Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Ethical hackers (Score 1) 76

You'll also need to have a deadbolt on the door, the door needs to be steel, and you'll need bars on the windows. Now you're up to the level that it would take a middle school kid to break in and it'll take time and make some noise, or a high school kid might manage to pick the locks.

You're pretty bad at home security, it seems. Do you deserve to get cleaned out? I'm guessing you'll say no, and you'll be right. Same way nobody deserves one of those crypto extortion attacks.

Comment Re:Ethical hackers (Score 1) 76

If you think about it for a moment, most homes are trivial to break in to even if the door is locked. Any elementary school kid could do it. They don't because they're taught it's wrong and they would likely get in trouble. A computer that actually has a password on it is harder. The problem is the bad guys can reach it from across the world and know they WON'T get in trouble the vast majority of the time.

Comment Re:I Wouldn't. (Score 1) 285

Or maybe it would mean that you were as smart as Einstein. Or, at least, able to plagiarise Einstein, who did explain special relativity to his children and wrote down the explanation that he used. My father told me the same explanation when I was 11. There's a lot of maths, and the moment when you can work out the mass-energy equivalence formula from first principles requires a lot more maths than a typical child has, but that isn't needed to get an understanding of what Einstein showed any more than you need to understand Newton's laws to understand that he worked out how to calculate where a thrown object will land and the relationship between the mass of an object and how fast two things will fall together.

Einstein used a model of two trains moving towards each other, each with headlights on the front, and asked his children what would happen to the light. If you start with the speed of sound on a train, then you get to the answer that sound goes faster because the air is moving, so for the light to move faster you'd need some substrate to be moving. The rest falls fairly naturally out of there.

General relativity, in contrast, is horribly complex.

Comment Re:Paradox of intelligence (Score 2) 634

It's worth noting that the standard IQ tests have very low discrimination above 120 (for example, successive attempts at different IQ tests will give high variation for the same test taker). I'm therefore very suspicious of anything that attempts to correlate 120+ scores with anything if they only did one test. There are specially designed IQ tests that have high discrimination over 130 and very low discrimination below that (i.e. most people with an IQ under that are expected to get 0-1 questions right), but unless they did a sequence of tests with increasing discrimination for their range, any number above about 120 should be taken as suspicious and anything above 130 is noise.

Comment Re:Router, printer, NAS, and other FQDNless device (Score 1) 243

Have you actually bought any consumer network equipment in the past decade? Most of the things I've bought handle https already. Even a cheap (under £10) TP-Link WiFi router does (via a fairly complex dance involving public DNS records). My ISP-provided router does with a self-signed cert that I have to explicitly mark as trusted (but which is then pinned). The manual config is only an issue if you're manually configuring your own intranet server, and if you're doing that then you should know what you're doing.

Comment Re:Global Warming Alarmism (Score 1) 336

Good post but...
Melting Greenland would raise sea level 20'.
Source: simple google question.

If *all* the ice in antarctica melted, it would raise sea level by 200'.
But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37C. So it's unlikely that it would all melt while the earth was still inhabitable.

  "It is possible that this could collapse rapidly and raise sea levels by 3.2 m, possibly within 500 years. "

Much more likely problems include rainbelts moving hundreds of miles which would cause arable land to be infertile and rain to fall on new areas that would take thousands of years to become good farmland, increased range of tropical diseases (we are already seeing this).

The methane hasn't transitioned during warmer periods in the past. If it *did* transition, it's close to an extinction level event for humans.

Comment We are well past 2.0C by 2100. (Score 1) 336

We have a total budget of about 830 gigatons of carbon emissions by 2100 to avoid a 2.0C increase.
That's about 10 gigatons per year.

We currently are emitting 37 gigatons of carbon *per* year.

Good news: That's down from 50 gigatons *per* year in 2004.
Bad News: We are going in the hole over 25 gigatons *per* year.

We already are past the 1.0C increase carbon budget.
At current rates we blow thru the 1.5C increase budget before 2025.
Every year we emit more than 10 gigatons per year, means we need to be even further under 10 gigatons for the rest of this century.

And no one has a plan to actually remove the carbon yet. 90% of the models don't even consider that yet.

I'm old. I'll be dead. But anyone who's 20 today has a very good chance of living in really miserable times.

Good News: You might adapt.
Bad News: There's other bad stuff around metals like chromium, manganese, and so on that hits hard in 2050. You have to invent replacements for all of them by 2050 or your costs will skyrocket.
Further Bad news: We used more chromium in 2014 than we did from 1901 to 2000 combined.

Slashdot Top Deals

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759