Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Encryption? (Score 1) 55

by Opportunist (#49504433) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

The main difference I'd see is that it's much harder if not impossible to spoof an IP address in a TCP connection, considering that it takes a completed handshake before any meaningful traffic (read: lots of bits) can take place. I could for example see this making upstream filtering of DDoS attacks more difficult.

Comment: Re:A bit off topic (Score 1) 187

Then Germany and parts of Poland would now be a smoldering crater of a nuclear death zone with little chance to ever clean it up in this or any of the next generations.

By no later than 1944, the German Luftwaffe was in no position to conduct any offensive action anymore. The air superiority of the allied was total. Including Germany. So even if he had the bomb, he certainly would not have any means to deliver it anywhere beyond the areas that Germany still occupied.

Given his "strategy" (I'll use that term loosely here) of scorched earth, it's likely that he would have had it used to increase the destruction on the retreat, to decrease the useful materials the approaching allies could use (as he did) but also to create a zone of denial that they would either have to avoid (and thus lengthen the supply lines) or cross while accepting the losses (something the Soviets would probably even have done).

In short, Germany having the bomb after 1944 would maybe have lengthened the war (though this is unlikely due to the Allies having it in Summer 1945 and Berlin having actually been the original main target, Germany was just lucky that it surrendered before the bomb was ready for shipment). It would certainly have meant more suffering for Germany due to self inflicted nuclear destruction (Hitler himself considered the Germans "unworthy" at the end of the war because they have "proven to be the weaker people and not worthy of continued existence". Together with his fantasy of a "Götterdämmerung", an epic apocalypse that has to happen to "his" Germany if he himself fails, it's likely that he would have called for the destruction of large cities before they fall into enemy hands. What would have been interesting is to see how many people would actually have been fanatical enough to do it).

Comment: Good luck. (Score 1) 38

by Lumpy (#49504081) Attached to: US Military To Recruit Civilian Cybersecurity Experts

All Cybersecurity guys I know will not tolerate testosterone fueled chain of command bullshit that is the backbone of the US military.

Exactly how do they think they will control and indoctrinate these people? Most are smart enough to know that most of the problems are CAUSED by the United States, and when ordered to do something unethical, they will say "go to hell"

So I am guessing threats of imprisonment is their motivator?

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 298

by PopeRatzo (#49504047) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

There is no place for democracy in matters concerning science.

It's not a matter concerning science. It's a matter concerning money, industry, the marketplace. I have no problem with the modification of genomes. Science is gonna do what they're gonna do.

The issue I've been raising has nothing to do with that. My issue comes up after the science is done and now it's industry selling a product to consumers.

Just disclose what's in the package in an honest and open way. It is not science to hide information from people. If you're afraid it's going to be too scary for consumers, then it's a matter for the marketing department, not for science.

Claiming this discussion is about "science" is a little bit dishonest, in fact.

Comment: Re:Great idea! (Score 1) 38

by Opportunist (#49504013) Attached to: US Military To Recruit Civilian Cybersecurity Experts

The main problem is that the "spirit" of hacking is diametrically opposite of what the military is like. Not that that "spirit" mattered much anymore, but it's still why most people get into the area. They usually stay for the money, Which is another thing that works against the military...

So the military is neither attractive to new people who want to get into the field, nor to seasoned veterans who learned just what salaries they can ask for.

Plus, despite money, most "hackers" still have some kind of moral limitations. At least the people I know, and I dare say that, would not easily be convinced that it's ok to blow up some nuclear plant by messing with its computers from afar for the odd chance that some terrorists may be near while killing a few million as collateral damage. Given the international structure of the community, it's very likely you actually know someone in the country that's supposed to be attacked.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten