Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:One time pad (Score 1) 128

If Alice and Bob do have some "magic" method to communicate this scheme, then why should they bother with the encryption scheme in the first place?

Alice and Bob have a steganography system they believe to be unbeatable that can't be unbeatable if it is used for larger communications. But works for indicating which "pad" to use. One could presume that the steganography and pad selection was set up before the interception began. Such a system would not work well for a new communication path, but for paths that were secure when set up, than are later insecure.

Comment Re:Don't buy the cheapest cable (Score 1) 391

From HDMI.org (not certain that's the official standards site...)
http://www.hdmi.org/installers...

  Like all HDMI-enabled components, cables must be tested to meet the Compliance Test Standards set by the HDMI Licensing, LLC. Cables must successfully pass a signal of a certain strength (Standard cable must deliver a signal of 17Mhz; High Speed must deliver a signal of 340Mhz) to pass compliance.

The HDMI specification does not dictate cable length requirements.

Comment Re:What a deal! (Score 1) 413

In Texas alone, illegals have been charged with over 177,000 serious crimes since 2008, including almost 3,000 homicides.

What percent of people in Texas are illegals? How many total serious crimes have been committed since 2008?

Despite the size of the numbers, for all we know, that rate could he half the rate of the US citizens.

Comment Re:Another kook (Score 1) 528

In every house I've lived in, there was always a "blind spot" where if the fence was opaque (though it usually wasn't), there would be some place where the neighbors couldn't see. My sister used to play lots of outdoor sports, and would tan occasionally to lessen the tan lines. There was always a place to do so where nobody could ever see, unless they were flying or otherwise took extraordinary steps. My current house is the same. Larger lot on the corner leaves me with only one neighbor.

To me, someone flying a quatcopter seems very different from someone breaking into my house, barging into the bathroom, and pulling up a chair to watch one of my children take a shower, snapping photos as they're doing it.

Then what about a drone the size of an insect? Flying the drone into your house, rather than just over your land?

Comment Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score 1) 413

So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.

You did the ROI on the LED. What's the ROI on the Taurus?

Comment They had a lot of developers (Score 1) 200

Microsoft had a pretty large number of developers on board, in part to incentives they were handing out left and right...

The problem is even with that support, it did not matter because people were just not buying the phones.

Between the giants of Google and Apple, already well established, it's pretty hard to make other people know you exist much less buy your phone... even if you are Microsoft (or Blackberry).

Comment Re:Another kook (Score 1) 528

Breaking into my house is damaging my property.

Nope. "Breaking" in the "breaking and entering" is about breaking the plane of ownership. It's a form of trespass, unrelated to any damage done to enter. Flying a drone into/over property is a form of trespass, and people have been convicted for less.

An erected privacy fence, with no pre-existing feature visible from inside it, is legally the same as installing an opaque dome. Someone would have to go to unusual lengths to see inside, and that level of unusual activity to breach the privacy is almost always a crime. Regardless of whether it's done with drone or binoculars.

Comment Re:And the purpose of this exercise is? (Score 1) 465

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, did you just compare damage to a 'bridge inside borders' to a bridge over the ocean?

I compared a bridge across a large body of water to a bridge across an only slightly larger body of water. Whether the bridge goes from one country to another is largely irrelevant unless the leaders of one country or the other are idiots. After all, they would both have to pay part of the cost of any future repairs to that bridge, which is a powerful disincentive to bombing it in a fit of stupidity. If anything, the nature of such a bridge might even serve to stabilize relations between the two countries.

The only bottleneck there is a port and ports are much easier and faster to build than additional bridges to increase throughput.

Ports can only increase bandwidth. What shippers care about is latency. The only way you can improve latency with boats is to build faster boats, and the faster the boat, the less it can carry (and the more fuel it takes), so there are very real practical limitations involved.

A burning bridge stops all cargo from being moved, while a burning ship only stops that ship. Shipping docks are a scalable solution, while a bridge is a fixed throughput solution that cannot be scaled without building a second bridge.

A burning dock stops all cargo from being moved. Your point? You think that after Russia and the U.S. build a multi-billion-dollar bridge, one of them is going to suddenly decide to blow it up on a whim? Periods of international tension might very well close the bridge, but I can't imagine them being shortsighted enough to blow it up.

Also, bridges can be repaired pretty quickly these days, for the most part. When a tanker fire destroyed an elevated road segment in San Francisco back in 2007 and caused it to fall on top of another elevated road segment (requiring significant repairs), they had the lower segment repaired in eight days, and the upper one rebuilt in just 25 days. And with the floating bridge I described, assuming you build some extra segments, damage could be repaired in hours simply by towing another identical segment into place and fastening it to the adjacent segments. You just have to provide enough of a financial incentive to grease the wheels of the bridge building company. :-)

Comment Re:Why is that illegal? (Score 1) 238

Nice try but the NSA has to verify the communications (which they were of course monitoring) were with a real terrorist.

So either (A) you get no money, or they believe you an (B) whisk your friend off to an"unsafe house" for questioning.

You try to find out later what happened to him and you get to visit him in person!

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...