Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:track record (Score 2) 268

by RightwingNutjob (#48935931) Attached to: US Air Force Selects Boeing 747-8 To Replace Air Force One
Several 757s are configured for use as Air Force One when the President is going somewhere too small to handle a 747. Honestly, I think risk-averseness is driving the decision to stay with the 747 more than anything else. The president's plane has always been the biggest 4-engined Boeing built, and what's the point of changing that when you don't have to. Will it cost more than some other option? Maybe, but all things POTUS bleed cash anyway, so is it worth modifying a design that fits into a 747 now and having to debug it later for at best a marginal cost savings?

Comment: A sense of scale (Score 3, Insightful) 24

is missing in this notion. Meaningful Earth observation from space is done with cameras that take up more physical space than a cubesat. Yeah, you can squeeze several high definition cameras into a cubesat, but the moment you realize that you need something other than visible band, temperture control on the ccds, and the power-aperture to beam that stuff down to earth in a meaningful timeframe, you've built 1500lb worth of overhead around your tiny little cubesat and you're back in GOES and NPP land.

Comment: Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated (Score 1) 367

by RightwingNutjob (#48926125) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure
Here's the problem: if you care about security to the point where screen locks are serious business, you've gotten yourself into a contradictory set of requirements: both trusted and untrusted users have physical access to and execution priveleges on a terminal. If you really suspect that your users are untrustworthy enough to steal credentials in this way, the answer is to not have a screenlock at all but to push the security barrier further into the system. The terminal is dumb and has no security model, but to access and/or interact with your proprietary information, the user types credentials into your own custom coded application or web form through a browser and it logs him out after N minutes and requires reentry of the credentials. He's not allowed to run any code on your system, and all the directories, executables and shell scripts that are run in the course of interactring with the terminal are marked 755 or 744 as appropriate so that he can't modify them, and the tmp dir resides in a ramdisk that gets wiped between sessions. Then it doesn't matter if everything is permitted over the X11 protocol, because there is no way to spoof anything from that untrusted terminal. Physical security goes a long way in obviating risks from software vulnerabilities, where practical. And if the data being guarded is sufficiently important, it will be made to be perceived as practical.

Comment: Re:I think the thing being missed here (Score 1) 300

by RightwingNutjob (#48742139) Attached to: Why We're Not Going To See Sub-orbital Airliners
Depends on who I am. If two days of my time wasted on travel costs more than the price difference, I'd definitely pay. If it's less, but not too much less, I'd pay. If its work that only I can do and it needs to be done sooner rather than later, there's no good way to put a dollar amount on it, but I'd probably pay. If it's just for me and not my company and I can afford to blow an extra 10k to treat myself, I might pay. And it depends on the savings. If 7hrs to Europe gets cut down to 1 hr and 15 hours to Asia gets cut down to 1 hr 30 minutes, people would pay even when it's a financial looser, because even if you don't charge/make 500/hr, you might still hate flying enough to eat the cost difference anyway.

Exceptions prove the rule, and wreck the budget. -- Miller

Working...