Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Set up correct secondary DNS servers (Score 1) 334

This type of system has already been defeated in the simplest way possible. There was a cracking group that had a DDoS system similar to what has been described for HTTP requests to a page which had a captcha. What they did was accept the captcha, and then forward it onto a porn web site they controlled. For users who want all them naughty bits, those users had to fill out the forwarded captcha! Then that information was sent back into the botnet to "validate" their requests to the intended target.

As long as there is porn online, there will be an easy way to kill captcha! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND BLOCK ALL THE PR0NZ OMGZ!?!?

My point was that even if a captcha did work, it won't stop a DDOS attack because you still have to have the processing power and bandwidth to serve up the captcha and verify that the remote client is really a person. There is no way to verify that the remote client is legitimate without actually talking to that remote client. Any channel that you use for verification purposes can be the target of a DDOS attack.

Comment Re:Set up correct secondary DNS servers (Score 1) 334

If the source address is spoofed (they were) then it's not legit traffic. If you are getting thousands of requests a second for a service like DNS, from a particular IP that is not known to be an edge router for an ISP, then it's not legit traffic.

It really shouldn't be that hard to analyze.

Yes, blocking spoofed addresses should be a first step but it just moves the goalpost a smudge. If you have thousands of compromised machines at your disposal, you only have to try slightly harder to create legitimate requests. Even something like a captcha to prove there is a human at the other end doesn't really help because you still have to send the initial page and process the request. I'm not sure there is a good way to differentiate between a DDOS attack and a bunch of legitimate requests slashdotting a site. The best you can probably do is to have a very low bandwidth doorway page that screens requests, does some fingerprinting, captchas, etc... before letting you in the the real site but even this can easily be overwhelmed with enough stolen computers.

Comment Re: It is just a matter of time. (Score 1) 420

What if the the 3-4 guys jumping you have guns? Will they wait while you get yours out?

3-4 guys jumping you don't need a gun. Guns are loud and draw attention. Even a criminal is not going to immediately start shooting. Most importantly, 4 guys jumping 1 guy without a gun, the odds of one of those 4 guys getting injured is essentially zero. If those 4 guys are jumping one guy with a gun, even if the 4 guys also have guns, they now have a much greater chance of getting injured and/or drawing unwanted attention to the situation.

Personally, I would much rather be attacked by 4 guys with guns and me also have a gun than to be unarmed and face 4 unarmed guys. 4 unarmed guys can easily overpower an unarmed person but 1 guy with a gun can easily make 4 armed guys decide that there are easier targets.

Comment Re:It is just a matter of time. (Score 1) 420

Eventually, the city-dwellers will have the raw numbers, and their natural fear of strangers will drive them to take everyone's guns away. Of course, this will just produce more attractive targets and invite more violent crime, but those facts will not overpower the emotional response one has to being surrounded by strangers, and needing to walk by them every single day.

I don't understand this thinking at all. Fear of strangers should make people want to have a gun of their own. Even if you could take all the guns from all the strangers, strangers are still scary especially to women. Having a gun evens the playing field in a one on one and even if you get jumped by 3-4 guys, a gun at least gives you a fighting chance of making it out alive but most importantly, having the probability of having a gun is really the important part. If guns are mostly illegal then a criminal doesn't really have to worry about being shot. On the other hand, if it's fairly easy to get a handgun, even if only 10% of women do, this gives herd protection to all the rest of the women who don't carry a gun because now there is a 1 in 10 chance of getting shot if you try to attack someone versus a 1 in 1000 or greater chance if guns were outlawed.

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 633

I'm not disagreeing, as I think you may have a valid point about self-selection and high-IQ people, however what was different in the past 100 years or so about how high-IQ people dated and found partners? Are you alleging that high-IQ people generally married stupider people in the past, before dating sites become popular? (This may very well be true, I'm just posing the question.)

I'm not saying necessarily stupider although it does seem like doctors/bosses marry other doctors/bosses more often now instead of nurses/secretaries. I think it might possible have to do that people are self-selecting out of a much larger pool and picking people much more similar to themself. The larger pool should be an advantage as it reduces closely related but you lose that advantage if you are picking someone genetically very similar to yourself. People also specialize a lot more now than in the past. If you are in an office full of programmers and all you ever see are other programmers then the chances of you marrying another programmer is higher than if you are in a mixed environment office.

I do think it'd be interesting to do a big study on autism-spectrum kids and look at their parents.

But one factor I think that may be much bigger is the parents' ages. People are having kids later in life now than in the past. Women are waiting until their 30s and even 40s before having kids, whereas 50 years ago they always did it in their 20s. Back then, people married younger, and women frequently didn't go to college, so it was probably perfectly normal for a high-IQ man to go to college, finish up in his early 20s (or mid 20s if he did an advanced degree), and then marry a younger woman who's in her very early 20s, and start popping out kids right away. These days, women are all going to college (colleges are now 60% female, 40% male from what I read), and getting professional careers since they can't count on marrying a man to support them (both because of divorce and also the need for dual incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle), so they're waiting until much later. Both sperm and egg quality is affected by age, egg quality moreso since the ova are all generated early in a woman's life and don't regenerate.

I believe age of parents is a risk factor. The other big risk factor is if you have autistic traits yourself. If you have autistic traits then your kids are more likely to have those traits and also more likely to have full blown autism.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 209

Unless computers have been trained to do exactly that. We're (genetically) trained to do so through natural selection. Things like software controlled radios are trained to do the exact same thing through careful programming in comparatively short time, rather than across millions of years of trial and error.

We're currently getting acceptable results in some very limited domains but we still have so far to go it's a joke. Captchas and OCR are about as simple as it gets but humans still run circles around computers. Actually having a computer that can catch a mouse, carry on a conversation like a 3 year old or even scavenge for food like an ameoba is still a long way off.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 209

But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).
If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?

How can you be so sure? The #1 thing that computers are really bad at (and we are really really good at) is filtering out extraneous data and deciding what is important and what is noise. This sounds an awful lot like the bugs that you are describing. Filtering out extraneous data and acting on the environment is something all living things can do but computers are horrible at. Until we understand more how intelligence works and why a mouse can out think our "smartest" computers then we are likely not going to know what is a required feature and what is a "bug".

Comment Re:About time. (Score 2) 633

Currently 1 in 25 American children (yes: American, because that's the only place with an insane inoculation frequency) falls prey to an autism spectrum disorder.
Now don't tell me that this is all 'genetic', because then why are those parents not autistic?

You really need to understand genetics. We don't yet know exactly what is causing autism but for a second, let's assume it's a recessive gene. If it's a recessive gene then both parents would be perfectly normal. Now a recessive gene is actually relatively simple to test. There are bound to be at least a few cases of autistic people marrying each other and having kids. What percentage of their children are also autistic? My guess is that it's a very high percentage.

Along those same lines, based on my personal experience and what I've heard of silicon valley's problems with autism, I think that dating sites and self selection of mates is what is causing the spike in autism. From my experience, most autistic children are born to parents who both have above average intelligence. I think there is one or more recessive gene that highly intelligent people have that causes problems when these highly intelligent people try to have children.
Again, this is mostly just my opinion at this point but there are other people with this same opinion and more importantly, this is something that can be verified by looking at the IQ of the parents and/or the frequency of autism when autistic couple eventually have kids of their own.

Comment Re:Grass is always greener (Score 1) 93

To be honest it is all just wearisome.

This is my opinion exactly. There is no really good option. All the services suck in their own way so everyone is left piecing together a hodgepodge of services. I currently use youtube, amazon prime, redbox, google, and my local library which covers most of what I want. If there is something not covered by that, i occasionally buy it in amazon's larger non-free streaming library. Between amazon prime and redbox, I'm under $15 per month. I wish there was a service (even an ad supported one) that actually covered everything but the best their is right now is amazon's non-free streaming which would probably be acceptable if it wasn't $4 per movie to stream and an even more ridiculous $2 per show to stream. I have yet to find a show that I think is worth $2 per episode.

Comment Re:Something's missing (Score 1) 151

All-you-can-eat shrimp is still all-you-can-eat shrimp, even if the fifth plate is served slower than the first four. In T-mobile customers' case, it's still unlimited data, even if some of the data comes through slower than it did before you hit 4 gigs.

No. Not really. It's kindof like how someone discovered that netflix by mail used to put people at the back of the line that requested a lot of dvds per month. If this is publicized, fine, but otherwise it's deceitful. To use your example of all you can eat shrimp, if after the first plate you had to wait 20 minutes for each additional plate then really the max you can eat in an hour lunch period is around 3.

Comment Re:Something's missing (Score 1) 151

I use Ting, which considers all of your data to be data. Tethering or not tethering is up to you. If you hit 26 GB, though, it may not be ideal for you. Rate chart

Tmobile does too for most of their plans. The only plan they separate it on is their unlimited plan. Their unlimited plan has a cap on the amount of tethering data but the rest of their plans the plan cap can be used for any combination of tethering up to 100% tethering data without a problem.

Comment Re:Something's missing (Score 1) 151

That tethering limit was explained to me as a permanent throttle, not just when the network gets busy. Maybe they've changed it. Honestly, I'd switch to them in a hot minute if they didn't screw with tethering, even knowing about the 26 gig threshold for throttling. I wish wireless carriers would get over their tethering prejudice. It's childish.

I'm on tmobile and I've never seen my tethering throttled. I live out in the sticks and can still get around 10mbps. I'm on the 3G/month plan though not unlimited. When I go over the 3G, my speed still stays fast as it just switches to my data stash. If I used a heavy amount every month and emptied my data stash then presumably I would be throttle at that point but my tethering speed is the same as my phone speed.

Comment Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] (Score 1) 403

The background of that tape is more involved and nuanced than Fox and Friends make it out to be. Spin meme.

I don't watch fox. I don't even have tv. I did listen to the original audio though. The nuance your referring too is probably that like most lawyers she thinks it's a game. They don't give a rip whether the person is guilty or innocent, they want to win their case. It's not even a "we know he's guilty but let's give good reasons for him to get a lighter sentence", it's a "he's completely guilty, we know it, but let's do everything in our power to get him off scott free. Who cares about justice as long as I win my case"

how is she supposed to know material sent to her by S.D. staff is classified? I've asked dozens of conservatives, ZERO real answers.

I wasn't even referring to that situation. (Honestly I didn't even know she did have to testify for that). but she's had to testify in dozens of other situations where she flat out lies and then thinks the situation is funny. It could just be a nervous laugh but it's still unnerving when she smirks during serious situations.
And this is not mentioning the debates or other situations where Clinton is asked a direct question and still can't give a straight answer.
I actually try to mostly avoid politics. I tried to watch the second debate but decided I had better things to do when neither candidate answered the first question and instead both went off onto completely unrelated tangents.

Comment Re:Capitalism of exploration (Score 1) 403

Well when productivity is measured in USD and you can print them it's not as much impressive.

So measure it in oil, gold, euro, whatever. USD is just a placeholder for purchasing power. There is some fluctuation between different placeholders but one of the reasons the USD is used as a default placeholder is that it tends to fluctuate less than other placeholders. Use the consumer price index or any other basket of goods (I'm assuming other countries have something similar) and you likely won't get much different results. Sure, the USA probably has some advantage to having the USD as the default placeholder but distorting calculation of value by any significant margin is not one of them nor is being able to magically print wealth.

Comment Re:Trump = avatar? [Re:Greed is God] (Score 1) 403

Hillary doesn't give the vibe of a vacationer.

Just for the record, I don't like either one of them but to me Hillary gives the vibe of a badly programmed AI. She appears unemotional, robotic, calculating, and amoral. She is likely a sociopath but when you seen things like her tape on the 12 year old rape victim, her testimonies before congress where she flat out lies, etc.. it makes me think of the computer in wargames or spock. I'm not even saying that a robotic overload would be a bad thing. There are several stories in Asimov's world where robots who can look at things objectively without emotion can make great leaders.

Slashdot Top Deals

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.