Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score 1) 401

The F-22 is a twin engine stealth fighter with extremely high operating costs and not exactly stellar reliability/availability levels, even after 15 years of service, but at least it works and is VERY capable.

15 years? The reality is less than 10 years. They first rolled off the line into service in late 2005, and production of them stopped just a few years later because of their admittedly high costs, so it's no surprise that any issues with them have gone unresolved.

And while LM picked up some engineering expertise from cooperating with the development of the Yak-141, saying that the F-22 was based on it appears to be quite a stretch.

Comment Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control (Score 1) 236

Agreed. A woman I personally know was nearly the victim of a fake police officer about 15 years ago, back when she was in college.

As she was driving home on the interstate late one night, an unmarked car came up behind her and turned on a roof-mounted red, spinning light like you'd expect with an unmarked police car. She wisely called the police from her car phone to ask them to tell their unmarked car that she'd be continuing until she reached the nearest gas station, and they informed her that none of their units were pulling her over. They sent out an actual police cruiser to follow her and were able to apprehend the fake cop.

A couple of folks in these discussions are suggesting that cars should be smart enough to recognize police officers and follow their traffic instructions, which makes sense most of the time, but there are definitely cases where it does not make sense to follow the directions of someone who appears to be a police officer. The last thing we need is a rash of crimes where criminals dress up as police officers so as to confuse smart cars into pulling over unexpectedly.

All of which is to say, I'm okay with the default behavior being to follow "police" signals, but there should always be an override available to the driver in case they have good reason for not stopping, such as a belief that something fishy is going on or an emergency of sufficient severity to warrant disregarding police signals.

Comment Where to even start? (Score 2) 587

First off, it's a boarding school, which means that you are choosing to send your child there. Don't like the service they offer? Pull them out and send them to another one, or take advantage of the free, public education provided the state of Massachusetts.

Second, what disability? Every study done has either come back inconclusive or contrary to the notion that this disease exists. Every anecdote I've personally heard has indicated that these people have an accuracy not statistically significantly different from a coin flip when it comes to accurately identifying when WiFi is around in blind tests.

Third, is it really only an issue at school? Every Starbucks and McDonald's has free WiFi at this point, and they're on practically every street corner in America at this point. If your issue is with WiFi, you have bigger problems.

Fourth, 2.4 or 5GHz? Because they're just radio waves, so it kinda makes a difference...or is it just any WiFi at all? Would you still have this disability if we switched WiFi to use the same frequencies as TV or CB radio? Because WiFi?

Ugh, these people.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 468

No, it was not illegal back then. What was illegal was carrying an unlicensed firearm, which, if you had read the article you linked, you'd have realized was the reason he was arrested and charged. Moreover, I believe it was also illegal to carry a loaded firearm on the plane. Your ammunition needed to be stored separately, but it was quite common for people to carry properly-licensed, unloaded guns on planes just a few years ago.

Comment Re:Work for HIRE!! (Score 1) 280

I think it *is* a work for hire. They fix the food...and serve it to you, then you are free to use it as you please...to eat it, to throw it on the floor, you can encase it in carbonite and hang it on the wall as a trophy.

That's a separate issue. There's no question that they sold goods to you. What's at question is whether the presentation of the goods is done as a work-for-hire, since apparently it's copyrightable.

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 1) 301

Yes, but as with the previous poster, the tone of your response seems to suggest disagreement, yet the point you've made is entirely orthogonal to the thing being discussed.

Just to sum up my stance while incorporating what you're talking about: a hypocrite is wrong because they've failed to live up to their own standard, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing they're advocating is wrong, since the rightness or wrongness of that thing is independent of the hypocrite's actions.

Which is to say, I'm not suggesting there isn't a distinction, and I would quite agree with you that if someone opens themselves up to public scrutiny and then fails to live up to that scrutiny they are deserving of being called out on their hypocrisy. That doesn't invalidate any of what I or the grandparent to my post said (i.e. the post I was defending), which is that being a hypocrite doesn't automatically make you wrong.

Hopefully that makes things clearer.

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 1) 301

You're arguing something entirely different (and neither of you are wrong). You're suggesting that being correct means you don't need to be a hypocrite. Be that as it may, it doesn't preclude being a hypocrite, which was his point, since he was saying that being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong with regards to the subject of your hypocrisy.

For instance, suppose I made a floating, solid state, self-driving "car" that was powered by thermal variations in the air. No need for fuel stops. No emissions. No moving parts to maintain. Goes faster than an F1. Unlimited travel range. Can go across any terrain, including water. Drives itself. Dirt cheap.

But it also looks like the car equivalent of a beige computer, sounds like it's gasping for air, and has an interior that looks like an overstuffed pillow.

I might be quite correct in asserting that it'll revolutionize the world, that it's the most important invention of the century, that it can replace any practical need for a car in anyone's life...while still driving a Ferrari at home, just because I love the look, feel, and sound of the Ferrari. It doesn't mean I'm wrong about any of my claims, nor in my suggestions that the car I've created can replace any car for anyone, but just because it can do so, it doesn't mean that it will do so, nor does it mean that we might prefer for it to do so.

Quite frequently, the things that we all know are good ideas (e.g. eating well, exercising, creating less waste/consuming less) are perfectly attainable, but they can oftentimes be quite difficult to accomplish. As such, as the previous poster suggested, it's unsurprising when people make hypocrites of themselves by failing to live up the standards they've set, even though, as you said, there was no need for them to do so.

Comment Re:Metabolic rate doesn't vary that much (Score 1) 381

Yes, it's quite possible to gain weight while consuming less energy than you expended. In fact, all four of the permutations are possible:
1) Weight decreases while energy input < energy spent: you're dieting and/or exercising and are losing weight as a result.

2) Weight decreases while energy input > energy spent: for various reasons (gut flora being the biggest), different people metabolize foods differently, resulting in differing efficiencies in how well they can metabolize the food they eat. Details below.

3) Weight increases while energy input < energy spent: you consumed something that's heavy but low in calories, such as water.

4) Weight increases while energy input > energy spent: you're eating more than you need and are gaining weight as a result.

Going back to #2, pretend that you and I each consume identical meals and engage in identical activities tomorrow. Because our gut flora are different, we'll break down foods differently. My flora may be better at breaking foods down into energy my body can absorb, whereas yours are not as efficient. That may be good for you, however, since if we eat the same 2500 calories today, you may only get 1500 calories of energy out of it, with the other 1000 calories passing through you, whereas I may get 2000 calories out of those same meals. If we then each engage in 1800 calories' worth of activity during the day, you'll be at a 300 calorie deficit, resulting in fat reserves getting burned, whereas I'll be at a 200 calorie surplus, resulting in an increase in my fat reserves.

All of which is to say, weight can change for all sorts of reasons. At least for me, I've found that getting a good scale and eliminating as many of the sources of variation as possible (i.e. check it in the morning after I've relieved myself, before breakfast, while I'm still wearing the same bed clothes I always wear) makes it easiest to track change over time and trends. By the time I get to work, the season and the meetings I'll be in that day will have affected the weight of the clothes I chose to wear, how much sleep I got will dictate whether I got a cup of coffee immediately or waited for awhile, and how late I woke up will have affected whether I grabbed breakfast or skipped it, all of which change from day to day and all of which would add useless noise to any measurements I'd be doing.

Comment Re:Work for HIRE!! (Score 1) 280

A bill is not a contract. A bill is the result of a contract. It's clear that there is an implied contract between restaurants and their patrons, hence why they can drop a bill in your lap at the end of the meal even though they may not post prices in their menus or place notices around the establishment that you'll need to pay for your food once the meal is done. But suggesting that the implied contract extends into work-for-hire concepts seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Which isn't to suggest that this law makes ANY sort of sense to me, just to be clear. I'm merely saying that I don't think we can treat this sort of thing as work-for-hire.

Comment Re:Work for HIRE!! (Score 1) 280

In most cases, work for hire requires that there be a contract in place, signing away the rights of the content creator to the entity hiring them. No such contract exists in a typical culinary setting, unless you're suggesting it's implied, which I would suspect would be a difficult thing to argue.

Disclaimer (in case it wasn't already obvious): IANAL.

Comment Re:Yes - known for years. (Score 1, Insightful) 435

I assume you must be thinking of one that's well-known enough we'd all get your reference, which would suggest you're talking about the one making the rounds in the news recently, right? But that one was only introduced in the latest version of the OS, rather than "existing for years". And that one has already been patched in both the latest version of the OS and the next version of the OS.

So surely you must be thinking of another one. Or else you just ignored all of the inconvenient truths. Either way, I'm eager to be corrected or informed, as appropriate.

Worth noting: next version of OS X switches to a "rootless" security model, à la SELinux.

Comment Re:need moar encryption (Score 1) 124

Keep everybody safe. Encrypt everything!

Yes and no. It's fairly trivial for ISPs to engage in MITM attacks against individuals. For instance, suppose I want to do some online banking. If they serve a false certificate to me as my bank's certificate, they'll be able to read every message during the encryption handshake process, allowing them to decrypt any subsequent encrypted messages we might send each other.

The only way that encryption works as an adequate defense against ISPs is if we have an out-of-band means for establishing trust in the first place.

Comment Re:Spoofed Source IP (Score 1) 47

Exactly. I was reading research papers about similar DDoS attacks using unwitting BitTorrent clients back in 2007 and 2008. Not sure why this is noteworthy, since there were several different attacks back then that could be used to publish false IP addresses to the distributed hash table (DHT) as being sources for particular packets from the torrent, such that peers looking for that packet would try to repeatedly contact a server that wasn't even a part of the torrent swarm. There were also a variety of techniques for groups like the MPAA and RIAA to poison the data in torrents, such that corrupted or bad data would get distributed in a swarm, rather than the good data that was originally being published.

I haven't paid much attention to this space since I got out of grad school in 2011, so it's possible that those previous attack vectors were patched and this is a brand new one that was discovered, but still, it's nothing new, and those old ones weren't a big deal at the time, so why is this one?

All great discoveries are made by mistake. -- Young