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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Earth brighter than Moon - surprise? (Score 1) 77

You're just restating what it means to be "brighter". To remove the surprise you have to find a mundane explanation for the difference in albedo.

The surprise should be removed by the fact that we've known each body's albedo for decades. I was surprised that the a space scientist working on DSCOVR wasn't aware of the differences in albedo, or was aware but hadn't actually pictured the difference in his mind. It just seems odd for someone in his position to be surprised by this.

Comment Earth brighter than Moon - surprise? (Score 2) 77

“It is surprising how much brighter Earth is than the moon,” said Adam Szabo, DSCOVR project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “Our planet is a truly brilliant object in dark space compared to the lunar surface.”

The Moon has an albedo of about 0.1 (similar to coal), while Earth's albedo is three times greater, so this isn't really very surprising at all.

Comment Re:Compensation level is simply absurd (Score 2) 214

I agree the wages are absurd, but the fact is that Fox make an obscene amount of money out of The Simpsons, and it's only fair that a healthy chunk of that dosh goes to the people involved in actually making the programme.

It's the same with the football Premier League here in the UK. We have players that are paid £250,000 every week for several hours work (at most), and most people find that abhorrent. But that fact is that millions of people either pay the extortionate ticket prices, or pay Sky £50 a month in order to watch what these players are doing. All that money has to go somewhere, and it's only fair that a healthy chunk goes to the people actually playing the game that the public are will to collectively pay so much money to watch.

Whatever doesn't go to the people directly involved in the content ends up with someone even less deserving.

Of course, the people earning these massive sums could donate a large percentage of it to charity without even noticing. Feel free to blame them for not doing that :o)

Comment Re:Stars or noise (Score 1) 97

I zoomed all the way in to the very far right of the image and with an incredibly crude estimation, determined there were about 10,000 stars displayed on my monitor. At the darkest part of the image. Whats weird is how close together they look. How come everything looks so far away from us?

The billions of tiny stars are actually nowhere near as large as they look in the picture. They are points of light that have been smudged out into little blobs by the image capturing process. The brighter the star the bigger the blob - that's why the nearer, brighter stars look much bigger, when in fact they are also virtually point sources at this scale.

Comment Re:Full Disclosure can be found on oss-security... (Score 1) 399

Hmm, I wonder how many phones are valuable.

FWIW I have a Moto G running CM11, and it is vulnerable. I checked with this test:

env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"

Someone further down reckons that this can be exploited via a DHCP request, if you are connected to a malicous AP for example. Scary stuff.

Comment Re:Don't they have something better to do? (Score 1) 201

We've also given you Leftfield, The Chemical Brothers, the Prodigy, Massive Attack, Orbital, Underworld, Faithless etc. etc., all of which could be classed as (or at the very least have been heavily influenced by) electronic dance music. If you haven't heard of any of these, that's your loss.

Comment Re:List of their patents (Score 1) 171

It could be the identifier is a hash - there is some chance of collision, so cannot be guaranteed to be unique.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that "substantially unique identifier" is some kind of legal-speak for "hash code". I see what they're getting at, but the phrase "substantially unique" still makes no sense - either an ID is unique or it isn't.

Comment Re:List of their patents (Score 4, Funny) 171

5,978,791 - Data processing system using substantially unique identifiers to identify data items, whereby identical data items have the same identifiers

"Substantially unique" - I love that.

I wasn't aware there were varying degrees of "unique". Maybe there's a scale:

  • Not unique
  • Slightly unique
  • Moderately unique
  • Substantially unique
  • Very unique
  • Completely Unique

The best part is that this potentially allows for many moderately unique patents, each patenting varying degrees of uniqueness.