Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Deniers on the Left? (Score 1) 69

by halivar (#49830549) Attached to: Diphtheria Returns To Spain For Lack of Vaccination

I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands. Here in the US, non-abortion-related medicine is usually without any religious controversy, save for the Christian Scientists (who are, depending on what angle you view them from, neither Christian nor scientific), a relatively small, fringe sect that believes that all medical care represents faithlessness.

Here in the deep-south, there's a modern-day parable that goes around Christian circles that demonstrates the general philosophy in this regard: A man goes over a cliff overlooking treacherous waters and manages to grab hold of a thin root half-way down. In desperation he cries out to God, "Save me! Send me deliverence!" Having thus prayed, he resolves to place his trust in God. A man walks by the cliff and lowers a rope. "Grab the rope!" he says. The hanging man replies, "I cannot! I have placed my trust in the Lord, and I will await His deliverance." Next a boat drives by under the cliff. The man in the boat says, "Jump! I'll catch you!" The hanging man replies as he did to the first. Next, a rescue helicopter hovers nearby, and a man lowers a ladder. "Grab the ladder!" he says. Again the hanging man replies as he did to the previous two. Slowly, the hanging man loses his grip, falls into the swirling waters, and drowns. He arrives at heaven, meets God, and cries, "Why did you never answer my prayer?" To which God replies, "What are you talking about? I sent you a man with a rope, a boat, a helicopter..."

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 104

This isn't so bad as you make out; there is no telling how long this bug has been there, but did not appear until now, and with limited impact, and a fix was released in a matter of hours.

As for sanity checking, there is no guarantee that would have caught this bug; the malformed URL has a deceptive proximity to correctness, to wit, that all the characters belong in a URL and are presented in the correct order. The essential missing piece, the hostname, is explicitly defined as ambiguous in RFC 3986 because it can take multiple forms. The port number is, in fact, optional entirely (though the RFC says you "should" omit the ":" in such cases ["should" is significantly more ambiguous in RFC parlance than "must"]).

Trying to write sanity checks for all such cases would be exhaustive. How many different kinds of almost-correct URL's do you need to check? The combinations could run into the thousands, and each one parsed differently than the other.

Comment: Re:Fusion? done thing. Why reinvent the wheel? (Score 1) 95

by DigiShaman (#49830011) Attached to: Mystery Company Blazes a Trail In Fusion Energy

Aside from trans-atlantic or pacific power lines (to buy and sell energy on the market), you'll never have enough capacity to provide base-load when the sun isn't shining. People think in terms of residential power usage, but there's a metric fuck-ton of power used in industrial that you simple haven't wrapped your head around yet.

Locally generated base-load has to come from somewhere. Nuclear fission and fusion are the only viable "clean" forms of energy. Well, not unless you're fortunate enough to live near hydroelectric.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 104

Well, my guess would be that they tokenize by the port separator ':' before doing validation of the URL, and end up performing network operations on empty strings. How in the world that break the installation, I have no clue. It may be that it caches the convo, and on trying to read the cache again it breaks? Maybe not.

Comment: Re:Huge Cash Pile (Score 1) 95

by DigiShaman (#49829887) Attached to: Mystery Company Blazes a Trail In Fusion Energy

(1) Getting a serious fusion effort off the ground is fabulously expensive. Even if you have some kind of whizbang micro-reactor concept you need a small army of physicists, engineers and highly skilled fabricators. People who don't come cheap

Cheap energy is a tide the lifts all boats; with regards to improving human quality of life. If the entire WORLD (China, US, Europe, etc) realizes that 1 cent per KWh or less within manufacturing reach, you will have the global equivalent of a moon shot or Manhattan project.

Remember, cheap energy means cheap robotics, means cheap manufacturing. The nation that can build the cheapest is the nation that can export the most. It's a race you can't fall behind. As for the middle east and their cheap oil....their FUCKED when that happens. And near as I can tell, the world at large is pretty fed up with OPEC and their shenanigans.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 253

by ScentCone (#49829231) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

you have given complete credence to Bush's lies over the wars

Which lies? His trusting (just like, say, Clinton did) what the CIA told him about the status of WMDs in Iraq? As in, the same CIA that you are now saying we should trust as the source of the initial sloppy talking points, re: the consulate attack in Libya? Or are you referring to lies about whether or not Saddam was blocking inspections, shooting at patrolling aircraft, continuing to traffic in weapons he said he wouldn't, continuing to kill large numbers of Kurds and others not in his tribe, defraud the UN and skim billions of aid money, and so on? Oh, right, those things were very real, weren't they? Just like Saddam's UN-observed mountains of VX gas, some of which he used to slaughter thousands of people. Yeah, yeah, just lies, I know.

I can't go far enough ... I can only imagine ... I can be certain

Uh huh. OK. Did you learn this rhetorical strategy in debate club?

Pretend all you want, you don't know what happened in Libya, much less why it happened.

Let's see ... you're willing to tell everyone else what happened (by selectively quoting part of a report, while deliberately ignoring the parts you don't like) based on a legislative report, but you're not willing to even address the fact that multiple intelligence and defense officials were on the record describing the well armed and organized nature of the consulate attack while the administration's flacks were still going to the press with the phony video protest theater. You're backing them, here. So, you've concluded that the hours-long assault with motors and machine guns was in fact an ad hoc gathering of protestors? No? You're saying I don't know what happened, but you're saying you do, even though people on the ground there describe events completely at odds with the phony video protest story that even the administration eventually had to admit was not what happened.

You are only making a big deal out of it because of your opposition to this particular faction.

Right. I find that this particular faction's deliberate lying about the event in order to influence an election was reprehensible. You're OK with it, since you like the administration.

You decry the actor and not the act, very typical of you people.

The two can't be separated. The actor (Obama) committed the act: deliberate misrepresentation, for weeks, knowing full well his people were lying about what happened. All in a vain attempt to avoid being challenged on their fictional campaign narrative about Terrorists On The Run, what with an election on the calendar, where he was making that fable a central feature of his stump speeches (you know, along with ISIS being the "JV team," etc).

You're comparing one president (and the majority of the democratic legislators, including the liberal front runner in the current cycle) who read, processed, and repeated what the intelligence community concluded about Iraq, to the current president who had his people continue to lie after being told that what they were selling was - as was known and officially conveyed to the White House almost immediately - wholly incorrect. Pure fiction. But, you're sticking with the liars on this one, because you like them. At least admit it.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 253

by ScentCone (#49827263) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

The CIA disagrees, and the opinion of the CIA at the time is demonstrated by what they actually included in their summary talking points bulletin.

No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

Comment: Re:DHS was never about Homeland Security (Score 1) 327

If they only detect 5% of them, then sure, why not?

And you really think that whatever number that other 95% is, it will go down if someone willing to kill himself on a commercial airliner in order to destroy it on approach over a large city no longer has to even wonder if he'll have his bomb found while boarding? If you're going to troll, at least do it in a way that makes it look like you at least take yourself seriously.

Comment: Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale (Score 1) 253

by ScentCone (#49827239) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed
Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy