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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Drake equation (Score 3, Insightful) 219

by aviators99 (#48277993) Attached to: Most Planets In the Universe Are Homeless

This impacts Drake equation and might shed light as to why we have not detected any other sentient life in the universe.

No, it does not impact the Drake equation at all. The drake equation is based on R* and f(p) which are the the "rate of star formation" and the "fraction of those stars that have planets" (from your link on wikipedia). Both of these numbers are not affected by this finding.

Comment: Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 1) 256

by aviators99 (#48212599) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

Reinforcing an already existing ban was to make sure foreign markets don't try to muscle in and sell direct.

The last minute change to the law was to change one word; the word that caused Massachusetts to lose the case against Tesla. This had nothing to do with foreign cars.

Comment: Re:So now he has no nose? (Score 1) 161

by aviators99 (#48201719) Attached to: Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk

(Forgive me. The first image that came to mind when I read this story was the movie "Sleeper", when they were trying to clone the assassinated leader using his nose.)

Yes, I am shocked at the lack of quotes from "Sleeper" in here.

"I've seen him shoot a nose!"
"Checking the [nose] cell structure!"

Comment: Re:Hmm, strong evidence of null-activity by NSA? N (Score 3, Insightful) 20

by aviators99 (#47863935) Attached to: Research Finds No Large-Scale Exploits of Heartbleed Before Disclosure

"... our detector" = "strong evidence of a negative we're trying to prove..."

It's interesting how one detector can be "strong evidence" that the NSA didn't do something in secret, I think.

The research had nothing to do with the NSA (the article about the research decided to bring them up). To me, the main objective of the study was to see if the widespread revocation of certificates in a short period of time was really warranted. IMO, it was not, and my opinion seems to be validated by this study.

It *is* possible to prove this sort of negative (I'm not saying they did). For example, if you wanted to prove that heartbleed was not used on a particular system, you could set up logging in advance. You could then extend that to multiple systems, and so on. My point is that you can't use the "you can't prove a negative" argument for things like this (and also that the NSA had nothing to do with this study).

Comment: Re:...really? (Score 1) 157

by aviators99 (#47828583) Attached to: Tesla's Next Auto-Dealer Battleground State: Georgia

Simple solution: they can see them in the showroom, and buy them online..

This is already Tesla's model. You can't buy a car at the showroom; only online. Each showroom has at least one Mac you can use however you want, and an employee will help you if you have any questions. But you can't pay there.

Comment: Re:Poor password selection (Score 1) 59

by aviators99 (#47492527) Attached to: Tesla Model S Hacking Prize Claimed

Yes, thank you for correcting the inaccuracies. There is no "PIN" for accessing a Tesla. There is a password, with complexity requirements.

You cannot honk the horn or control the windows from the app while the car is moving.

The "hack" was likely a set-up. Could potentially be done with a MitM/replay attack, but that would still lead me to believe it was a set-up.

Comment: Re:Personal opinion on this.... (Score 1) 199

by aviators99 (#47438197) Attached to: FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage

Controlled airspace goes down to ground level in an inverted cone shape at controlled airports, that is quite wide. This is to allow IFR traffic to take off and land at controlled airports and never leave controlled airspace. So you can't fly 10 feet next to a large airport without breaking the law, but you can fly 10,000 feet in remote areas without telling them anything and be legal. It can get a bit complicated when learning to fly in the midst of 3 international airports while taking off from an uncontrolled one. I usually flew without touching controlled airspace, but had to keep track of my position when I got near them.

Just trying to give you some information for your viewpoints.

I think you're confusing "positive controlled airspace" with "controlled airspace", but you are otherwise correct.

But I do wonder about the true "uncontrolled" airspace and how the FAA's rule-making may or may not apply. This is different from what you describe. I believe you are regularly flying in "controlled airspace", in which you usually don't have to deal with controllers Uncontrolled airspace is rare in areas where manned aircraft fly, but is probably more prevalent where drones fly.

If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?