Slashdot Mirror


User: ihtoit

ihtoit's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
3,767
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 3,767

  1. Re:Probably won't happen soon on Why ATM Bombs May Be Coming Soon To the United States · · Score: 1

    the way to do it (and fuck Mythbusters, or Brainiac, this works) is to pump water in through the keyhole or whatever hole, stuff in a detonator cap and fire. You will blow the door clean off the hinges and the money will be a bit wet. Water is basically incompressible, the pressure wave from the detonation will seek the path of least resistance to escape the system which confines it.

  2. I call bullshit on Why ATM Bombs May Be Coming Soon To the United States · · Score: 0

    I'm in the UK, if there had been even one ATM blown up it'd be all over the news.

    Absolutely. Fucking. NOTHING.

  3. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    +1 informative

  4. Re:Was discussed at 31c3 on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 1

    silly me. Thanks for the link anyway :)

  5. Re:"violent hackling" on Spider Spins Electrically Charged Silk · · Score: 1

    probably. It's a common tool used in wig making to blend or separate hair strands.

  6. first thought on Spider Spins Electrically Charged Silk · · Score: 1

    This arachnid truly is the gecko of the bug world.

  7. Re:physical access on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    ironically, my application server is this laptop (dual core, oodles of RAM and a VM Manager running as a service) and my 4 thin clients are relatively ancient diskless Pentium 4 desktops with about 64MB-128MB RAM (that none of them will ever max out ever again). Those P4s don't actually do ANY of the grunt-work, that's all done on the laptop. All the P4s do is display the output from the VM sessions running on the laptop. Yes, they're vastly overpowered for thin clients but my PIIs are long since burned out and the PIIIs are busy elsewhere.

  8. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    or OS/2 3.0 and back as far as the NT draft specification in 1989?

  9. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    I thought Ubuntu was moving over to Mir in the back end of 2012?
    Or maybe my memory's faulty.

  10. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    Apple ditched X11 at 10.5, I don't know what they use now but X11 legacy functionality is achieved with a third party app now.

  11. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    I don't know what I'm doing differently, but on my Windows netbook when I close the lid it tries to hibernate. This fails if there is a file open for editing and changes aren't saved (or there's a frame server running in Virtualdub or something) - the UI sits there waiting with a save file prompt. I've had the battery die after a four hour journey with the thing slowly cooking itself in my leg pocket.

  12. Re:Uh, okay? on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    Chrome's an XSA? I thought it was a browser?

    That and what happened to Wayland and Mir as X11 replacements?

  13. Re:Up next, automatic intelligence rating... on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 1

    if I were the programmer (I'm not, not since primary school when I programmed the TURTLE to draw stuff on large sheets of cartridge paper) I'd be dropping //remarks in everywhere. Back to when I did TURTLE programming, I got berated for wasting time on comments but when it came down to 1000+ lines of code, it was nice to know which draw routines drew what part of the image. My TURTLE St. Paul's Cathedral was 7,700+ lines of code, probably 3/4 of that was comments. If it were stripped of comments it'd probably have ended up way less than 2,000 lines but nobody (not even me) would've had the first clue about what drew what.

  14. Re:This is true for /. comments, too. on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 1

    there's a wiki site (can't remember the name) that takes great joy in posting accusations without attribution or evidence, and when called on them the Admins sit there and claim that the person who posted the slander is now the same person trying to get a retraction based on some sort of magic ring with a seekrit style decoder. Even when called out to post the evidence they claim to hold, they just dive straight in to claiming knowledge they can't possibly have for various reasons not least of which said claimed evidence not existing outside their imaginations.

  15. Re:No Kidding on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 2

    coding to book (sans comments) will kill the process of identifying authors stone dead, I think. If everybody's "Hello World!" was identical, how do you tell the difference?

  16. Re:Was discussed at 31c3 on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 1

    are the podcasts/videocasts out for that yet?

  17. will they show the method? on Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. Therefore, this is about as reliable as graphology (handwriting analysis).

    If you take two programmers who code to book standard, how do you tell the difference between them using the same strict problem?

  18. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    typical stores in 1993 didn't deal with server/workstation platforms, they dealt with commodity platforms such as the DOS-based Win3.x but more often at that time DOS 6.x or if you were lucky and loaded, RISC OS 3. If you wanted a workstation you would usually go to a big house and have the system built under a maintenance contract and lease both hardware and software.

  19. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    July 1993 NT3.1 went RTM.

  20. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    BT range is too high. What you need is something with near-contactless verification (RFID), swipe verification (smart card or chip card) or biometrics. That GUARANTEES that an authorised person is in front of the terminal and not just within 30 feet.

  21. Re:Locking Windows without a Windows key on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    7 HP here, it's CTRL-ALT-DEL then ENTER to lock. There are other options like switch user, log off, restart or shut down, but the two-hit combo locks it. Takes but a second to perform this series, why are people finding it so hard to secure their workstations when they step off?

  22. Re:not the point on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    perhaps some sort of reminder is in order for such people. Like, start sacking people who leave their workstations vulnerable.

  23. Re:Linux rules the desktop, which is in your pocke on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    the stock Nokia Lumia 610 has Mobile Office which is a necessarily stripped but still fully functional port of MS Office for desktop.

  24. Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    even those that don't display a window but relies on user input has the potential to be a keylogger or have one as part functionality. Word processors, for one. The desktop manager, for an example of the latter.

    If you don't want keystrokes to be logged, unplug your keyboard.

  25. Re:Umm..and telnet is insecure. on Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure · · Score: 1

    I'll take AC flame war for 200, Alex?