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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Anonymous Finland denies the hack (Score 4, Informative) 129

"Hello,
This is Anonymous Finland messaging you once again (actually not, the earlier messages were not written nor released by us.)

We have no opinions on any politicians all.
We have not hacked any Finnish websites.
We find antisec childish, among with lulzsec that was nothing but a bunch of bought exploits."

http://pastebin.com/X98zQ4Ea

Comment Re:This has been known for years... (Score 1) 332

The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.

Comment Re:Interview with Chernobyl cleanup director (Score 1) 537

Chernobyl was caused partly by operator error. The expert here has clearly an agenda of his own, if he denies that the testing that caused the accident was made outside the original test specs, ie. the power levels when the test was started were way too low, and the operators responding to the unstable conditions caused by the initial power levels were incorrect and ultimately caused the secondary explosion, which was the main cause for the release of the radioactive materials.

The conjecture about overfilled cooling pools is also totally unconfirmed by any other source, as is the claim that the pools drained after the quake. As far as the official story goes, the pools started draining as there was no active cooling (pumps died, like in the reactors) so the stagnating water evaporated by the heat produced by the spent rods, which makes sense as pools drained by the quake would have caused problems immediately, not after a few days.

Comment Re:No hardware? (Score 1) 225

Are you being dense on purpose? Please explain the difference the main differences in hardware in HDCP-capable hardware running Windows vs. the same hardware running Linux. It's fully a software problem, and you can do format shifting and outputting the result to a screen on the fly, too.

The code is about breaking all handshakes in HDCP content protection, so you might there goes your argument in any case.

Comment Re:No hardware? (Score 1) 225

This was addressed earlier in another post. You get the GPU-monitor and probably optical drive-motherboard (or GPU, if it's "direct" lane)handshakes made, there's (basically) no need for extra hardware, you just need the processing power to get the content decrypted.

We have seen plenty of specific HDCP breaks that can decrypt a limited set of movies; this is the general break, which does not care much about the HW and firmware (optical drive) details.

Comment Re:No hardware? (Score 1) 225

Yes, and you don't answer the question. If I have two similar computers, both HDCP capable at least on paper, what's the physical difference? HDCP is meant to be fast in the hardware, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible to decrypt it in software; and more to the point, there is no physical difference as the GGGP implies: It's just the same hardware.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...