Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Onion Pi? (Score 2) 72

The problem that the Onion Pi is not granny-friendly. The problem that the Onion Pi needs to be assembled and requires RP Linux knowledge to set up in the first place.

Some people want the challenge of making the device, others just want to plug it in and go. That's where this comes into play.

Comment: Re:What snapchat claimed to do was a form of DRM (Score 1) 90

Either yours or his is the correct analogy. If the images come from the Snapchat server, then they are not deleting their images as they claim they are. That is your analogy.

If the prevailing theory that the popular 3rd party app for Snapchat is breaking the delete-after-x-hours promise by uploading the image to a non-Snapchat server so it can be accessed later, or uploading the image without knowledge of the users of the app because they are sick buggers who want to see what the pics are (NSA I'm watching you), then his analogy is the better fit.

Either way, people stop assuming your arse and tits photos are secured when you trust the cloud.

Comment: Re:Can somebody fill me in? (Score 5, Informative) 24

by bruce_the_loon (#48005333) Attached to: NASA Expands Commercial Space Program

I think the difference here is the same as the difference between buying your own delivery trucks from Mack and contracting FedEx to deliver your products from factory to retail store.

The earlier days of space flight were like buying the various bulk components of a truck, engine from GM, chassis from one metal shop, driver's cabin from another, electronics from Lucas and then building the full truck up. Come the era of the shuttle, the delivery truck came fully assembled from Mack, but you still have to pump the diesel, change the tires, load the cargo into the back yourself.

Now it looks like calling FedEx and telling them you've got fifty packages in London and you need them in Bogota by Sunday. They pick it up, containerize it and ship it.

Hope that helps?

Comment: Re:And the speculation was completely off (Score 1) 188

I think the companies knew that multiple contracts were an option, but judging from the press coverage in the week or two leading up to it, the business pundits thought it would be the traditional multiple proposals, one winner option.

I don't know what will happen if both deliver a fully functional vehicle by 2017 within the budget. We still could be in the Y stage of the process, e.g. the YF-22 and YF-23 fighter technology demonstrators which were functional aircraft leading to the choice of the YF-22 to go into production as the F-22.

NASA could also go head post-2017 with both companies supplying vehicles and launches. We'll have to see.

Comment: And the speculation was completely off (Score 5, Interesting) 188

Not Boeing alone, and not SpaceX alone. This is the best possible outcome for NASA, not reliant on a single supplier like before.

The fact that to deliver the same development and certification process costs $1.6 billion less for SpaceX over Boeing is also interesting. Some are already saying that it is a bigger win for Boeing and that SpaceX is a backup plan, but since the amounts are what the two companies bid on the project, it shows how economical SpaceX believes they can be.

And that there are two companies still competing should reduce the risk of deliberate cost-overruns and delays. If one can get to full certification a year or more ahead of the other, it will be a huge blow to the second-place finisher's chances to win the final operational contract.

Comment: Re:Restoration (Score 2) 99

It takes that long because trying to keep every tiny porthole and edge in the exact same place, and the paint work the specific colour so that that geeks and nerds don't write up 1000 pages on their blog about the horrific damage and destruction.

It took a couple of weeks to build because the model maker had a rough guide of x decks and y windows and slapped it together from bits and pieces and painted it to work on the screen. The poor restorer has to keep that work accurate.

Comment: Re:Trust us with your payments (Score 1) 730

by bruce_the_loon (#47865343) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

As long as the rotation pattern isn't discernible from past numbers and the number is only valid for a single transaction, then collisions shouldn't be a security issue. In fact not letting the full 1000 numbers cycle before re-randomizing the list would probably be a good thing.

As long as the randomization isn't predictable, and attempting to process a transaction with an invalid CVV forces a regeneration of a new one, it could be an incredibly hard system to crack. Then again, they could just be using a statically salted rand() call :)

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990