Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Needs a honeypot (Score 0) 335

It has to be better than that, though. The would-be killers need to be shot down, and then the MPs need to pose the very dead Obi Wannabe Jihaddi next to a 12 year old girl holding a shotgun and smiling.

Even better, how about a video of Obi being beheaded with a knife? Nobody's thought of that one before.

+ - Fraud Rampant in Apple Pay->

Submitted by PvtVoid
PvtVoid (1252388) writes "An industry consultant, Cherian Abraham, put the fraud rate at 6 percent, compared with a traditional credit card fraud rate that is relatively minuscule, 10 cents for every $100 spent. [i.e. one tenth of one percent]

The vulnerability in Apple Pay is in the way that it — and card issuers — “onboard” new credit cards into the system. Because Apple wanted its system to have the simplicity for which it has become famous and wanted to make the sign-up process “frictionless,” the company required little beyond basic credit card information about a user. Nor did it provide much information to the banks, like full phone numbers and addresses, that might help them detect fraud early.

The banks, desperate to become their customers’ default card on Apple Pay — most add only one to their iPhones — did little to build their own defenses or to push Apple to provide more detailed information about its customers. Some bank executives acknowledged that they were were so scared of Apple that they didn’t speak up."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Feminist bullshit (Score 5, Informative) 41

by PvtVoid (#49212093) Attached to: The Astronomer Who Brought Us the Universe

yes, I'm sure she worked in complete isolation, and developed everything by herself.

No, she was a part of a group consisting entirely of women under the management of Edward Pickering at Harvard Observatory, called at the time "Pickering's Harem" Despite her groundbreaking accomplishments, Leavitt was unable to obtain a faculty position at Harvard, entirely due to her gender.

Times have changed a lot since then, despite the efforts of ignorant douchebags like you.

Comment: Re:Let me see (Score 2) 41

by PvtVoid (#49211881) Attached to: The Astronomer Who Brought Us the Universe

Well, here's where you open yourself up. Distance measurements benefit from longer baselines. The biggest one we have now is about 2AU wide. Take a picture now, wait 6 months, take a picture again when the earth is on the opposite side of the sun. If we have a base on mars, we can have a slightly wider baseline with earth and mars on opposite sides of the sun for a simultaneous measurement (can't do that now at all) and two martian orbital radii for non-simulataneous measurements about a year apart.

Now you might say: well why can't we do this with a remote probe?

We are: It's called Gaia. The baseline isn't really the limiting factor, nor is mirror size: it's mostly about atmospheric distortion and instrument stability, both of which are vastly improved in space. Gaia will be able to do parallaxes to accuracy of 20 micro-arcseconds.

Comment: Re:I Read All of Heinlein's Stuff (Score 1) 331

by PvtVoid (#49182237) Attached to: 'The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress' Coming To the Big Screen

A lot of his work was good, and even his weaker stuff is still worth a read -- some neat stuff explored; but your definitely looking through a window into Heinlein's political, economic, and sexual ideology and it becomes apparent to the point of being an annoying distraction.

The thing that stood out for me re-reading Mistress recently was that Heinlein was an utter troglodyte about gender roles. He was progressive for his time, but his treatment of women really stands out, and not in a good way, when reading his books with a modern sensibility.

Comment: Re:Realistic (Score 1, Troll) 374

by PvtVoid (#49129833) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt

Because there is a consensus that widespread adoption of solar power is a net good for the society as a whole.

And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.

Government's money is our money. We get to vote on how it's used. If I believe that subsidizing an activity undertaken by someone else is to my benefit, I will vote to do so. This is me choosing how to use my own money.

Oh, wait: you must be a Libertarian, and therefore think that you as an individual have a personal veto over everything the government might decide to do. Never mind.

Comment: Recorded music is a form of advertising (Score 4, Insightful) 305

by PvtVoid (#49112047) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"

Why do artists expect to be paid at all for recordings of their music? For a very brief period in history, making money off of recordings was made possible by a coincidental combination of technology and artificial scarcity caused by the cumbersome nature of physical media. Before the advent of physical recordings, musicians had to make money by performing. After the advent of digital recordings, musicians will once again have to make money by performing. Anything else will prove to have been historically anomalous.

Making and distributing recordings will still be in artists' interest, because they will serve as a way to generate demand for performances. That is, recordings will become a form of advertising, which will be distributed for all intents and purposes for free, or even at the expense of artists.

Can we quit wringing our hands about this now? Art will survive just fine.

Comment: Re: Numerology (Score 2) 183

by PvtVoid (#49084557) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

To be clear, I (parent AC) wasn't saying that the probability distribution is the wave function, just that it is given by it (which you confirm, it is the square of the amplitude). Now consider you make an observation and collapse the system to a single state. This state had a certain probability of occurring (again, given by the wave function). If you try to measure again, you will get the same state.

Only if you don't observe any orthogonal characteristics in the meantime. Consider a two-state system, with eigenstates |a> and |b> (for example, z-spin). Now consider an orthogonal basis |1> and |2> (for example, x-spin) which spans the same Hilbert space, such that

|1> = 1/\srqrt{2} |a> + 1/\sqrt{2} |b>
|2> = 1/\sqrt{2} |a> - 1/\sqrt{2} |b>

Now, suppose we observe the system to be in state |a>. Then if we perform an observation in the orthogonal basis, we will have a 50% probability to be in state |1> and 50% in state |2>. Suppose it's in state |2>. Now if we observe the first basis again, it's not in state |a> with certainty any more, despite the fact that we just measured it. It has a 50% chance to be in |a> and 50% to be in |b>.

There is no necessity to "restore coherence": the system is fully coherent throughout. This behavior does not happen with coins.

Comment: Re: Numerology (Score 2) 183

by PvtVoid (#49081175) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

A collapse is the same as taking a single statistically random sample from a probability distribution given by the wave function.

This is wrong: the complex amplitude collapses, not just the probability (which is the square of the amplitude, and contains less information). This distinction is the heart of what makes quantum mechanics intrinsically different from classical physics.

Comment: Numerology (Score 5, Insightful) 183

by PvtVoid (#49079533) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

Why, for instance, 10 cubic-kilometer voxels? Why not 100, or 1, or 0.1? How about 10^{15} cubic kilometers, which is about the volume of the sun? Adjust this number correctly, and you can match any energy density you want.

This is the problem with the science blogosphere: they'll take any press release whatsoever and echo it around regardless of whether or not it makes any fucking sense at all.

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin