Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Too late for me (Score 2) 27

I just sent it back to the vendor (under warranty) because the latest OS update caused the speakers to melt.

While browsing the net I noticed the smell of burnt plastic, and quickly noticed the edges (where the speakers are) was too hot to touch. Turned the thing off but they were cooked.

Then I found I wasn't alone... https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/834884/shield-tablet/speakers-damaged-after-3-0-update/

Apparently somehow the speakers got fed DC current while doing nothing in particular. Impressive if you ask me.

Comment Re:What's Cash? (Score 1) 294

If somebody steals your card and PIN, they can easily drain pretty much as much as they want from your bank account, up to whatever your bank's daily withdrawal limit is

In my (Norwegian) bank, I can define my own withdrawal limits on my cards.

I also have a separate bank account with no cards "attached" where I keep most of my monthly spending cash. If I need more available on my card I just send an SMS with the amount I want to transfer from my "safe" account to my "card" account. Takes about 3 seconds to get the money there and only costs me a few cents.

So, I'm never worried about drained accounts.

That said, my bank will cover any fraud unless they have strong reason to believe I've been negligent protecting the PIN code.

Comment Re:Downlink (Score 4, Interesting) 134

In these 10 years since launch, they could have precomputed every possible picture, hash them, and then the probe could have simply sent the hashes instead of the full size pictures.

Just for fun, let's see what it would take for them to pull this off. The LORRI image sensor is 1024x1024 pixels with 12 bits per pixel.

So the number of distinct images divided by the timespan available gives 2^(12*20) / (10 years) = about 5.6 * 10^63 hashes per second.

Let's say you had a CPU capable of computing one such image hash per nanosecond (very optimistic), you'd need 2^(12*20) / (10 years) / (1 nanosecond) = about 5.6 * 10^54 CPUs to pull this off.

For comparison that's an order of magnitude or so more than the number of nucleons in our earth.

If those CPUs consumed 50W of power computing these hashes (again very optimistic), the entire project would consume 2^(12*20) / (1 nanosecond) * (50 watt) = 8.8 * 10^64 joules.

For reference that's two orders of magnitude more than the total mass-energy (including dark matter) of the Virgo supercluster, the supercluster which contains our Milky Way galaxy.

Unless I messed up the calculations that is...

Comment Re:I don't understand ad blockers (Score 2) 161

But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free.

Because of drive-by downloads.

Last year the ad network of a non-trivial Norwegian site was hacked, and they started serving malware which targeted Java. If the user hadn't updated Java fairly recently, they'd get infected without any user interaction.

The malware was designed specifically to target the largest bank in Norway. This bank required Java for their login procedure (they no longer do, took them long enough).

So, if the user visited this site with a vulnerable Java runtime, and then logged in to this bank later to pay some bills, the malware would send the money elsewhere.

Since the malware was running on the local machine, it could bypass the two-factor authentication (password+token) required when transferring money.

Comment Confused (Score 1) 175

The guy is confused. Art != looks good.

Just look at paintings, in comparison van Gogh was a pixel artist while Rembrandt made proper high-definition 3D, yet both have made works that are considered great art.

When people complain about pixelation it's because nearly everyone cares about what looks good and not about good art.

Comment Re:And probably infinite (Score 1) 235

The real mystery though is how the universe could be very nearly flat (without being exactly flat). Such "fine tuning" is clear evidence we're missing something quite fundamental.

The observable universe has to be sufficiently big for a planet like us to form, so that puts a lower bound on it.

But if the size of the whole universe really is random, then it seems likely that it's far larger than the observable, no?

Or are there any theoretical upper bounds I'm not familiar with?

Comment Re: How about basic security? (Score 1) 390

Because it's not big enough to number all our hosts?
I can reach the hosts that have v4 over v4, but not the ones that don't.

You said it wasn't a big issue that you cannot contact v4 from a v6 address, because one can simply use v4 to connect to v4. Yet you also say we need v6 because we don't have enough v4 left.

See the issue now?

Comment Re:IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful o (Score 1) 390

Oh, did you mean "NAT as it existed before we ran out of IP addresses"? Well, that's why we need IPv6, now when we are talking about NAT, it includes carrier-grade NAT.

If you're behind a carrier grade NAT then fiddling with your own router config won't help much will it. That's the part I quoted and objected to.

Comment Re:IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful o (Score 1) 390

NAT mostly works, but it turns a lot of things that should 'just work' into a need to fiddle around with the router config.

I don't see how. Either you keep essentially all ports open to your public IP at all times (bad idea), or you need to open ports on demand.

The latter requires the same fiddling around with the router config as with NAT, assuming UPnP isn't used. If UPnP is enabled it's not an issue with NAT either and the whole point is moot.

Comment Good results (Score 1) 276

Without good results, it doesn't really matter about the bells and whistles. I use a search engine to find information, so it better do that extremely well. For example, I just couldn't stand using DuckDuckGo (aka Bing) because of this, and went back to Google. Bing consistently failed to find information the information I wanted, while Google had it on the first page.

So, after your engine returns as good or, ideally, better results than Google, you can start thinking about other features.

One feature I'd really like is to be able to tweak my result set. Something like if I search for "AC DC", I get a bunch of results about the band "AC/DC". That's not really a bad result given the input, but in this case I was after an explanation for the electrical terms.

So I'm thinking some ability to mark one or more of the results I don't want and say "not pages like this", and it would cull those talking about the band, in a weighted manner. Or some other way to help me find the information I want when I search for some ambiguous terms.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...