Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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:Why use secrete service agents (Score 1) 158

The 'real' White House has a lot of valuable antiques (including the building itself), a large number of regular employees, and a steady stream of guests and visiting dignitaries.
Even a simulated terrorist attack could get messy, and they'd have the inconvenience of having to schedule around the President and staff's activities.
A staging site makes perfect sense here.

Comment: Re: ...letmegetthisstraight (Score 1) 62

Sorry, I was confusing CVC1 and CVC2... though some cards include CVC2 as well, and you don't need to provide the CVC2 or any other data when you use the magstripe, so it doesn't really matter.

Yes, magstripe cards are insecure by design, but we hardly need to make fraud easier. It's a lot safer and simpler for a criminal to stick an antenna in their pocket than to try to grab legible images of the fronts and backs of cards.

Comment: ...letmegetthisstraight (Score 3, Insightful) 62

So it amplifies and broadcasts the signal held on the magnetic stripe of an old-style credit card. The completely unencrypted, insecure data that has your card number AND the 3-4 digit verification number.

Why? Because modern card readers will never catch on, of course! Especially when retailers will be tripping over themselves to switch to the new smart readers in a year, since the credit card processors will hold them responsible for any fraud resulting from still using the old gear.

This is a train wreck. Good on LoopPay for convincing some sucker to buy them before their product falls on its face.

Comment: Re:Is someone looking for a job? (Score 2) 80

by pushing-robot (#48901597) Attached to: SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute

The Falcon 9 (1.0 and 1.1 combined) has had one partial failure and 12 successful launches, the Antares one complete failure out of five launches, the Delta II one failure (and one partial failure) out of 152, the Delta IV Medium 20 successful launches with no failures, the IV heavy 7 successes and 1 partial failure on a test flight, the Atlas V 51 successes and 1 partial failure. Yes, the Delta III was horrible, but it was only launched three times back in the 90s and abandoned.

The DoD launch you're talking about happened in 2007. No other US company could get a satellite in GSO at the time. SpaceX had only launched two Falcon 1s for DARPA at that point, both too small, and both failures. Orbital at least had their Pegasus... with ~1/10th the required payload and a poor success rate.

I'm not a ULA apologist, they were simply the only game in town for US satellite launches, and charged accordingly. SpaceX's recent successes have put them on track to become serious competition, and that's great. But you'd be crazy to trust a new space company with high-value payloads until they have a few successful launches under their belt.

Comment: Re:Is someone looking for a job? (Score 1) 80

by pushing-robot (#48901279) Attached to: SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute

There are only three US companies with LEO capabilities: ULA (Boeing/Lockheed), SpaceX, and Orbital.

Of those three, Orbital's Antares is currently grounded after its spontaneous disassembly a few months ago, and our darling SpaceX's Falcon 9 1.1 has only been in use since 2013. ULA's Delta and Atlas have longer and better track records and much higher payload capacity than the Antares or Falcon 9.

On top of that, SpaceX and Orbital have never handled classified payloads before, so that's training and time and effort on the part of the USAF.

While I wouldn't be surprised if there's some palm-greasing going on behind the scenes between USAF and ULA, I also can't blame them for not trusting startups with billion dollar spy satellites.

Comment: Re:This reminds me... (Score 5, Informative) 145

by pushing-robot (#48894893) Attached to: NVIDIA Responds To GTX 970 Memory Bug

You're describing 'TurboCache' (a marketing name if ever there was one).

It wasn't a secret, it was only on very low end cards, and ATI was already doing the same with 'HyperMemory'. Intel, for their part, was exclusively using system RAM at the time (and largely still is).

So what graphics *have* you been buying for the last decade?

You are lost in the Swamps of Despair.

Working...