Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Encryption and anti-malware (Score 1) 512 512

I can't say about the first submitter, but the second puzzles me. Why would you schedule more malware scans when the machines get slower? Heck, that might actually be a case of reversing cause and effect, since scans are notoriously slow.

As for encryption... Yeah, no, that's pretty much terrible to do on an HDD, even an SSD. What you want there is OPAL-compliant SSDs, since those will be able to perform on-disk encryption using the SSD's hardware, dramatically improving performance.

Comment: Re:I am afraid the answer is, "Yes!" (Score 1) 512 512

Not really. Much of the bloat comes from WinSxS and other such duplicates, but that doesn't mean the OS will run any slower, just that it has more versions of various DLLs available so that every application, regardless of what it was built against, can run without complaining about missing dependencies.

Comment: Re:Security team (Score 1) 512 512

There is probably some kind of creative, adaptive scheduling solution that could fix this, but their management software might not have that kind of support.

Or you could probably setup a security policy such that users don't have the power to shut down their computer. If it's a laptop, it's a different story, but it'd be relatively simple to just remove any shutdown/sleep option or menu for desktop machines. Make an announcement at the same time so people don't panic too much. Then you can do whatever you want with them at night.

Comment: Re:"Are" or "could be"? (Score 2) 103 103

While I don't know the reason for a "tourist tax" or for the Catalonian law mentioned (there could be good reasons, or not), not having insurance sounds to me like a serious problem. You're hosting people, you should have all the required protection that lets you cover the cost if something bad happens.

Comment: Re:Why fight forest fires with airplanes? (Score 1) 268 268

What the fuck? Have you tried just counting the number of cities in the general vicinity of a forest? Hint: it's a significant proportion of the world. We use airplanes because they're fast, they can carry immense loads of water or fire retardant, they're far safer for their operators than any other mechanism and they're quite cheap for the amount of work they can do. To not use airplanes is a suggestion only a complete idiot would make.

Comment: Re:What I remembered of Supreme Commander... (Score 1) 40 40

That's something you failed to mention in your initial post, giving the impression that the game had very flawed balance or mechanics and that there was no depth to the gameplay and strategy beyond this one, simplistic method. That it works against AI should surprise precisely nobody, but you've only demonstrated that you're smarter than your computer (and even then, only a tiny bit, for you repeated the same strategy over and over instead of attempting other fun strategies).

Comment: Re:Seattle too (Score 2) 203 203

The problem is that any accident has a pretty good chance of harming/killing someone who did not do anything wrong. That senile person doing a left turn might run into a minivan with two kids on board. That kid riding their bike in traffic might cause someone to swerve into the opposite lane and collide with someone else. It's not that easy to say "eh, those are acceptable".

Comment: Re:Obligatory reading (Score 2) 419 419

I'm not opposed to nuclear. I think it needs to be a viable option if we are to stop producing CO2, but I won't pretend that it's harmless, either. Even if we get to a 100% safety record, there's still the matter of storage, and transporting that waste to the storage areas. How many TEPCOs do we need to realize many of these companies entrusted with the task can be very incompetent and borderline criminal in ignoring safety lapses pointed out by inspectors.

You're not opposed to nuclear, but you still fall prey to the severe lack of knowledge most people have regarding nuclear power generation. It's really simple: if the waste is so dangerous as to need storage that can last centuries, as is currently the case, it's because it's overwhelmingly still fuel. It's been "poisoned" in the reaction process, but can be reprocessed into usable fuel. However, the US has stopped all reprocessing activities, which means that the fuel is immediately disposed as soon as its efficiency dips too much. While studies say that reprocessing is more expensive than just getting new fuel, this wouldn't hold if we refocused on nuclear power, making recycling an obvious choice. Further, certain designs of reactors can straight up use the poisoned fuel anyway, lasting dramatically longer and producing far less dangerous waste, since more of its energy has been extracted. That's discounting thorium reactors, which don't even use uranium and produce up to 100 times less waste than uranium-based reactors.

In essence, the waste issue has by and large already been solved (or at the very least dramatically diminished) by scientists. It's just politicians getting in the way.

Comment: Re:Not shared by everyone (Score 2) 637 637

It's actually funny because you've noticed the issue but can't seem to understand it.

Let's try and think: if a data set shows as noise, it means one of two things. One, it could be that the data is noise. Two, it could mean that the trend requires a much larger amount of data to determine. Bingo! If your uncertainty is significantly higher than any possible trend, it's pointless to use the data. Instead, you look for more data, and lo and behold, you find that when you include the full range of data all the way back to 1980, you get a nice upward slope. 15 years isn't enough, for a system as complicated as our planet, to plot a trend from. Even 35 years isn't enough, really, which is why you generally try to get other data sources going back farther (which is what climate scientists do, go figure).

Comment: Re:Are these the Germans... (Score 0) 189 189

In general, this is true, but this is targeted. If the Germans were running Linux instead, they would've been attacked anyway, just through a different vector. For casting wide nets in the hope of fooling common folk or stealing sensitive information, aiming for Windows is the logical choice due to the size of its user base alone. For targeted attacks, though, any platform is vulnerable.

The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee