×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7

tom17 Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (633 comments)

Yeah this, lol. My employer just finished with the Win7 rollout last year!

And on my personal device, I have not had any desire to leave Win7 as of yet. I skipped over Vista so I will likely do the same with 8.

about two weeks ago
top

Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God

tom17 Re:agnostic atheist (755 comments)

That's because I don't believe if a god(s) exist or not.

Firstly, that sentence doesn't parse. You can't "not believe if something exists or not", it's like saying "I don't believe if the light is on or off" - you can only KNOW (or not know) if the light is on or off. You can believe it is on, or not believe it is on, or believe it is off, but you cannot believe that it's both on or off (ignoring Schroedingers experiments for now :) )

I think what you mean is - "That's because I don't know if a god(s) exists or not" - In this case, it is a statement of knowledge, not belief - i.e. Agnosticism.

Or maybe you mean "That's because I don't have an opinion on whether or not a god exists or not" (Not meaning to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you mean). If this is what you mean, then would I be correct in assuming that you have no belief that a god exists? If so then you are not a theist. If so, then you are by definition an atheist.

You may counter with "Yes, I have no belief that a god exists, but I also have no belief that a god does not exist", but this would still leave you as an atheist due to the first part of your sentence "I have no belief that a god exists". If there was a word for 'belief that a god does not exist' (maybe there is one, I do not know) then you would be an a-that as well.

Poppycock. You can believe in one or more deities and still pray to none.

Yes, and you'd be a theist. However, without contradicting oneself, can you pray to a god without believing that one exists?

I mean, sure, you could say the words of prayer, but if you don't believe there is a god, you aren't *really* praying.

about three weeks ago
top

Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God

tom17 Re:agnostic atheist (755 comments)

You didn't specify if you believe if a god(s) exist or not. Do you pray? If not, according to the parent definitions, you are an agnostic atheist.

about three weeks ago
top

Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God

tom17 Re:God, Like an Unseen Hair (755 comments)

You have a cat that you call "The Lord"? I think some people would like to have a word with you about some stuff that went down. Now get back in your shack!

about three weeks ago
top

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explains His Christmas Tweet

tom17 Re:Dude, wait... (681 comments)

Surely by starting the tweet as he did - "On this day long ago, a child was born" - it automatically dismisses any chance of it being about Jesus because, as discussed further up, every true Christian knows that the 25th is a celebration of Jesus' birth and not an anniversary.

If people wish to claim that the opening was an obvious misdirection, then they need to accept that Jesus was in fact born on that day. However, it seems to be the generally accepted stance that he was not...

about a month ago
top

Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

tom17 Re:Sly (396 comments)

Weird, what versions of those browsers? I have IE9 here and it's pre-installed.

I have been using it, hassle free (with the CA cert pre-installed on Chrome,FF & IE) since 2011 now...

Something must have been afoot with your testing - I'm not blaming you - I just can't see how it wouldn't have worked a year ago based on my experience with default browsers...

about a month ago
top

Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

tom17 Re:Sly (396 comments)

StartSSL *does* have a pre-installed CA cert on any browser I have tried. I'll be curious to know which browsers do not have it.

about a month ago
top

Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

tom17 Re:Sly (396 comments)

You know they actually do, right?
(On any browser I have tried in the last few years)

about a month ago
top

Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

tom17 Annoying to Self Hosters (396 comments)

Just use a free TLS cert from StartSSL

about a month ago
top

Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

tom17 Sly (396 comments)

You know you can get free SSL certificates, right?

about a month ago
top

Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

tom17 Re:Wrong... (880 comments)

Or Jibbers!

about a month ago
top

$35 Quad-core Hacker SBC Offers Raspberry Pi-like Size and I/O

tom17 Re:Can it run Flash? (140 comments)

It's the only place I can get decent reception. Relocate your router and I'll gladly get off your lawn.

In the meantime, can you please give it a quick mow? It's getting long and tickly.

about a month and a half ago
top

POODLE Flaw Returns, This Time Hitting TLS Protocol

tom17 Re:A question I hope someone can answer (54 comments)

Unless your company/vendor forces you to use it externally, or will not provide said VM for internal sites.

I'm not agreeing that it's OK to use such a browser, just saying that it's not necessarily the users own fault. Companies can be idiots too when it comes to IT security.

about a month and a half ago
top

POODLE Flaw Returns, This Time Hitting TLS Protocol

tom17 Re:A question I hope someone can answer (54 comments)

I don't know his exact situation, but it's possible that the company he works at has an app that only works with IE6. There used to be many apps like this.

If this is such a case, the fuckwad is the company (for not hiring developers to upgrade the app) or the vendor that supplies the app without upgrading it (Maybe the company is still to blame for not moving to a more current product, or maybe there isn't one). Either way, the user that is forced to stick with the crappy browser is not necessarily the problem.

Though he might be! :) - Rather than assuming and bashing, we should answer the question... Oh wait. Slashdot :)

about a month and a half ago
top

The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

tom17 Re:Sounds good to me (238 comments)

You are correct in your understanding.

You can also check your privacy just by looking at the certificate for any site you are visiting over HTTPS. Check the certificate authority and make sure it looks legitimate. If you are unsure, you could look the cert up using an online service and compare the online version and your local version.

They should match but there always caveats - Maybe the site is using different certs on different parts of a CDN that has its own server cert installed in browsers. CloudFare is a good example of this - they can create valid certs as they please since they partnered with GlobalSign.

But your VM method should be just fine, yeah :)

about 2 months ago
top

The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

tom17 Re:Cost of certificates (238 comments)

Free ones (at least StartSSL) are recognized by most browsers that I have tried. That's an anecdotal, non-exhaustive list, of course. I'd be curious to find out what mainstream browsers do not recognise them though.

about 2 months ago
top

The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

tom17 Re:Cost of certificates (238 comments)

With StartSSL the actual cert generation is easier than that as they create the key on their server first and they ask for the forms on the site. No CSR is needed, though you can do it that way if you wish.

What is a tiny bit annoying is their authentication - you need a client authentication cert installed on your browser. Not hard in itself, but annoying if you have let the old one expire as they then need to review your request for a new one.

One other thing is verification that you own the domain, through various methods. Not hard to do, but automated and very necessary.

about 2 months ago
top

The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

tom17 Re:Sounds good to me (238 comments)

What? I think this thread is going off track somewhat. I don't think Dave420 was talking about Client Auth certs. He was talking about root certs installed on the clients. Without the standard set of root and intermediate certs installed on the client (Installed by default on web browsers and some other clients such as Java virtual machines etc), TLS will not work (Well it will, but there will be warnings).

What Dave420 meant was that for the appliances and software solutions that cache/inspect the TLS traffic can only do so if a new root cert is installed on the client. This root cert enables the MITM device to create its own cert for any website without the client throwing up a warning.

Nothing to do with client auth.

about 2 months ago
top

The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

tom17 Re:Yes (238 comments)

Except modern browsers and servers support SNI, so the hostname is now sent as plaintext on the network.

about 2 months ago

Submissions

top

Microsoft trying to poach Websphere clients

tom17 tom17 writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Tom (659054) writes "So someone from the business dept forwarded this on to our IT managers for perusal. It seems that Microsoft Marketing have come up with some benchmarks that nicely show that an .NET/Intel/Windows solution is drastically cheaper than a Websphere/POWER6/AIX solution, and much better performing to boot.

http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3818056/Microsoft+Claims+WebSphere+Best+on+Windows.htm

Their "Informational website" is http://www.websphereloveswindows.com/ (Requires Silverlight, way to get to the non-MS audience there!)

Tidbits of information that they are touting include:
"The IBM configuration cost $260,128, while the HP-Microsoft-based set up cost $87,161 — about a third the cost of the IBM system. Beyond cost, however, Martin claims that the HP system also outperformed the IBM — with 11,000 transactions per second (tps) versus 8,000 tps on the Power"

Now we need to try to convince the business that this is just marketing buzz. How do we defend ourselves from these rather appealing MS numbers?"

Link to Original Source

Journals

tom17 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?