Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment An-124 replacement? (Score 1) 291

NASA apparently is trying to erect sanctions against NASA. Most of the US space and military heavy hauling was done by Volga-Dnepr An-124. It used to make its final approach to Moffett field right over my head. I guess we'll no longer see it. I wonder what NASA is going to do to replace it. Slice the cargo into smaller chunks and make more trips?

Comment Common sense? (Score 1) 298

Lats time I checked, American Nazis were carrying out military training exercises in mock-ups of Russian cities they purposely built. Why wouldn't Iran military want to build a mock-up of American aircraft carrier for the very same purposes? Most likely this is indeed a Target Barge, exactly what the simpletons in the Fifth Fleet suggested, except that they lack the intelligence to understand that the joke is actually on them.

Comment Huh? (Score 1) 623

Huh? Read the original post: "...SBU confirmed March 16 the arrest of a group of Russians...". Read the Forbes text: some guy allegedly made some baseless allegations, perfectly aligned with the established baseline propaganda level and thematics of the Ukraininan "internet warriors" and their handlers. This passage takes the cookie "Putin’s subversive forces will also gin up neo-Nazi incidents with Nazi regalia and Swastikas on full display." So, that was Putin's spetsnaz that threw Molotov cocktails at Berkut and exprlled Yanukovich from the country! LOL! But back to the topic. Arrest of a group of Russian spetsnaz. Where is it in the Forbes link? Please, elighten me.

Comment Is thsi Slashdot? (Score 0) 623

Excuse me, this is Slashdot, not Reddit or News of the World. Would you please keep the most obvious propaganda bullshit out of Slashdot? Every time you want to post a topic like "A woman gave birth to a six headed horse", "Intelligent peanut butter consumed a cat" or "Russian spetsnaz is planting explosives in Ukraine", consider a more appropriate site.

Comment Technically illiterate nonsense (Score 1) 382

There's no system that would transmit anything from the engines as part of "routine maintenance and monitoring program". The whole story is a hoax, most likely fabricated by someone at WSJ. I won't be surprised to find out it was a prank by some junior WSJ employee. The whole idea that engines would somehow know "altitude and speed of the jet" is ridiculous at best. Altitude, speed and other parameters are important for controlling the engine, but they are always collected by independent sensors installed in airplane itself. And engine control decisions are made by electronics hosted separately in the airframe, not in the engine itself. Engines have no self-sufficient decision-making control circuitry, let alone any active data transmission capabilities.

Comment Re:OMG enough (Score 1) 360

Firstly, you are still missing the main point. The "grandparent poster" is factually incorrect in his/her assertion that parenthesis is optional and was added just to camouflage the modification. You simply don't get to side with that poster, regardless of whether you want it or not. The option is simply not on the table, period. The parenthesis is not optional in this case, so the matter of whether the malicious coder was thinking about using it to better hide the change is completely moot. Whatever they were thinking does not matter, since the compiler would force them to add the parenthesis anyway.

Secondly, I suggest you look through a few Linux source code files and observe the styling conventions they use here. You will find massive amount of formally superfluous parenthesis usage in expressions like (a == b) && (c < d). Do you really suggest that this was done by hordes of malicious coders trying to hide something?

Comment Re:It was Niklaus Wirth (Score 1) 360

Well, firstly, in C it is allowable to use assignments (and other operators with side-effects) within any expression, not just inside "condition tests". Expression in condition tests do not receive any special treatment. Secondly, the whole purpose of expression statements in C is their side-effects, since the result of the full expression in such statement is always ignored. Taking that into account, it becomes obvious that prohibiting side-effects in C expressions would have made these expression completely unusable.

Comment Re:OMG enough (Score 1) 360

Er... You do realize now that there has never been any "hackers", do you? The whole concept of "hackers" was nothing more than a smoke screen invented by NSA for the sole purpose of creating FUD in situations like this one. Hollywood picked it up and ran with it (maybe on their own accord, or maybe after receiving a few of offers they could not refuse), so the idea of a "hacker" eventually became a part of pop-culture. But it no "hackers" ever actually existed in real life. It is time to wake up, it is 2013 already.

Comment Re:OMG enough (Score 5, Interesting) 360

That is actually misguided reasoning. If you remove this parenthesis and write it like that
if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && current->uid = 0)
the code will fail to compile for a completely different reason. In C (as well as in C++) the assignment operator has very low priority, lower than `&&` operator. That means that the above code would be interpreted as
if (((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && current->uid) = 0)
A code like that would not compile at all, since it attempts to assign 0 to something that is not lvalue. For this reason (and not some "warning"), you actually absolutely need that extra parenthesis.
Also, note that the first condition is also wrapped in parenthesis, which is formally excessive ('==' has higher priority than `&&`, but some users prefer to add that extra parenthesis since they believe it improves readability). For this reason, it is fairly safe to conclude that both parentheses where there from the very beginning. They were not added by that malicious coder.

Comment Even in 2013 they are still producing this stuff? (Score 0) 74

So, someone in USA halliburtoned a huge chunk of taxpayer's money into their pockets, and then told American people a pretty fairy tale about how they made "a secret effort to clean up a Soviet nuclear site"? Where did I hear that story before? Please, don't make me laugh. It is 2013 already. Everybody knows what those mythological stories about "USA helping USSR to secure its nukes" are worth.

Comment Re:Anteres is the most overrated event (Score 1) 22

Well, virtually all such US events are "overrated" in a sense that the equipment is either directly bought from Russia, assembled from Russian components or at least based on Russian designs. This one is no exception. Antares is just another Atlas - an airkit pulled over a Russian main engine. While Russian superiority in this area is undisputed, it's already becoming a commodity. Nothing to write home about.

Comment Re: No need to lie (Score 1) 148

While this does bear certain similarities with Strava, there's no need to inject false information about the cyclist's death. The cyclist in question did not "break the laws of the road" and was not "killed in traffic". He died in a single-bicycle accident after losing control on a descent. Basically, he fell and got injured pretty badly.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old mail has arrived.