Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Clickbait (Score 1) 129

As far as I've ever heard, it is theoretically impossible to stop that kind of attack. If a user runs your code, then yeah, duh, your code can do whatever. I don't think that counts as a security vulterability.

No, definitely not a security issue when you have a piece of software that is only supposed to let the app store signed code run and then as long as there's a signature somewhere near it will run whatever the fuck you've put in this app that macuser101 has no suspicion of because 'macs are virus proof'. It will be a funny day when the first big mac virus sweeps through now that macs are numerous enough to present a valid target and casually brushes aside any token security measures.

Comment: Re:Protect the income of the creators or they can' (Score 1) 297

Star Wars?! Oh, man, there are so many better examples of Disney rehashing old works. How about Maleficent (aka Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective)? Or running the Disney Princess angle into the ground with Brave (at least other Princess films had a legend or fairy tale background, Brave was just a complete fabrication)? Better yet, let's just talk about Disney Princess films, and how Disney takes an old legend or fairy tale, and turns it into a highly profitable film and merchandising effort? If that's not rehashing the same shit over and over, I don't know what is. The recent Star Wars acquisition doesn't have anything on the black hole of creativity that is Disney.

How about Avatar which is Pocahontas in space, which is a rip off of Dances with wolves which is no doubt a rip off of something else and so forth.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 297

OK, I'll play. Here's an example I happened to be thinking of recently. Consider the case of a film from the silent era, 1894–1929. On a common-sense basis, it clearly should be in the public domain. After all, the people who made it are all dead - as likely are their heirs. So, who really deserves any money from something created that long ago?

However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired. So, it's either not available at all, or maybe isn't available in the best possible quality. But if somebody still owned a valid copyright for it, they might have a financial incentive to make it available in HD.

Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think any film from the silent era should still be protected by copyright. But at least some case can be made for that. So there's your counter-argument.

But what's to stop someone from taking those old films and digitising them and selling them on whatever medium they want. There will be no copyright so after costs it's all profit.

Comment: Re:No cuts are ever possible (Score 1) 195

by stealth_finger (#49543641) Attached to: House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

So there's a mysterious form of RADAR, that's been widely available since the 90s, which can shoot down stealth aircraft at will, yet we have lost only one manned stealth aircraft in combat in 20 years?

There is actually. It's called a heatseeker jackass. Also lost only one in combat. How many times have they been in combat against a foe with equal powers. Total bumf was over exaggerating a bit but it's not a silver bullet. They can't just fly wherever the want with impunity. They need to take a lot of measures to remain undetected, stealth technology is just one of them.

Comment: Re:Dubious (Score 1) 677

by stealth_finger (#49537051) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

Can you actually explain how he did not put Americans in jeopardy, or does your aluminum hat cause you to automatically reject anything anyone from the government tells you.

By showing all the nasty baddies that the American intelligence services i.e. their enemies were too busy spying on their own people and allies to notice what shenanigans they were up to? Is that what you mean?

Comment: Re:Dubious (Score 1) 677

by stealth_finger (#49536937) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

Not all baby boomers had kids by their mid 20's, my parents are of that generation and I turned 18 on Jan 1 2000.

Usually I hear 1982 as the demarcating line which places the current max age around 33. Then to confuse things some refer to those born in 80-84 as "cuspers" who are not entirely Gen X or Gen Y.

That would explain why I have no clue what 'gen' Im supoosed to be in. Born in '83 lol

Comment: Re:Disgusting. (Score 1) 677

by stealth_finger (#49536447) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

[...]pot decriminalized[...]

You make it sound like it's a good thing. I hate that stuff, and I personnaly don't think that legalizing a substance that distorts reality, that can make you a veggie and slowly destroys your ability to have fun without it is just a way to make a whole generation less intelligent than the one before.

I could say the exact same thing about alcohol. You never see the stoned filling out a&e though.

Comment: Re:No cuts are ever possible (Score 1) 195

by stealth_finger (#49536007) Attached to: House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity
No it just wasn't. It was shot down by a radar system that was modified to use a longer wavelength and was able to detect it when the bomb bay door opened. They detected, fired and shut down in about 20 seconds before any SEAD could come down on them. They say several missiles were fired but the pilot says he saw too. One passed by close enough to buffet and the second detonated. Granted it's not a great example. I'm not saying stealth is useless but it doesn't mean you can fly around with impunity. They have to know where the enemy radar sites are, fly specific corridors at specific speeds in order to avoid detection. Also F-117s don't do low altitude attacks.

Comment: Re:No cuts are ever possible (Score 2) 195

by stealth_finger (#49535205) Attached to: House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

I didn't say F-35 would win a VFR dogfight. I said the entire point of the damn thing was to avoid VFR dogfights. I said it had rails for air-to-air missiles, and it would be very difficult to impossible for Su-35s (or even F-22s) to get a strong enough lock on it to engage outside of VFR.

As for our allies, approximately how much do you think we're paying Canada to buy F-35 rather then upgrade the FA-18 Superhornet into a CF-18 Hornet II of some sort? The answer is $0.

You do know stealth is a total bumf? It may work with varying success against high frequency X band type radar types aircraft but get a ground or awacs based in S or L band radar in and it all goes to pot, Russia has been building these for years and sell them all over the show (see the 1999 f-117 shootdown over Yugoslavia). Combinations of all three could easily lead to the intercept and shootdown of a stealth aircraft or group of. Fun fact, if every stealth design of today was flying over the English channel in ww2 days our radar of the time would pick up every single one. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA515506

Comment: Re:No cuts are ever possible (Score 1) 195

by stealth_finger (#49535155) Attached to: House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

because every area facing cuts is always "critical".

Like this one?

http://blogs.reuters.com/great...

Over three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that,

In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

For something that no one in the military actually wants.

The real irony is it was supposed to be the cheap one to put up in numbers to support the F-22. The same way the F-16 is the cheap numerous one to support the F-15. Ended up costing probably more money than all the recent fighters combined.

Comment: Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score 1) 228

Translations: The Israelis are not terrorists because they use the best technology they have access to in order to target their munitions. Hamas are terrorists because they use the best technology they have access to in order to target their munitions. I like your double standard.

I think the logic goes Hamas are terrorists because they persistently launch unguided rockets at civilian areas from civilian areas, Israel aren't because while they are a full fledged military power they use the least amount of force they can. They drop one precision bomb from a plane onto a known target. Yes it's probably a bigger bang than needed but short of ignoring the rockets or sending in the troops what other options are there?

Comment: Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong (Score 1) 279

by stealth_finger (#49527419) Attached to: German Court Rules Adblock Plus Is Legal

Can you apply the same reasoning to a Blu ray or DVD you bought and own? I didn't think so.

No, well yes, well most times. With most dvd players you can hit stop>stop>play to jump straight to the feature, they just don't tell you that. You could also skip adverts from vhs with fast forward. You can skip ads in the cinema by going in ~20 minutes after the time on the ticket. Don't know about Blu-ray, I don't bother with it.

Comment: Re: Define 'Terrorists' (Score 4, Interesting) 228

by stealth_finger (#49526701) Attached to: UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'

As for Afghanistan, we didn't really do anything to them. Sure, we got Bin Laden, but by that time he was almost dead anyway and that was just for political posturing by Obama, not to stop any real threat.

Did you miss the whole war in Afghanistan? Quite a bit happened before the seals choppered into a complex then shot him and dumped his body in the ocean. Is anyone even sure that happened, if it did I doubt it did the way they say it did..

Comment: Re:Define 'Terrorists' (Score 4, Insightful) 228

by stealth_finger (#49526679) Attached to: UK Police Chief: Some Tech Companies Are 'Friendly To Terrorists'

You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...

Just like the brave, glorious Afghan mujahedeen that where fighting for their freedom against the vile Russian invaders. Everyone knows the rest.

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.

Working...