Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:2034? Really? (Score 3, Interesting) 134 134

I haven't looked at the mission plan, but the delay might be based on waiting for more a favorable relative position between Earth and the outer planets. Waiting 20 years to launch the mission might actually allow a spacecraft to arrive earlier than if it were launched now.

+ - Microsoft Getting Cooler 1 1

jones_supa writes: Microsoft is getting hip again, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, but Google with Android still the coolest kid in school, Apple doing great as well. The polling organization asked the US's finest 18 and 29-year-olds what the coolest tech brands are, allowing them to give a 'thumb up' for brands they liked. Interestingly, for the first time in a long while around half answered Microsoft. The opinion was that Microsoft is cooler now than it was a year or two ago. 'It's more customizable, and not as rigid as an Apple phone, where you have to buy all the products from Apple. If you want a ringtone, you don't have to pay iTunes. I know Apple is the cool, hip brand right now, but if Microsoft keeps coming out with new tech I'm sure it'll be back soon.', Josh Johnson, a 24-year-old media arts student at the University of South Carolina commented. Although 'coolness' remains, at best, an amorphous concept, consumer perceptions are pivotal in determining the longevity of products, particularly in the fast-moving consumer electronics industry. The survey 'definitely shows that Microsoft's efforts are paying off, but we'll have to see how cool translates into customers,' said Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg.

Comment: Make sure it's okay to fail (Score 1) 239 239

Try to make it a place where it's okay to fail, and fail early. I don't mean encourage people to be idiots, I mean make sure it's okay to try, work hard, make a legitimate mistake, and everybody moves on without repercussions and hopefully there's some lessons learned.

Comment: Cutting the cable is like open source software (Score 1) 479 479

There's always something to watch, but it might not be exactly what you're looking for.

I've got a mix of over-the-air, a Roku serving YouTube, and Netflix streaming, and the non-plus version of Hulu on my laptop. It's not bad, I'm entertained, but the selection isn't all that great and about half of the time I say "Oh, I think I'd like to watch $X" but I have to settle for $Y. I don't watch a whole lot of television to begin with, so it's not that big of a deal for me.

If you are a serious TV watcher (I'm not) and don't want to torrent (I don't), I would recommend at a minimum Hulu or Hulu Plus (I've never used the 'Plus' version), Netflix streaming and DVD service.

Comment: Where are you? (Score 1) 367 367

I'm in NYC, I'm and according to, I've got 2.7 Mb/s down, 0.7 Mb/s up. My choices are Verizon DSL (which I have, and it's been rock-solid for the past 2 years) and Comcast (bleah), or else dial up. The irony is I live 10 minutes walk away from a major peering point.

Comment: Re:How do you know when it's decrypted? (Score 1) 186 186

And encrypting multiple time with the same key will, for any reasonably secure crypto system*, not increase security. I understand that from a theoretical point of view, but from a practical point of view -- how would you break an encrypted file if it is doubly encrypted, even if you knew both algorithms involved. How do you solve the problem of recognizing if you'd actually decrypted with the first key, so that you can start working with the second key?? Haven't you increased the key-space to an exponent of itself (in practical terms), and therefore created something vastly more secure?

Multiply encrypting will only increase your security if there isn't some other key that you could have used that yields the same results. For example, if we use "E(M,K)" means "Encrypt message M with key K" then encrypting twice would be E(E(M,K1),K2). The problem is, if there is some OTHER key K3 such that E(M,K3) = E(E(M,K1),K2), then you really haven't added any security by doing that.

Obligatory disclaimer: everything I know about cryptography I learned from reading Bruce Schneier's books, and they're all in storage at the moment

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?