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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:The problem STARTS with SQL itself. (Score 1) 191

This is pretty much right. We're trapped writing snippets of one language (SQL) in another (PHP/whatever).

Avoiding any single SQLi vulnerability is trivial - use stored procs, escape strings, or use parameterized queries. You can even avoid most problems at the organizational level as long as someone competent is in charge and raw SQL is banned or forced into rigid guidelines.

But it seems we've collectively decided to trust our data interface to a framework that is at its core no better than an eval() in terms of inherent safety. That's just asking for trouble.

Comment Re:I've been waiting for this! (Score 1) 257

Last time I looked into this (and it's been a while), that's true if you send the computers from a central point and they arrive unmodified at their destination.

But all of the Bell Inequality experiments I've seen pass the light/electrons through a filter or polarizer. Once you take into account the effect of the filter on the particles, it becomes a simple backtracking problem again.

Guh - I know I'm in the minority on this - I really should just run the math myself and see if I'm missing anything.

Comment Re:I've been waiting for this! (Score 1) 257

I've read a number of accounts of the Bell Inequality experiments, and I still don't see how it doesn't boil down to "Alice got X there for Bob got Y", or at least "Alice got X, therefore Bob has a Z% chance of having Y".

The numbers definitely jive with what you'd expect from wave-like phenomena, not particles. But I've never seen any good reason to believe that observation plays a causal part in the system. It's more like observing things locally can tell us what happened remotely - but that's just normal backtracking.

Comment Re: Cut to the chase (Score 5, Interesting) 134

Just to be clear, Planck units have no physical significance. They're just a convenient way of doing physics calculations because when you use Planck units, you can treat some fundamental constants as equal to 1.

So Planck time isn't the frame rate of reality, it's just a really small unit that makes some calculations easier.

Comment Re:Isn't this a no brainer? (Score 1) 474

If I can't see their site, I'm not going to share it on social media, which is responsible for a ton of clicks - many of which are from non-adblocked browsers. I won't link to it from my blog. I won't tweet it.

You take a big chance when you block the most internet-savvy demographic from viewing your site.

Comment Re:Amazed (Score 1) 185

a) You'll note I said "immediately" - Bitcoin is volatile, but rarely that volatile

b) The same applies to other currencies. If you want to call those "scams", then I'll simply admit we have a different definition of that word.

c) I still don't see the scam. Who's benefiting? Bitcoin's value feels market-driven. "Scam" implies there's some puppeteer jerking the strings in order to make a profit.

Whether or not BTC will hold its value in the long term, I see no way to interpret it as a scam.

"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!" -- The Ghostbusters