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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Encryption? (Score 1) 62

by Opportunist (#49504433) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

The main difference I'd see is that it's much harder if not impossible to spoof an IP address in a TCP connection, considering that it takes a completed handshake before any meaningful traffic (read: lots of bits) can take place. I could for example see this making upstream filtering of DDoS attacks more difficult.

Comment: Not easy to fix and we need fewer killings (Score 1) 105

by jbn-o (#49504415) Attached to: FBI Overstated Forensic Hair Matches In Nearly All Trials Before 2000

I disagree; knowing that bad evidence was presented (particularly in life imprisonment and death penalty cases where there is no chance to make amends with those falsely convicted) shows more evidence of why the death penalty was never a good idea. Therefore we don't need more death penalty conclusions such as "Willfully hide exculpatory evidence in a capital murder trial? Death penalty.".

Comment: Look at previous disasters (Score 2, Insightful) 196

Just look at previous desasters and see who was saved by having a cellphone with FM and who dies because they did not have FM on their cellphones.

You should also take into account who dies becase of FM and who lived because they did NOT have when no disaster was going on.

And how often do emergencies happen? In all my life I have NEVER been in a situation where my life depended om having an FM radio.
And those people who are worried about some major collaps (people who burried themselves in 2000, you can come out now.) will have HAM radio licences and what not.

Comment: Re:A bit off topic (Score 1) 213

Then Germany and parts of Poland would now be a smoldering crater of a nuclear death zone with little chance to ever clean it up in this or any of the next generations.

By no later than 1944, the German Luftwaffe was in no position to conduct any offensive action anymore. The air superiority of the allied was total. Including Germany. So even if he had the bomb, he certainly would not have any means to deliver it anywhere beyond the areas that Germany still occupied.

Given his "strategy" (I'll use that term loosely here) of scorched earth, it's likely that he would have had it used to increase the destruction on the retreat, to decrease the useful materials the approaching allies could use (as he did) but also to create a zone of denial that they would either have to avoid (and thus lengthen the supply lines) or cross while accepting the losses (something the Soviets would probably even have done).

In short, Germany having the bomb after 1944 would maybe have lengthened the war (though this is unlikely due to the Allies having it in Summer 1945 and Berlin having actually been the original main target, Germany was just lucky that it surrendered before the bomb was ready for shipment). It would certainly have meant more suffering for Germany due to self inflicted nuclear destruction (Hitler himself considered the Germans "unworthy" at the end of the war because they have "proven to be the weaker people and not worthy of continued existence". Together with his fantasy of a "Götterdämmerung", an epic apocalypse that has to happen to "his" Germany if he himself fails, it's likely that he would have called for the destruction of large cities before they fall into enemy hands. What would have been interesting is to see how many people would actually have been fanatical enough to do it).

Comment: Re:Without cheque deposit, you can bank in a brows (Score 1) 239

by TheRaven64 (#49504087) Attached to: Google Responds To EU Antitrust Claims In Android Blog Post
Hmm, this sounds like a US bank thing (cheques are pretty much gone this side of the pond). The main feature of the app is that it can be the second factor in two-factor authentication for the web-based banking, so you don't have to carry around the chip reader device. It's also a bit more convenient for quickly paying someone that you've paid before or checking your balance on the go.

Civilization, as we know it, will end sometime this evening. See SYSNOTE tomorrow for more information.

Working...