exemption, and discovered that given the current terms of his employment, he is in fact not exempt from any provision of Article 4. He also believes that his employer sincerely mistook his position as exempt and does not wish to punish them for what he believes to be an honest mistake.

For the duration of his employ, John has more or less been allowed to come and go as he pleases and has received frequent commendation for the level of work he puts out, so it would appear that his loose schedule has been beneficial for all involved, up to now. What prompted him to review the IWC documents was a sudden insistence from his boss that he was not working reasonable hours because "every other salaried position requires 50-60hr workweeks".

Here's the rub; he does not want to pursue the unpaid overtime, because this would bankrupt the company and put him out of a job, and he is worried that suing his employer may well make him unemployable. He simply either wants things to continue on as they have been, foregoing overtime pay in exchange for a high degree of freedom in his working schedule (which typically equates to coming in between 8:00 and 8:20 rather than at 8:00 sharp, taking 20-30min breaks rather than 10min, taking an occasional long lunch, and typically staying 30-90min later than most of his coworkers to make up for all of it, as well as working weekends to get things done that didn't get done during the week), or adjusting the working relationship into full compliance with IWC Article 4.

John's development work is largely done solo, he is always present for meetings, which are not held regularly, and his work is frequently completed ahead of schedule and under budget. There are no team members twiddling their thumbs while John is out getting coffee or walking off a heavy lunch before returning to the office.

I'm curious to see how Slashdot's advice will align with John's lawyer's advice, as well as what John will actually do in his situation. So, Slashdot, what would you do?"
top

55.000+ Twitter usernames and passwords leaked

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  about 2 years ago

BronsCon writes "Today anonymous hackers leaked more than 55.000 hacked twitter accounts username and password through Pastebin. It was very shocking to see such a massive number of Twitter accounts are hacked. Also celebrity accounts are hacked. Links to all 5 pastebin pages of credentials are included in the article, so you can search for yours."
Link to Original Source
top

Steve Jobs Dead at 55

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  more than 2 years ago

BronsCon writes "Jobs, 55, has been instrumental in turning Apple into the dominant producer of portable music players, a leader in the smart phone business and, with the iPad, the inventor of a new category of modern tablet computers. Today, Apple announced that he has passed away, shortly after resigning as CEO of the company and the day following the announcment of the iPhone 4s"
Link to Original Source
top

One Free Website For Every City

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  more than 3 years ago

BronsCon writes "San Francisco Bay Area based web design/development firm Gutensite is giving away one Free Pro website to one person or organization in every city, world-wide. By creating a regular Free Lite site with the promo code "MYCITY" you will be eligible to win the prize, a free upgrade to the Webmaster package for one year, a $420 value.

The first sites have a higher chance of winning (see rules for details). But even if you don't win the Grand Prize, everyone will still get to keep their free site, or get 25% off the first full 3 months if they eventually decide to upgrade to a Pro site."

Link to Original Source
top

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  more than 7 years ago

BronsCon writes "Who/What is your favorite...


US President
Game Console
CPU
OS
Joke
Slashdot Editor


If you don't get the gag, please don't vote. Thank you."

Journals

top

Talk about it

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Recently, I was flamed for making a "joke" of HIV (see below).

Said by an AC: I recommend a guerrilla trademark war: we simply need to decide what STD now gets the street name of "scrabble".

Said by me: HIV. It's about as active as scrabble and gets just about as much attention from the general populace. A ton of people have it but nobody really talks about it anymore.

Said by another AC: Why don't you grow a FUCKING brain cell. You are a fucking moron for taking something as serious as HIV and turning into the latest joke on slashdot. There are people who are FUCKING DYING because of HIV and I'm sure that none of them find you funny. I'm also sure you would stop laughing if you had an HIV test come back positive.

Said by me: Should I fax it to you, or is a simple scan and email enough?
I was actually going for insightful, rather than funny. A ton of people have HIV but nobody really talks about it. Just like Scrabble.
P.S. -- Who's the moron now?

-----

In all fairness, he's right, I don't have HIV. Dumb luck on his part.

Lord knows I've had some close calls; an ex fiancé who contracted it from a guy she cheated on me with and a girl I dated for a while who called me a few months after we broke up, insisting that I get tested. Dumb luck on my part.

Assigning the nickname 'Scrabble' to HIV might be the best thing to happen to it. If it gets people talking about it, if it raises awareness, beyond using it as an insult, it's a good thing.

If it raises awareness among corporations that, when they take something dear to us, we will take something dear to them in exchange ("Let's hang out with Kevin, he has Scrabble!" becomes "Don't sleep with Kevin, he has Scrabble!"), it is a good thing. But only if it's true.

I have a "FUCKING brain cell". In fact, I have many of them. Enough to realize that anything that gets people talking about an important issue is a good thing. Enough to realize that only a complete moron would flame someone for pointing out a problem such as people not talking about such an issue.

I stand proudly by the positions I take. I feel that, if something is not worth saying, it's not worth taking the time to say; if it is worth saying, it's worth taking credit for having said it.

Let it be known that I truly feel compassion for anyone who has Scrabble; the board game, or the illness.

top

Our problem.

BronsCon BronsCon writes  |  more than 5 years ago

I recently posted this in a discussion here on /. and decided it beneficial to all that I make it more accessible by placing it here, in my journal, as well.

-----

Here's the (general US population's) problem, as I see it.

Copyright was created to ensure that artists (I do consider coding to be an art-form) had an opportunity to earn income from their work before it could be freely copied or any derivatives could be made of it.

This led to fewer creative works being created in a given time frame than before, as most works are derivative of existing works. The best stories are those which expand on what we already know, right?

The government and pseudo-fascist corporations have begun to realize three things. First, that we, view copyright, in its current state, as a problem. Second, that they make a ton of money by exploiting the current state of the copyright system. Third, that by allowing us access to any creative means, they are allowing us the resources to overcome the current copyright system.

Thus, the ever-increasing system of restricting creativity, until it is illegal to express any thought contrary to their view of being paid for every peak and valley of every sound and light wave that we receive, which could have possibly originated from one of their exploited works.

Look through my post history. I don't typically post this kind of conspiracy-theorist drivel. I feel strongly enough about this issue in particular, however, that I will not sit idly and watch what little remaining freedom we have in this once great country be stolen from us, just as our once great wealth has been.

Now is the time to act. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not next month. Not when Bush is replaced by the next pseudo-democratic-republican leader and you realize they're lying, too.

Now.

Before we lose the ability to create.

The terrorists don't have to fight anymore. We're doing it to ourselves.

We vote our freedom away by electing officials who have a proven track record of deception. We spend our freedom away by buying from companies who restrict how we can use our (or their, depending who you ask) products. We give our freedom away by continuing to do business with corporations who ship jobs and, with those jobs, our economic strength, to other countries, while many on our own soil can not find employment.

We routinely sell our freedom to the highest bidder and can do nothing but cry in disappointment when they never pay out.

Right now. This is the only time we have. Act.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...