Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:They disabled insecure TLS version fallback (Score 0) 151

by bill_mcgonigle (#49383735) Attached to: Firefox 37 Released

I think he means this.

This one doesn't seem so bad, but the way Mozilla has handled SSLv3 deprecation has been a disaster.

I'm not going to go buy a new $900 PDU because the one I have only supports SSLv3 and not TLS1.2. Maybe I should switch it back to plain HTTP "for security"? Sheesh. Obviously a whitelist per-site/device would have been a smart approach, but that's not easy.

Secure isn't easy and security isn't a setting, it's a process and an ecosystem. Pisser when they weaken security overall just to avoid the off chance that a stupid person will erroneously blame Mozilla.

Comment: Re:Because obviously.. (Score 2) 161

by bill_mcgonigle (#49369331) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

Both are equally likely to produce useful counter-terrorism results.

The most effective thing to do for counter-terrorism is to keep blowing up families in the Middle East and occupying "holy lands". Keep bombing villages until democracy emerges.

To do so, we need ever-stronger Nation States, and giving them the ability to monitor all of their subjects' domestic communications is a good rung up on that ladder.

Also, Facebook is the real danger to world peace - so be very upset about their ad network and don't bother encrypting your traffic.

Comment: Re:QuikClot and Celox (Score 3, Insightful) 76

If this technology becomes common place, I expect those with crustacean allergies will be required to wear a red tag same as those with pencilin allergies.

It might even become practice to use it anyway and follow up with a treatment for the anaphylaxis, if the bleeding is severe enough. People can survive shellfish reactions with management - severe internal bleeding, not so much.

Comment: Re:The value of technology investment (Score 1) 124

by bill_mcgonigle (#49365579) Attached to: SpaceX's New Combustion Technologies

This is the first article I've seen that explains well how GPUs can/are being used for practical applications along with what can be achieved and some of the issues.

GPU's have been used for all sorts of "practical" computations for half a decade now, but the really interesting part here is that CFD has been particularly GPU-resistant using existing algorithms. See the Xeon Phi processor, etc. for non-GPU approaches to throwing dedicated hardware at the problem. It's easy to underestimate the enormity of this quote, but "starting from scratch" when necessary is something SpaceX excels at:

I am grateful to SpaceX for allowing us to basically start from scratch on CFD and in many ways reinventing the wheel.

It's hard to gain sufficient insight from TFA but it sounds like this is as big as hidden-line-removal in computer graphics and that they've moved CFD to the boundary conditions and made that GPU-computable, which is like solving two or three orders of magnitude at once.

Comment: Re:Should have been spelled out in the contract (Score 1) 133

by bill_mcgonigle (#49351641) Attached to: GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

Lesson learned for how to draw up future contracts, I guess.

Hahaha - if the contracts were designed to produce on-time, on-budget they would be written that way (fixed price, fixed requirements, penalties for late delivery). Their intended purpose is quite the opposite of that. If something useful happens to be generated in the process of funneling money from taxpayers to the MIC, so much the better excuse for the next contract.

Comment: Re:Bummer (Score 4, Insightful) 326

by bill_mcgonigle (#49349439) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

I guess it's different because I pay for conferences out of my own pocket, but I'm not going to go to all the hassle and expense of attending an Expo to waste my time at a vendor booth which spends its marketing dollars on objectifying women. The women may be there of their own free will and the whole arrangement may be perfectly morally straight (for the sake of argument), but the vendor is clearly disrespecting its customers' intelligence, and that itself makes me feel uncomfortable and want to avoid their booth.

Each time I've experienced the 'booth babe' phenomenon, never once did any of them know what an ARP reply was or how many key exchanges TLS modes use. This isn't a matter of nerd-quiz, it's that talking to them serves no purpose for why I go to an expo.

While several I've encountered have been both nice and pretty, I never once imagined that I was going to scurry off to a corner to make out with one or that they might suddenly provide useful product information, so a polite smile, the briefest of small-talk to let them know that I value them as a human being, and a thank-you and I was on to the next booth to talk to a sales engineer. Did the booth-babe vendor have something useful to sell me? Maybe, but I only have so much time, and this wasn't why I was there. I don't care if the sales engineer has a spare tire and a scraggly mustache, because I'm not there to make out with him (or her) either.

That booth babes is a thing tells me a few things: 1) target customers don't get to talk to pretty women much unless they're being paid (Jesus people, try being kind and friendly for a change) 2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and 3) they probably play the Lottery and go to strip clubs too, for all their investment is worth (but I guess they have nothing better to do).

There would be no booth babes if they didn't provide value, and that they do is an indictment of the crowd attending. RSA might be putting up a roadblock, but the industry only needs to look itself in the mirror if it wants to find someone to blame. Stop being creepy and get a girlfriend, people.

Comment: Re:Where was the flight attendant? (Score 2) 737

by bill_mcgonigle (#49345461) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

According to TFA, or maybe another article I read, that is a US-only requirement. There is no such requirement in Europe.

Who wants to place odds on which airlines implement this rule tomorrow, as policy, before the regulators get around to having a meeting on it?

I've got a nickel on Lufthansa doing it (coincident to ownership). Virgin too.

Comment: Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic (Score 0) 228

by bill_mcgonigle (#49337381) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success.

The point needs to be sharpened - it's because _finally_ politicians put themselves at direct risk of bodily harm by starting wars for their own power, wealth, and ambition, instead of just sending subjects' children abroad to go die for them.

Besides that, it's a complete unicorn-fart delusion that the nuclear-armed nations will give them up without a radically different coordination system than the nation-state model.

Anybody who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons needs to first work on getting rid of politicians.

Comment: Re:Eat less than you burn (Score 4, Insightful) 494

by bill_mcgonigle (#49331009) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

How fricking complicated is it to eat less than you burn?

It's way more complicated than you make it out to be. You're offering the very best advice 1983 had to offer.

Until you factor in the rates of digestion, the enzyme production rate of the individual, the hormone response of the individual, and the freaking liver and pancreas, not to mention the brain which mediates the whole thing, the very best you can offer is an order-of-magnitude estimate. There aren't seven billion different metabolisms out there, but there is at least an n-by-m matrix of them for every variability in the human metabolic system.

This is why so many people fail even at strict calorie-counting diets. Humans are NOT bomb calorimeters! Say it again and again until it sinks in.

For Pete's sake, there are leptin-resistent people who can put weight on at 500 calories a day.

Until we have mastered DNA analysis on this to genotype individuals, cutting out simple and refined carbohydrates is at least a way to claw back the worst of the modern diet, and avoid big swings in the leptin/ghrelin/insulin feedback systems - most people eat because they are hungry.

The less time planning, the more time programming.