Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment "advanced and complex techniques" (Score 1, Insightful) 181

Such as "shooting in portrait"

Well.. sorry to say this but this particular advanced and complex technique has been used by every idiot with a smartphone recording videos for years.

Also... 6k video scaled up isn't 8k. it's 6k video with some random pixels thrown in for marketing reasons.

Comment Slightly connected.... (Score 1) 152

This reminds me of a question I had about securing a linux server.

We all know it's quite good practice to move the SSH connection from port 22 to some arbitrary high port. But of course if attacker finds nothing on port 22 he's just going to start port scanning until he gets it.

Way better would be for port 22 to respond as a valid SSH server but to reject ALL username and password combinations EVEN THE CORRECT ONES.

Only drawback I can see is when I forget I moved the SSH port and get confused when my password doesn't work. But apart from that...

This seems so obvious that I am sure something already exists to do this. Sadly my primitive google-fu didn't find it.

Jolyon

Comment Re:7.7 mohs hardness? (Score 1) 247

You're wrong in two different ways, which I kind of admire :)

Firstly, you have something that is between 7 and 8, so for arguments sake you call that '7 and a half' (this is regularly done).

Then you take another sample, and that scratches the '7 and a half' pieces, and not the 8, so it's between 7 and a half and 8. But that's a completely different scenario to arbitrarily assigning a '7.7'

There is another method of measuring hardness, the vicker's system which does indeed follow a linear scale, so you could potentially use the vicker's hardness of the specimens to determine an approximate decimal value for the hardness of your chosen sample. But that's completely stupid because the whole POINT of this is to show a relative hardness between two samples, ie to be able to measure it by scratching one piece against another. So my comment stands, the '7.7' value is pulled out of someone's ass and has no scientific merit.

The second problem is you then compare with software revision numbers... which are of course numbers pulled entirely out of someone's ass. And of course, version 5.9 is usually less than version 5.10 etc. so again you have no way of saying 'version 5.5 is about half way between version 5.0 and version 6.0 in features.'

Comment 7.7 mohs hardness? (Score 1) 247

The Mohs scale of hardness is a relative unitless scale comparing things to ten common minerals. There is no '7.7' on this scale. 7 is Quartz and 8 is Topaz. So all you can say with any accuracy is that it is between 7 and 8. Maybe it is closer to Topaz in hardness than Quartz, but even so, there's no way of calculating a '7.7' so they just pulled that number out of their ass...

Which makes me wonder how accurate the rest of what they say is.

Comment People expecting their marketing for free (Score 5, Insightful) 258

Too many people want to get rich by selling apps and expect Apple to pay for the marketing of their apps for free on the App Store.

The App Store serves one purpose - not to promote your apps, but to make money for Apple.

If you want to go into business selling an app for iOS then you need to have some plan in place to market it. That doesn't mean sticking it on the App Store and hoping for the best.

If you can't afford to market your app (either by paying for advertising somewhere or just physically spending your own time promoting it) then you really shouldn't waste money or time to develop it either.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...