Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Password change page not secure? (Score 1) 159

by hazee (#35042108) Attached to: Amazon Flaw Lets Password Variants Through
When you go to the password reset page on Amazon.co.uk, it doesn't appear to be a secure page. Maybe the "Save Changes" button submits via an https link, but I don't have time to go digging through the source code - that kinda defeats the whole point of the lock icon, etc, surely?

In any case, the captcha image has been "loading" for about 5 minutes now - guess everyone's trying to change their passwords?

Comment: Re:NASA erased the origionals? did I read that rig (Score 1) 212

by hazee (#33748228) Attached to: Unseen Moon Landing Video Released

Am I right in thinking that data recovery firms (and government agencies) can pull data off a hard drive, even after it's been overwritten - possibly several times? (Yes, if you overwrite it with random noise, that might make it hard to guess what was there before, but if you just record a normal file or video over the top, that'll have a set of known statistics that make it possible to subtract out and recover the earlier data.)

And if that's the case, why can't they recover the original recordings - which must surely rank amongst some of the most important ever made? It's not like NASA doesn't have the money or the expertise to do this.

Science

The Proton Just Got Smaller 289

Posted by samzenpus
from the size-does-matter dept.
inflame writes "A new paper published in Nature has said that the proton may be smaller than we previously thought. The article states 'The difference is so infinitesimal that it might defy belief that anyone, even physicists, would care. But the new measurements could mean that there is a gap in existing theories of quantum mechanics. "It's a very serious discrepancy," says Ingo Sick, a physicist at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who has tried to reconcile the finding with four decades of previous measurements. "There is really something seriously wrong someplace."' Would this indicate new physics if proven?"

Comment: Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters (Score 1) 351

by hazee (#31741004) Attached to: Tsunami Warning From Space?
Interesting analysis - in particular that you've come up with a figure of 100mW per square meter, which is two orders of magnitude less than most of the other postings assume. You don't make any mention of moving the beam around - surely that would cut power requirements? Signal one 1,000Km stretch of coast for a few seconds, then the next, etc, then return. Maybe enough to knock another order of magnitude off the sums? Which brings your final figure down to 2.3MW (for the Indonesia case, admittedly). Too high for direct power from (reasonable sized) solar panels, but surely the satellite would have some sort of stored energy system; flywheels or capacitors. Would reduce the allowable duty cycle further, but really only need a bright flash every few seconds. To answer your other point: if the satellite happens to be in front of the sun's disc (or even close) you obviously won't see it. But you're going to need a few of these things for coverage anyhow, even in geostationary orbit.

Comment: Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters (Score 1) 351

by hazee (#31736384) Attached to: Tsunami Warning From Space?

In order to make the "flashing light" appear as anything, it has to be several orders of magnitude brighter than whatever else it is around. If the sun is overhead, then it has to be brighter than the sun.

So how is is that people have been able to use mirrors as a means of signaling?

My bigger flash heads can give you an instant flash-burn if you were to stand directly in front of it, but will only give me about 20-30 feet of range in broad sunlight.

Irrelevant. Not trying to take a flash photo of the land here. How far away is that flash visible from (and bright enough to attract attention) from in front of the camera? I bet it's a hell of a lot further than 30 feet.

Comment: Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters (Score 1) 351

by hazee (#31733844) Attached to: Tsunami Warning From Space?

10 watts / square meter is only bright enough to be seen as a light in the sky, reflected light will be non-existent.

So how is it then, then when you have something like the lights on a fire truck, these are clearly visible reflected off the walls of all the surrounding structures, even during broad daylight, even though there isn't anything close to 10W/sq metre incident on those surfaces? I don't envision competing with the sun - like you say, that would take ridiculous amounts of power. But to produce a bright flashing light in the sky? I think that can be done for a lot less power than people here assume.

Comment: Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters (Score 1) 351

by hazee (#31733634) Attached to: Tsunami Warning From Space?

How bout this: Install sirens instead, as has already been done in places like Hawaii. Cheap, effective, and doesn't cost all that much since the range of the sirens is pretty good.

I'm presuming this scheme was aimed at places like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, rather than places like Hawaii, which are already well covered. How do you power these sirens in the absence of mains electricity? Would solar-panel-charged batteries still be able to keep a charge after say, 10 years?

Comment: Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters (Score 1) 351

by hazee (#31732432) Attached to: Tsunami Warning From Space?

If you are talking about 10W/m^2, which is ludicrously low, you're talking over 1.6 MW per laser pulse just to make the light visible over a sixteenth of a square mile (a square one quarter mile on each side). This assumes NO efficiency problems and no loss due to interference, cloud cover or the atmosphere.

I'm not sure about this 10W/m^2 figure. Maybe I just have a different concept to the rest of Slashdot, who seem to be imagining a system that would light up the ground and everything around you. I was imagining a really bright flashing "star". Given that you can easily see satellites with a really small telescope, and that's just using the sunlight reflecting off their panels (say, 1kW per square metre, maybe 1-10 square metres), that I think the power requirements could be way lower than discussed, and still produce an easily visible light. Granted someone in the village would have to be looking up, but I think there's a fair chance of that?

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...