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


Forgot your password?

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:On Chip (Score 1) 370

by stinkytoe (#37644276) Attached to: US Drone Fleet Hit By Computer Virus
Is it possible to make a setup that would boot Windows off of a prom or CD/DVD (something with no possibility of writing to from the kernel even if it is exploited), and mount a read/write, no execute permission volume for the 'My Documents' folder? ( or equivalent?)

This would be trivial in a modern *nix, but for some reason most of the UAS companies prefer to use windows. Some even use Windows CE on the actual bird. I can't fathom why personally, but they do.

Comment: Just by hooking up a USB? (Score 1) 238

by stinkytoe (#36915002) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You Protect Data On Android?
On my G1, with either the stock firmware or cyanogen mod, I have to turn on mobile storage before the sd card and such are mountable through the USB. So, at least in my case, the pattern lock is effective for blocking USB access also (at least as effective as is it at locking anything else). Is this different for other firmware/models?

On the other hand, If I had the physical access, I could just yank the battery and plug the SD card into my laptop. So for that reason, I wouldn't rely on the pattern lock to secure anything sensitive anyways, regardless of how strong/weak it is. It's really only good for keeping somewhat honest people from digging through your text message history and such.

Comment: Re:No Hellfires? Meh! (Score 2) 178

by stinkytoe (#36054818) Attached to: A New Human-Seeking Drone, Much Cheaper Than a Predator
Honestly, outside the military, I could see how this makes sense to you. But in practicality, there are other, more pertinent missions that this UAV would be more suited for. For example, I work on UAVs for the Marine Corps. We're are far more interested in the smaller, more field expedient UAVs that we can operate in theater and provide direct intel to our riflemen brethren. If we need a large, hard target taken out we call other support (cobras, arty, our jets, air force jets etc...). But on the level I work at, we already have motivated Marine grunts nearby and don't need the heavy shit. We just have to keep eyes on the situation to aid them in tracking the enemy, they to the work. So while there is a place for UAVs to make the kill (and honestly i'm surprised that Osama wasn't taken out by an Air Force Reaper), most situations still require boots on the ground, and the smaller more local UAVs are more suited to that goal.

Comment: Re:Guilty much? (Score 1) 685

by stinkytoe (#34441440) Attached to: Graduate Students Being Warned Away From Leaked Cables
I am current active duty military with a clearance, and i was told the same thing. That being said, as long as i am active duty i will obey and not visit the site. Not for any fear of reprimand (honestly how would they know?), but because of my duties and responsibilities that were the reason for me being granted a clearance in the first place.

+ - Microsoft sues Motorola over Android Phones->

Submitted by stinkytoe
stinkytoe (955163) writes "From the Article: "Microsoft is suing Motorola, claiming the Android operating system violates Microsoft patents; Steve Ballmer and the folks at Microsoft are suing Motorola, not Android-developer Google, because Google makes Android available for free and because Motorola is using Android, rather than Microsoft's Windows Phone, and making money." I guess the embrace and extend steps didn't work this time, so they're trying to jump right to exterminate."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:This is a random comment. (Score 1) 395

by stinkytoe (#31240326) Attached to: New Method for Random Number Generation Developed

I remember something called the "M&M" principle from a book i read as a kid. I don't remember the book, though, so any reply as to the source would be appreciated.

The basic principle is this: if you take a jar of red, green and blue indestructible M&M's and shake it for a million years, at any point in those million years there will be huge clumps of red, green and blue M&M's, interspersed with regions of near perfect dispersion. Never (or at least extremely rarely) will the entire jar be entirely evenly dispersed, or as evenly grouped as it was when you started. The explanation for this was that, of all possible arrangements that those M&M's can be in, almost all will show clumps and evenly mixed regions, only a few will be nearly all evenly dispersed or all grouped.

Comment: Re:Additional risk to us: (Score 1) 522

by stinkytoe (#31226076) Attached to: What Happens In Vegas Happens In Afghanistan

Funny you should quote John Wayne, since he normally portrays values of fairness. It's not about dying for your country, it's about fighting fairly while still doing everything to win.

All I'm saying is those who don't fight fair should not also expect to be *respected* for their efforts.

Is this a boxing match or a war?

Comment: Re:Fly-by-wireless-link for the win! (Score 4, Insightful) 522

by stinkytoe (#31226032) Attached to: What Happens In Vegas Happens In Afghanistan

In WWII the US did intentionally slaughter a couple hundred thousand civilians in Dresden and Japan

And Berlin, Monte Cassino, Okinawa, Tokyo, etc...

I'm not going to justify these actions, they were horrendous. Nonetheless, they were all done for the purpose of ending the war.

Not the intended goal of the insurgents whom we are fighting, who are actively seeking out such conflict.

Comment: Re:Fly-by-wireless-link for the win! (Score 1) 522

by stinkytoe (#31225964) Attached to: What Happens In Vegas Happens In Afghanistan

They might own the ground in the war zone, but we own the air.

The problem with this philosophy is, simply put, we own the ground also. Decisively. Yet they are still there.

Their goal is not traditional military superiority, their goal is to win the political game. As proof of how effective their campaign may eventually be, consider this. The U.S. won every battle in Vietnam. Every single one. Most by an embarrassingly huge margin. But, who has control of the Vietnam peninsula today? How did they achieve this?

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.