Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Shocked he survived (Score 3, Informative) 327

And what would a jet do? He would have been so small, slow and low, I don't expect that they could get a good lock for missiles, and they would have the backdrop of city streets if they went hot with guns. Their best bet would be to try to ram him as he passed over the river, risking an expensive jet for a minor stunt.

A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.

Comment Re:Well that's rather the point (Score 1) 327

The standard interception craft couldn't do anything. They can't follow him. They would only be of use to shoot him down, and would likely have to manually engage with guns (with great risk to the surroundings) because the gryo is too small and slow (and likely low) to do much else with.

Maybe they could have sent up a helicopter, but the standard response is jets, who can't go slow enough or work closely enough to give an effective response.

Comment Re:Private IoT reporting for duty! (Score 2) 104

That's SCADA or any of a large number of remote-access monitoring systems (many running over IP).

IoT is not over the Internet. It's always (for those I've seen selling it) a private network of things. NoT. And that's what you should think of it. When they start pushing for actual open connections to the things (everyone has 1M IPv6 addresses at their house, and every door knob, appliance and widget in the house has a unique static IP that the owner (or anyone else) can connect to), then it'll be an Internet of things.

Right now, it's a closed network of things. What you describe is "remote monitoring". Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen IoT used when describing batched video downloads over closed WiFi from fleet vehicles to a private server that's not connected to the Internet in any way. IoT, like "cloud" has no useful definition or meaning.

Comment Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 700

That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

Oh, you must live in a different USA than me. I go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... and read 501(c)3, and the first line starts:
Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, [...]

Looks to me that religion is explicitly given a tax break under 501(c)3. Please show me your 501(c)3 which doesn't mention religion.

There is absolutely no constitutional way to make churches pay taxes without also requiring the Sierra Club to pay taxes.

Drop the religious exemption from 501, and done. Sierra Club meets the definition for other reasons.

And I have mod points. I was tempted to mod you troll. Anyone who posts wrong facts disproven in under 10 seconds with a simple google search is a troll. But hopefully once you are proven wrong, someone else will do it for me.

Comment Re:Find a way to have internet access (Score 1) 137

FB is broken. The low timeout, stateful HTTP that isn't, embedded content and such wouldn't work. But it doesn't work for many on Earth. The mobile site should work better, but I've not worked with that on a caching system. The Internet would be usable. Even if all the sites don't rock it.

And who cares what NASA thinks, if the trip is privately funded, or co-funded in a way that allows some private access?

Comment Re:For work I use really bad passwords (Score 1) 136

An unguessable personal word worked well for me for 20 years online, until places started checking them unencrypted against dictionaries. Yes, Calypso443521 contains a word that could exist in a dictionary, but is unguessable. Nobody would guess that it has any meaning, and with a personal number on the end, it wouldn't fall to any dictionary attack. But would be banned by many places I have passwords now. Like Scunthorpe is banned from most user names and some passwords because it contains a "banned" word, despite not actually containing the word, just the letters in order. It's not like it's #1_cunt_buster, which is what they are trying to ban.

So yeah, most of the rules are silly, for both usernames and passwords. Though for username, most places are falling back to email address.

I liked when my bank stopped using SSN for username and switched to last name. Now, someone trying to hack my account personally will have no trouble guessing my username.

Comment Re:For work I use really bad passwords (Score 5, Informative) 136

I've had my first day include complaining to the head of HR that the HR documents on passwords were wrong. The rules were at least one upper, at least one lower, at least one number, and no shorter than 8. However, the password policy described by my peers was "pick a 6-letter word, start with a cap, and put 00 at the end. When you increment it for the 30 day expiration, you can last past the 1-year no reuse policy." The funny thing was, I followed the policy and came up with one that used special characters. Not accepted. And one that used an 8-character word. Not accepted (the password must be exactly 8 chars, and can't include special characters, despite the rules not directing such). The head of HR gave me the same rules as everyone else. So nobody in the company uses a secure password, and the rules on the password are mis-documented. Chairs00. Shh, don't tell anyone.

Comment Re:Find a way to have internet access (Score 1) 137

You proxy on both ends, it'll take 1ms to establish a TCP conection, and 1000 seconds to get a ping response. Tunnel UDP in the middle. You are assuming that because you don't know the answer, the answer is impossible. There are hundreds of off-the-shelf commercial devices that can do that today. It's a know, and solved problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...