Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cost? Life? (Score 1) 163

You don't seem to notice that the price being quoted is per watt. Not per square foot or any other measure of area. So the new higher efficiency panels will cost more than the older panels. But the new panels will generate more power. As for the customer cost, like other posters have observed, the lions share is for the control electronics and inverters.

Comment It's all politics. (Score 2) 737

The thing I find most annoying about the global warming issue is that there's entirely too much politics and too little science. For instance, ask people the question "What greenhouse gas has the most influence on Earth's temperature?" and the vast majority will say "Carbon Dioxide."
Only problem with that answer is that it's wrong.
Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. Only about 5% is due to carbon dioxide. And the interesting thing is that most of that 5% is totally natural. Mankind only creates about 5% of that 5% giving about 0.27% of the total greenhouse effect that is contributed by mankind. Yes, just a smidge over one fourth of one percent.

Do I believe that global warming is real? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that global warming is due to mankind? No, I do not.

Some minor little details that the global warming crowd ignore that they really need to address.
1. Viking farms underneath the glaciers in Greenland. Archeologists have found these farms. Interesting thing. The existence of those farms indicate that Earth was warmer in the past than it currently is. Else those farms wouldn't be covered by glaciers. And given when those farms were made, mankind wasn't generating appreciable levels of carbon dioxide. That little detail right there makes their "global warming is due to mankind" argument more than a bit suspect.

2. Scientists have found a definite correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature by analyzing ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc. It is a proven fact that higher global temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Sounds like something good for the global warming crowd doesn't it? However, there is one slight problem. The correlation is skewed over time. It turns out that carbon dioxide level changes lag global temperature changes by approximately 40 to 50 years. That's right folks, when the temperature changes, the CO2 changes about 4 decades later. If you have a cause and effect relationship between two variables, I would expect the variable that changes first to be considered the cause, and the variable that changes later to be the effect. And the data doesn't look good for the "global warming is caused by mankind" crowd.

Why would CO2 levels change after a temperature change? One theory is that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature and increases with decreasing temperature. And we have a very large body of water on this planet. The oceans can be acting as a huge CO2 repository and when they get warming, they release some of that CO2 and when they get colder, they absorb some of that CO2. That would definitely explain the lag.

Right now in my opinion, the global warming caused by mankind crowd are using CO2 as a means of demonizing the west. After all, it is a proven fact that burning fossil fuel does generate CO2. So those people can point to the west and say "See? They're harming the environment." They can't demonize plain old water vapor, even though water vapor is the biggest contributor to the green house effect. Are we having a significant effect on Earth's temperature? I wouldn't think so since we're only having about one fourth of one percent of the total effect.

Comment Reason for installing ad blocker. (Score 1) 528

I didn't use any ad blockers until I encountered a page with information I needed and the page had an ad on it... That after about a minute would start playing a video AND shift the browser focus to that video. I would have to then stop the video and then scroll down the page to where I was before I was so rudely interrupted. And since that process took close to a minute (it was a very large page with a lot of dense information), I would only get 10 to 20 seconds or reading before the damn ad once again restarted and shifted focus. So ad blocker was installed and since I'm a lazy son of a bitch, I don't bother to turn it off on other pages that act responsibly. So In a nutshell, one asshole advertiser resulted in the blocking of every advertiser on my computer.

Comment Good luck with that. (Score 3, Insightful) 124

The objective of "mathematically proven security properties" via program obfuscation is definitely not achievable. After all, it's a given security principle of "security through obfuscation" is unsupportable. If an adversary is capable of obtaining the executable of a program, they can also reverse engineer that same executable. It may take a lot of effort, but it is always achievable.

Comment Didn't anyone bother to actually read the article? (Score 2) 182

The summary here is about as deceptive as I could possibly imagine. What Uber is attempting to do isn't to initiate a lot of bogus trips and then cancel. They're attempting to recruit drivers from other companies and have them become drivers for Uber. The use of burner phones and credit cards are to prevent the easy detection of recruiters. Not to make fake trip requests.

Personally, I believe that such tactics are legal, but morally suspect (if the tactics were illegal, it would also be illegal for a company to attempt to recruit employees from other companies. See )

Comment Re:Malware (Score 1) 49

Agreed, the path that was taken for that attempt wouldn't have worked. However, if someone had been able to compromise the credentials that would authorize a check in to the main repository, it most definitely would have worked. Adding in two factor authentication just makes it that much harder.

Comment Re:How does it work without a clock? (Score 3, Interesting) 49

Well, you could have answered your own question by simply using google to look up Yubikey and reading a bit. But to give you a partial answer, the token generates an AES encrypted value and passes that value to the server for authentication. During authentication, the server decrypts the value. (the shared secret between the token and the server is the AES encryption key). The decrypted value includes a counter. And if the counter isn't greater than the previously used counter, the authentication attempt is invalid. So if you were to hit the button 100 times and record those codes, you could authenticate using any of those codes, but as soon as I hit the button and authenticated using the resulting code, all of the codes you recorded would become instantly invalid.

Comment Re:Obvious (Score 2) 151

I believe that we can get things smaller. I'll agree that we're approaching the limits as regards what is basically a 2 dimensional layout that we're currently using for chips, but that leaves the 3rd dimension. Of course there is a lot of technical issues to overcome, but I believe that they will be overcome.

Comment Looks like a fairly simple hack they did. (Score 3, Interesting) 182

In a nutshell, they simply had any computer that contacted the web site send back the computer's real IP address and its MAC address. The actual security of the Tor wasn't affected. Just that compromising information was sent through the Tor network. Just as any other data would be sent through the Tor network.

Now I suspect the MAC address was sent so that they could identify the actual computer when they seized it via a warrant. That way the suspect couldn't claim that it wasn't their computer since the IP address was on the other side of a NAT and there were multiple computers using NAT. And the IP address was simply to make identifying the physical location easier.

Which raises an interesting question....
What if someone alters their MAC address and then enters the Tor network via a public wifi hotspot?
The connection is encrypted so the fact that the hotspot is publicly accessible shouldn't be a problem.
And when the computer is turned off, the MAC spoofing goes away so even if the computer is seized, they don't have a matching MAC address to prove it's the computer they hacked. And of course, since access was via an open hot spot, there's plenty of computers that could have been connected. Proving which one would be rather ... difficult ... without that MAC address.

Comment Re:The grip (Score 1) 125

Look at the article. And examine the photo in the article closely.
The backpack portion of the exoskeleton has attachments. Including 2 "mini-cranes" going over the user's shoulder. And in the photo, those mini-cranes are linked via some rigging to the plate the worker is handling. So the majority of the weight of the object is handled by the exoskeleton while his hands are merely providing fine control.

Comment Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 82

So the ONLY statement anyone picking "GPLv2 only" is making, is that they don't want their code mixed with GPLv3 which honestly... is pretty silly.

If "GPLv2 only" is silly, then you might want to alert all the Linux kernel developers. After all, the code in the Linux kernel is GPLv2, not GPLv2+.....

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.