Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:And she gets away with it... (Score 4, Informative) 1010

I think some context needs to be made in this regard (government email servers). Bush 43rd had every staff member use a private email server to avoid breaking several laws they were suppose to be following but never got prosecuted either.

Politicians can do whatever they want unless we hold them to the laws governing them. Doesn't matter which party they are in.

Comment Re:Refuse to support Rust (Score 1) 131

Security is the most imporant aspect of a web browser. We are all opening files from someone else's computers, allowing scripts to run and connect to any number of other computers. Security is literally the only thing that should matter in a web browser.

Creating a renderer on a brand new immature programming language that has not been around the block long enough for anyone to find it's flaws is a plan for disaster. No way in hell I'd use a browser running on that.

Comment Re:Refuse to allow idiocy (Score 1) 131

How is C and C++ not mature? C has been around for over forty years, while C++ over thirty years ago. Both have literally hundreds of IDEs and libraries built for them, millions of programs written in the language and numerous platforms for compilation.

They are literally the definition of a mature programming language and you toss them out like they are not.

And what do you mean "non-standard features in compilers", if it's a feature in a popular, mature compiler, it's a damn standard isn't it?

Comment Re:Refuse to support Rust (Score 1) 131

There are these things called libraries, you know... standardized, regularly updated sets of code that provide a reliable platform of functions and features you do not have the experience or time to code yourself.

And then there are these things called Integrated Development Environments that put together libraries for you and give you pointers, wizards, GUI elements and such to help you build applications.

You do not need to build a new freaking language to avoid the pitfalls of being ignorant of how to program properly.

Comment Refuse to support Rust (Score -1, Troll) 131

I am getting tired of every god damn generation of computer science students making a new freaking programming language and forcing the world onto it.

I will not be using Servo and will refuse to use Firefox (my browser of choice) if they move over to it.

Build your damn software in a standard, mature language and stop wasting your time on new languages that have no purpose other than a bi-line on some PHD student's resume.

Comment Re:Single-level Security Model flaw (Score 1) 86

I disagree, the issue here is the fact the SMS is being managed by a third party.

If you want each factor of your security identity to be secure, you need to manage it yourself.

That means not using a free email account from someone else and using your own VOIP setup for SMS or audio confirmations.

The issue is not the technology, but allowing others to access the systems hosting your security mediums.

Comment Isn't this necessary for the way their site works? (Score 5, Interesting) 27

They are not keeping a copy of the webpage on their servers, merely playing man-in-the-middle by creating the link to the page, opening it in the user's browser and applying their own data (highlighting) into the HTML using their own scripts.

Which is exactly what CSP is suppose to stop (not allowing third-party sites to run unauthorized cross-domain scripts).

So, isn't the site's concept itself an affront to Content Security Policies? Maybe sites that require strict CSP should just block redirects from

Comment Re:"Historically", uh? (Score 4, Insightful) 639

You do not understand him correctly. He is trying to say that intolerant, political ideologues are dangerous. You rambled off a list of historical events where a bunch of intolerant, political ideologues took power from democracies.

So, even though you seem to be presenting an opposing view, I think you are actually agreeing with him.

Ignore the political terms and see the true argument at hand.

Facebook is allowing intolerant, political ideologues to skew what it's users are seeing in an attempt to grossly influence people into their views. Fearmongering is a method to do the same thing using emotions, what Facebook is doing is way worse since they can stream in the influence in any method they want, any emotion they want and they can do so using heuristics they have garnered from your user activity.

This is a very dangerous precedent, no matter the beliefs of these ideologues.

Comment Re:Plausible deniability (Score 2) 796

So, I was just reading the USB-C discussions about how everyone is afraid Intel is trying to add DRM to headphones to "push anti-piracy efforts into headphones and close the analog gap". This made me start day dreaming about just how far copyright companies will go for DRM, eventually putting chips in our heads and such (monsters!).

But as I was reading your explanation, could not the same system be used with a cornea descrambler in the distant future? A computer image is encrypted and displayed on screen in the encrypted state, but looks like noise or has a hidden layer that can only be seen if the person has the right part of the key in a cornea display (like a contact lense or complete cornea replacement). The cornea system would decrypt the message partially so the chip in the brain reads the signal from the visual cortex and makes adjustments so the real image or information can be comprehended.

The computer, or the file, would have the first layer of encryption, whereas the second and third layers would be inside the individual (eyes, brain).

How would the state compel you to get access to the evidence? Ask a court to remove your eyes and probe your brain?

This debate is not about passwords or encryption keys but about the rights of citizens to secure their property from the government. In the not so distant past, the government could take pretty much anything they wanted from you. Some governments had high ethics and would not cause harm to you, but that's just semantics.

Now we are entering an era where technology is allowing us to own property that the government can not take. We can create digital property and encrypt it to the point where they cannot get access to it without our permission. Today it's photos, videos, documents, etc., but in the distant future this might extend to 3D models of actual possessions that could be recreated or perhaps even copies of our own selves, allowing a form of immortality.

Does the government have the right to this information if we do not give them permission and we do have the ability to completely block their access?

That is the question behind this entire debate. Part of the reason government exists is for communal protection, but if we start having the abilities to protect ourselves better than the government or we cannot rely on the government to compel a communal verdict on others, then why do we need that element of the government to still exist in our lives?

Comment Re:Frist POS (Score 1) 179

Let's be fair, most Apple sales are not because their products are better or more advanced, but because the average consumer doesn't like to think.

The iPod won because it looked simple. It wasn't that much easier to use than it's competitors and it had far less features, but it literally looked simpler because of less buttons.

Again, Average consumer doesn't like to think so they go with the simple product.Same logic for iPhone.

Macs really only still exist because Apple subsidized their spread into academia, who indoctrinated students into the platform. Apple doesn't take the platform seriously because it knows it doesn't need to compete. The people buying them do not do it because they are educated in computers but the exact opposite.

Slashdot Top Deals

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky