Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Deadmans Switch (Score 1) 256

by chihowa (#49622981) Attached to: USBKill Transforms a Thumb Drive Into an "Anti-Forensic" Device

The quintessential dead man's switch, the "let go and it detonates" trigger, can also be bypassed by grabbing the dead man's hand (just like your "if They manage to get the laptop with the key still in it, it keeps working" argument). There's nothing in the definition of a dead man's switch that depends on it being unable to be defeated. Fiction throughout the ages is filled with methods of defeating various dead man's switches.

If the key is attached to the user's wrist and the user is separated from the computer without the key being first separated from the user, the switch is activated.

Comment: The question ain't "is it on the rise" (Score 1) 246

by Opportunist (#49622159) Attached to: Is It Worth Learning a Little-Known Programming Language?

The question is "is it here to stay".

Take Ruby on Rails. Was the craze not even half a decade ago. Everyone was on Rails. Too bad they led to the chasm and nobody bothered to build a bridge over it.

So learning a language because some startups are crazy about it isn't worth it. But what is? How can you tell whether a language "gets big" or is a tempest in a teapot?

Easy. It ain't the language, it's the people using it. It's the movers and shakers of an industry that decide what will grow and what will perish. If Bruce Schneier started writing his code snippets in Splfurt (I sincerely hope there is no such language, I just made that word up) and if people from Metasploit pick it up and code their stuff in Splfurt, Splfurt is the new big thing in IT security and every framework, scanner, tool and whatnot will have to have Splfurt plugin support and new exploit PoCs will come written in Splfurt.

It's not the language. It's the people using it.

Comment: so? (Score 1) 344

It's not usually customary to invite those under investigation to the investigation... or did I miss something? They are not on trial. What's being looked into is whether the overall process is broken. That's a behavioral question. Maybe they could have invited some psychologists, economists or ethisists to the inquiry. But why invite the scientists who are under the investigation?

Comment: Re: The question is (Score 1) 383

by chihowa (#49616957) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

Why would getting a reactor into orbit be particularly difficult and why would it be difficult to design one that doesn't kill the crew?

I'll assume that you're thinking it will irradiate them, but with no need to carry any propellant for the trip, there is suddenly a huge allowance for shielding for the reactor. That sort of addresses the second point, too.

Comment: Re:Money! (Score 1) 344

That makes little sense. If money is what you're after, the very LAST thing you should do it try to dig into climate change. Let alone finding proof for it. If money is what you want, you should slap together some research in a field that is under less scrutiny and where there are bigger stakeholders willing to pump money your way as long as you prove them right. Genetically altered crops, and how safe they are would be a great field. Less controversy and big players with deep pockets that would certainly love to have "scientifically proven" how their stuff is great for you and your health.

Comment: So, essentially, (Score 2) 48

It's the same kind of self-censorship going on that we have here. With the difference that here you're just being inconvenienced 'til you go out of business or bend over instead of being shot, of course. So, yes, we're still "more free" than them.

But it's also a reminder that "more" is not necessarily more than "much"...

1 Mole = 007 Secret Agents