Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: US Gov't Corn Subsides (Score 1) 140

We get it, you're just "big boned", it's not your fault.

Thankfully your faulty genes also greatly reduce your likelihood of reproducing, reducing the burden on future generations of both your medical and mental genetic weaknesses. In many ways Type 2 is a self-correcting condition...it'll just takes a few generations to make a substantial correction.

Comment: Re:In five years (Score 1) 206

by Zenin (#48341563) Attached to: Zuckerberg: Most of Facebook Will Be Video Within Five Years

Seriously - Facebook's user base is rapidly skewing older and older. When I mention Facebook to a young person, they [...]

This is a feature, not a bug.

Older folks actually have money to spend. Older folks actually vote. And selling stuff and votes is the entire point of 99% of ads.

Countless web sites have had great success at getting the attention of 14-24 year olds, but have always struggled with 25-40 year olds, a much more lucrative advertizement demographic especially when it comes to selling anything more costly than a soda or buying a vote.

Comment: Re:What was quote about Internet and censorship? (Score 2) 200

by Zenin (#48332695) Attached to: Amazon's Luxembourg Tax Deals

Production follows demand, always, no exceptions.

No demand (ie, no consumption) = no production, no investment.

Capital does not do "work" by any sane definition of the word. It enables work, yes, but that's quite a different thing. And still, capital only enables work when it's actually invested...and it's not invested without demand...and there's no demand without consumption.

And of course savings is the opposite of investment; It's the hording of capital, removing it from circulation.

Here's the real kicker: It really doesn't matter if anyone has savings available to invest in production...if there's demand, the market will find a way to meet that demand. But when there's little demand...? No level of savings will inspire investment or production.

Comment: Re:Um... (Score 1) 145

by Zenin (#48249229) Attached to: Here's Why Apple Rejected Your iOS App

I'm not sure about "perfect".

You can get a dedicated flight controller with better sensors for $20 and weighting under 2g. Contrast that with an iPhone that costs how much and weighs 129g?! Sure, the iPhone also comes with GPS...but again, $20 gives you a massively better GPS unit than an iPhone has. And of course...you've also got to add some kind of additional hardware I/O for the iPhone to talk to the ESCs (more weight, more cost).

Much of the rest of an iPhone just adds weight and eats power if used as a flight controller.

You might be able to make it all work if you try hard enough, but it would just be academic. I would never, ever be practical.

Comment: Re:Has it been working so far? (Score 3, Insightful) 387

by Zenin (#48167827) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

The linux kernel. It's in your desktops, in your web servers, in your cell phones, in your cars, in your televisions, in your game systems, in your embedded devices... if it were to suddenly go away, the landscape of modern technology would drastically change.

Web servers and cell phones, yes. The rest, not so much.

Realistically almost no one runs Linux on their desktop. Even Unix sysadmins lean heavily to Windows (or Mac). Windows with cygwin makes a more effective Unix workstation for most all uses than does Linux.

The embedded realm (including TVs) is dominated by BSD, for license reasons if nothing else. That's if they want/need a heavy weight OS; Most embedded systems either have no OS or a small real time OS.

The only game system that runs Linux is Steam Box.

And last but certainly not least, if Linux fell off the face of the Earth today, very little would change tomorrow. The BSDs are a drop in replacement for 99.9% of Linux use cases. And frankly, would do the job better: Linux is popular despite merit, not because of it.

Comment: Why is this hardware? Why not just write an App? (Score 2) 94

by Zenin (#48155255) Attached to: Eggcyte is Making a Pocket-Sized Personal Web Server (Video)

Why not just run a web server App on your smart phone?

-No second device to buy, carry around, or keep charged.
-No second device to constantly "sync" with.
-Far easier to keep patched with security and feature updates.

Of course, that's putting aside all the issues around trying to run a web server on personal internet access accounts (cell, public wifi, home wifi, work wifi, any of it). The bandwidth issues of trying to share a video of your kids with your family alone will trash most any common internet connection, and that's if it'll be allowed at all (inbound port 80/443) or legal ("no servers on this connection!").

This project has Epic Fail written all over it.... So I'm sure in classic Kickstarter fashion it'll get funded 10x over it's target. Because, sheeple.

Comment: Re:That's not the reason you're being ignored. (Score 1) 406

by Zenin (#48143115) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

Got a link?

Generally speaking, being relaxed greatly reduces your chance and severity of injury. If you can, let your body go rag-doll if you know you're going to crash (easier said than done of course...).

"Bracing for impact" is the exact opposite of being relaxed.

If anything, getting mentally absorbed in a device likely reduces injuries. And if the crash is severe enough to cause a brain injury by hitting the seat in front of you, you're going to be hitting the seat in front of you no matter how much you brace yourself. There's a reason why cars have shoulder harnesses and airbags.

Comment: Re:Bummer (Score 1) 63

by Zenin (#48015927) Attached to: Nixie Wearable Drone Camera Flies Off Your Wrist

I get what you're saying, but this project isn't likely to cause a major issue like the Phantom has.

What they are designing is going to need to be about the size of a Blade Nano QX. I've no idea how they plan to get all that technology in such a tiny quad, but assuming they do the "impact" of one of these hitting someone will be practically nothing. The micro/nano size quads just don't have the power, mass, or prop size do to significant harm (unless maybe, it actually hits you in the eye).

Comment: Re:~/.cshrc (Score 1) 208

by Zenin (#48012285) Attached to: Apple Yet To Push Patch For "Shellshock" Bug

It makes sense, /bin/csh was the traditional default shell of BSDish systems.

But the default shell doesn't matter, because the default shell isn't used by C library functions like system(). /bin/sh is used, no matter what your "default shell" is set to. And some foolish folks decided to go ahead and replace /bin/sh with bash.

Comment: Re:Preempting dumb discussion (Score 1) 318

by Zenin (#47999297) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

Trying to brush off blame with the tired old nonsense that "Linux is just the kernel, man!", just doesn't fly anymore. Hell, it never really has.

The term "Linux" is well understood to mean a family of full, complete operating systems (libs, userland, and all). When anyone is actually speaking of just the kernel, it's qualified as exactly that, "The Linux kernel...blagh, blagh".

Comment: Re:"could be worse than Heartbleed" (Score 1) 318

by Zenin (#47999253) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

Sure, a double fork() && exec() pattern is ideal, but it's also significantly more code and complexity (read: fat thumb bugs) than calling system("/some/command &");

And before you say it, yes actually there are tons of use cases where forking a background process is a far superior method than any alternatives. It's one of the oldest and most common Unix programming patterns in existence. Programming doesn't really change much simply because you add "on the web" to the end of your use case.

Comment: Re:"could be worse than Heartbleed" (Score 1) 318

by Zenin (#47999183) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

The vast, vast majority of tools do not need significant "scaling". Often just throwing a heavy weight job in the background (eg, transcoding a video file) is, and always will be, significant. Especially if you've got an auto-scaling web farm that'll just expand under load anyway. system("/big/job &") all day long.

Sure, it'll never scale to YouTube levels, but it'll scale large enough for 99% of common use cases.

The "proper" alternative architecture using message queues, etc is massively more code, complexity, and resource cost. Great if you actually need it, nothing but overhead when you don't, and you typically don't.

Comment: Re:This exposes systemic insecurities (Score 1) 318

by Zenin (#47998353) Attached to: Flurry of Scans Hint That Bash Vulnerability Could Already Be In the Wild

You don't need to run a "full-bore shell program" to be vulnerable.

You simply need to use the system() function of any popular language (Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, C, etc). The system() function executes /bin/sh -c to parse the string before executing it. You don't even need to pass any arguments. On every Linux distro /bin/sh IS bash. Game over.

The alternative to using a one line system() call is a few dozen lines of complex, easily screwed up systems programming as you navigate through fork(), exec(), dupe(), wait(), etc.

The real issue are Linux distributions deciding that bash was a suitable substitute for a minimal POSIX /bin/sh.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...