Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Good for Quantum Cryptography not Computing (Score 1) 50

by quax (#48930147) Attached to: New Micro-Ring Resonator Creates Quantum Entanglement On a Silicon Chip

A better source for entangled photon pairs will come in handy for Quantum Cryptography, but Quantum Computing requires many entangled qubits.

There is no indication how these resonators could produce more than pair-wise entanglement, after all this is very different from the Josephson junction loops that D-Wave and the future Google chip are build on. These allow an arbitrary coupling via the magnetic flux (only restricted by the chip's geometry).

Regrettably, this just yet another poorly written pop-science article not informed by any actual knowledge of quantum information science. If I had a cent for each of them I'd be rich by now.

Comment: Re:Implement locally? (Score 1) 135

by Greyfox (#48923585) Attached to: How One Small Company Blocked 15.1 Million Robocalls Last Year
There is no situation I could be in where an incoming call is important enough to warrant my immediate attention. There's a guy at work whose wife is expecting a baby, I assume he's made arrangements for immediate contact. Maybe his wife should have a talk with him about working for a company that lets him work from home.

The old asterisk voice menu system I used to run was pretty good at shutting down telemarketers and robocallers while still letting legitimate callers through. I don't think it'd be so easy to implement on an android phone, although it really should be. Maybe that phone Canonical is working on will have more open standards, but I'm not holding my breath.

Comment: Huh? (Score 1) 221

by Black Parrot (#48920405) Attached to: Gamma-ray Bursts May Explain Fermi's Paradox

GRBs clearly haven't prevented life in *our* galaxy, so the Fermi Paradox still stands.

The caluculations probably rule out life in the core of our galaxy, but systems further out would be exposed even less often than ours is. And even though GRBs can periodically sterilize a planet, their directionality means that one burst would not likely sterilize all the planets in an intercellar civilization simultaneously.

So, to modify what someone said above, we can add another term to the Drake equation, but this doesn't do much to answer Fermi.

Comment: Re:Not all code is vulnerable - getaddrinfo() is f (Score 2) 205

by spitzak (#48920231) Attached to: Serious Network Function Vulnerability Found In Glibc

As pointed out in the article, the program must use gethostbyname() on a name supplied by the attacker.

A much more mitigating factor is that the bug is only exercised if the name looks like a numerical id, and according to their search most software first checks this using inet_aton() and only calls gethostbyname() if this fails, thus avoiding the bug.

Comment: Re:Why not strncpy or strlcpy (Score 1) 205

by spitzak (#48920201) Attached to: Serious Network Function Vulnerability Found In Glibc

strncpy will not overflow the buffer provided you pass the size of the buffer (if you don't pass the size of the buffer, *none* of the safer functions are going to help). It's problem is that it will not write a nul at the end of the buffer, thus reading will read right off the end. It also wastes a huge amount of time filling the unused part of the buffer with nul.

strlcpy is far, far better and does pretty much what is wanted.

However in this case they really did try to figure out if the buffer would overflow, so neither strlcpy or strncpy should be needed. They did the calculation wrong, claiming it needed 4-8 bytes less than it really did.

Comment: Re:quirky wacky name syndrome (Score 1) 156

by quax (#48917545) Attached to: Opera Founder Is Back, WIth a Feature-Heavy, Chromium-Based Browser

What's in a name? I also thought Bluetooth was idiotic when it came out, but there are only so many short and descriptive names. Getting a trademark is actually not that easy, and in the end the only thing that matters is that it is unique, and that your competition can't take it away from you.

Firefox, Chrome etc. aren't particular descriptive names but everybody now knows what they stand for.

Comment: Re:DirectX is obsolete (Score 1) 133

by PopeRatzo (#48916319) Attached to: DirectX 12 Lies Dormant Within Microsoft's Recent Windows 10 Update

OK, I see what you're saying. That there's really little reason for the operating system on a home computer to look and work exactly like the one at work.

I agree. I think as computer users, we're mature enough not to need this level of familiarity. This is one reason that at some point down the road, I hope to be able to use both Windows for my digital audio workstation in my home studio, and some form of "SteamOS" for playing games. Of course, with companies like EA/Origin and Ubisoft using their own game store platforms, I don't see all PC games being compatible with a SteamOS for some time to come.

Comment: Re:But does it matter any more? (Score 2) 165

by PopeRatzo (#48911119) Attached to: Windows 10 IE With Spartan Engine Performance Vs. Chrome and Firefox

Only if the DoJ continues to look the other way in the face of continuing flagrant Sherman act violations

If you're a fan of any current computing tech, either mobile or on the desktop, you really don't want to be bringing up Sherman Act violations.

I can't think of a single major manufacturer of PCs, mobiles, or commercial operating systems for PCs or mobiles that isn't guilty of anti-trust violations.

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.