Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What percentage... (Score 1) 66

by HiThere (#48638559) Attached to: Geoengineered Climate Cooling With Microbubbles

IIUC, the smaller a bubble is, the longer it lasts. This may have something to do with their calculated result. If so, this sounds pretty good.

Only thing is, I think this needs a bit more research:
What happens to fish, etc. who swim through these bubbles?
Does this change the rate at which gasses diffuse through water?
Does it affect the rate of evaporation? If so, what effect does that have?
Most of these can probably be answered fairly easily, and maybe they already have been. If not, they should be considered.

Comment: Re:Official Conclusion (Score 1) 209

Perhaps Bruce Schneier was saying something different. It sounds like he was saying that you, personally, have no way to protect yourself from your employers shitty security practices. I still disagree with him, to an extent. If anyone read the emails on my business account the worst they would get would be terminal bordom. But if you're doing business with someone, you can't protect yourself against their shitty security practices...and you can't even tell that they have any without criminal liability. Credit card numbers lost because someone you did business with was hacked isn't something you can protect against.

Comment: Re: So which building will they blow up? (Score 1) 209

I know that various different tyrants have claimed that to be true. That doesn't mean it ever was true. Politicians have always been liars. Dracula had it said about his kingdom, too, and there was a Persian Emperor who claimed that a virgin with a bag of gold could walk the entire lenght of the silk route unmolested. I never heard of one that tried.

Comment: Re:cis and mi regulation is not "bad" code (Score 1) 8

by HiThere (#48638381) Attached to: Machine Learning Reveals Genetic Controls

I thought that was what histones were for. DNA that's wrapped can't be read, so you control what is wrapped to decide what is available for expression. And epigenetic tags freeze or thaw the wrapping. This requires sections of DNA that function as labels, but it doesn't directly control the folding (more accurately rolling into a cylinder) that's handled by the histones, and when they decide to roll it up is decided by what tags are attached to the labels.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 209

Unfortunately, security is a cost center, not a profit center. That doesn't sit well with the MBA types.

Nonsense. It only doesn't sit well with the fictional, cartoon-grade MBA types that IT people like to conjure up as straw men. Security IS a profit center, because it's part and parcel of actually doing everything that generates profit. Without it, the profitable activity is impossible, and so it is part of the profit-making activity. Period. Saying it's no is like saying the director of a Sony movie isn't part of their profitable activity of making movies because he has to be paid.

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

by ScentCone (#48637623) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC
No, I'm focused DIRECTLY on your comment. Which is peppered with the pretentious and (in this context) meaningless word "externalities" - in an attempt to make it sound like you're constructing an argument, when you're actually not. When you're not saying anything, the only thing to focus on IS the blather and the blatherer.

Comment: Re:Copenhagen interpretation != less complicated (Score 2) 151

by ultranova (#48637585) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

The simplest explanation of why it's wrong is that it's Deterministic. i.e. it's part of the "Clockwork universe" and if that's true, then you do not have free will and we should all just throw in the towel now...

While we're at it, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be wrong because I'd like a perpetual motion machine and conservation of momentum must get temporarily suspended when someone's about to be run over by a truck.

Also, determinism doesn't conflict with free will. Determinism is a concept in physics and free will is a concept in law and philosophy. If you try to contrast them, you'll end up equating free will with randomness: you didn't write your message based on your beliefs which you've formed based on your character and experience (since that would be deterministic), but rather it's the equivalent of "cat /dev/random | strings".

Determinism = fail

No, but even if it was, it in no way would disprove it.

Comment: Re:Which is why (Score 1) 209

I'm assuming that Sony, being a very large multinational company, has a very large Intranet, which means at various points its going to be traversing the open Internet at various points.

Unless you're advocating Sony lay down its own fiber and then turn off its gateway routers....

Comment: Re:Sony security: strong or weak? (Score 5, Interesting) 209

I'd be interested in knowing the details of the attack. Was it a "social engineering" attack of some kind (ie. a virus-laden email that someone with high privileges opened)? Was it a vulnerability in their networks? I've heard someone with high level admin privileges had their account hacked, but in what way was it done?

The organization I work for is a contractor for the government of a North American jurisdiction, and yesterday morning I started getting reports that some sort of virus-laden emails were flowing out of this government's networks. Sure enough, within a half an hour, I got emails from a contact I have within this particularly agency, with an attached ZIP file with an SCR file inside. That has to be one of the oldest ways that malware has been transmitted in Windows system, I saw my first virus-laden SCR file somewhere around 1997-1998.

Apparently this critter is so new that by the time we checked, only a few AV companies had caught on to it. Even worse in some ways is that it appears that it made its debut on the very government servers in question, making me think this was a targeted attack. So you have a combination of a brand new virus of some kind that won't get caught by the scanners, lax email rules that allow the opening and execution of executable file types (not that blocking EXE variants doesn't mean some bastard won't be firing off a compromised PDF at an unpatched system), and users who through a combination of laziness and ignorance happily take the final step.

With this particular attack, there would have been no problem if Outlook had been configured not to open these kinds of attachments, and in an Active Directory environment, that's pretty trivial, so some of the blame has to go to this government agency's IT team. But still, even with the best safeguards, where users just happily click on any old attachment, it doesn't exactly take a rare alignment of the stars to have malware planted in a network. Sure, it won't have root privileges and won't be able to propagate itself via more sophisticated means, but it appears in this case it didn't need to.

So I do agree to some point that there are finite limits to what any person or organization can do to secure itself against a determined and directed attack. But there are ways to make such attacks much more difficult, and more quickly captured before they wreak too much harm.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 558

by ScentCone (#48635569) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'
So, again, the only time the knife becomes dangerous is when YOU pick it up, or someone else does. Only human action makes it dangerous. It's not inherently dangerous, it's human action that is dangerous. Otherwise the knife is inert, sitting there, and unable in any way to hurt you or someone else. Unless it's highly radioactive or something - but I'm guessing that's not what you're getting at.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov