Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Violation of Equivalence Principle (Score 1) 379

"Mr Einstein's assertion that the photoelectric effect is due to "quanta" of light strains belief. Maxwell's theory already describes light."

-- Someone on Slashdot in 1905

The equivalence principle - the equality of inertial and gravitational masses - is one of the mysteries of physics: no really compelling explanation with why it is the case is generally agreed, just that it is true to a very impressive number of decimal places.

But look through the list of tests and spot the one thing they have in common: they all test matter.

So Hajdukovic's assertion here is, I think, really elegant: take something that everyone supposes is true in areas it hasn't been tested, and assume it is false in those areas. In this case antimatter has the same inertial mass but different gravitational mass from matter. How would the universe be different if this was the case? And, so far as had been modelled, it is almost identical, except that (using a simple model) this allows you to derive the Tully-Fisher relation for the rotation of galaxies.

This is good science - clever thinking, clear assumption, simple test (well, conceptually simple), and a useful light played upon some of the roots of physics. In this case we've extended the equivalence principle way beyond the areas where there is experimental support for it.

Comment Re:Let's Put This In Perspective (Score 5, Informative) 251

One reporter and the private investigator have already gone to prison for this: I think wrong-doing has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by convictions in a criminal court.

In addition News International have setup up a ~£20million fund to pay compensation to those who they have admitted they hacked. I think wrong-doing have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a confession and an apology.

What is up for debate here is exactly how evil and corrupt they are - it has been proved that they are evil and corrupt already.

Comment Extremely Sceptical (Score 5, Insightful) 515

OK - we have a keylogger that is plainly visible in the windows directory on his machine and.... that's it. Where is the rest of the evidence? It phones home - I presume he has wireshark traces in the acticle with IP addresses that are owned by Samsung.... Nope. Any network traces showing the activity? .... Nope. Naturally he bought another laptop and, without attaching it to any network, discovered the same keylogger.... Nope. Now he has announced this lots of people have looked at their Samsung laptops and found the keylogger... Nope.

But wait - he has the admission of the company itself! Well, actually, a junior helpdesk driod who probably had no idea what he was actually talking about and was just agreeing with him to get him off the phone. Because the alternative is that every junior helpdesk droid in Samsung knows about the highly illegal secret keylogger that is install on every laptop, but none of them thought "I'm tired of being a helpdesk droid, I think a class action suit is a better way of making a living".

There is also nonsense statements - "the keylogger is completely undetectable": Really? Apart from the c:/windows/SL directory, the entries in the registry and everything else that will make any sensible AV product go beserk that is.

Comment Re: The Alchemists (Score 5, Informative) 330

No they didn't - they started off with the four elements of air, earth, fire and water. Then they realised that there were maybe a score of "elements" (even the concept was vague), and there was no systematic organisation or predictive value from it. This took a few hundred years. Most importantly they did not realise the that properties of the elements repeat themselves (which is where the concept of the periodic part of the name comes from).

The comment that they created a "fairly accurate periodic chart" is risible.

Comment Re:200,000 dollars (Score 3, Informative) 239

This for some reason is at 5 interesting despite being completely wrong.

What happened was that at the original pretrial hearings the Judge struck out the defence of honest opinion, which would have been a defence against the BCA's claim of libel (not an absolute defence - if the BCA could establish that the opinion was based on malice then it could prevail).

What Simon Singh did win was the appeal against this judgement. Faced with the extemely strong likelyhood that Singh had a suitable defence the BCA withdrew.

He had an earlier win as well by winning the rigth to appeal after having it rejected twice.

Comment Re:Hey, (Score 1) 215

Apart from it being unethical, suddenly you have a criminal conspiracy where a lot of people know the truth you are trying to hide. Not wise, and they'll be screwed because not many people would want to be involved in a criminal conspiracy to help their employer.

There is also the question in their minds about what the German government knew already. If they don't give back any data or give back fake data that is not consistent with what the government already know - they are screwed.

Finally, even if the government does not know anything apart from what is in the public domain, the challenges of trying to fake enough data to be convincing would be immense, and it would be fairly straightforward for the Government to spot the fraud if there was anything less than a stellar job done. And, once more, they're screwed. And faking the data is another conspiracy - see point one.

So it would be extremely difficult and risky to try and cover it up. And they would have no real benefit - people (like me) who think they are unethical already won't change our opinion, and others, who have a more positive view, will not particularly change theirs. So the downsides of their limited confession are small.

They may or may not be evil, but they ain't stupid.

Comment Re:Hey, (Score 2, Insightful) 215

Although some of your points are valid, I think you missed one of the most important issues regarding the entire story: Google were frank about their mess-up.

Not initially - they originally said:

"Networks also send information to other computers that are using the network, called payload data, but Google does not collect or store payload data."

This was wrong and was in response to claims that Google was collecting payload data. The thought this could be in error is ridiculous. First they'd have to accidently collect the data, and then they'd have to accidently not notice even when they went to look for it.

They only (finally) admitted they were collecting payload data when the German government asked for the collected data to audit exactly what was being collected.

Here Google had many options:

1) They could have found about the error and deleted all information the moment the Germans started inquiring - nobody would have known anything. If asked - do like the politician, deny

That would have been fatal - the German government was either on a fishing expedition or already knew what was being collected. For Google to have deliberately deleted data in response to a Government request would have been insane - going to prison, massive fines and "they're evil" type of insanity.

2) They could have issued a short statement claiming that they independently found an error and fixed it, without disclosing too much details.

That would have been untenable - they just happen to find out after they had threatened with an audit.

3) They could have issued a long statement admitting that they started the investigation after the German inquiry, etc

So they did the only vague credible course of action left open to them

We keep asking companies to be honest about their practices and mistakes, but when they do admit wrongdoing, we bash them on /. and then promise not to use their services.

The problem is that few believe they are being honest - acccidently collecting hundreds of gigs of data and not noticing either after you've processed your (our) data or after you've said you've checked and there is defintely no data there.

I'll leave with a final thought - Google claimed that they have never used the data in any product. Given that they claim they didn't even know they had the data until recently how can they possibly make the categorical and emphatic claim that they had never used it in any product. I'd have believed a statement that they didn't believed they had used the data, but were currently auditing to make sure or something. But another straight denial? It makes them look like a six year old caught with their hand in the cookie jar - every answer given to cast themselves in the best possible light with only a vague connection with the truth.

Comment Re:Oh shut up (Score 3, Informative) 530

This keep cropping up in this thread, and I don't know why. The policy is online, and does not contain the word "Mayor", or the phrase "designated agent", or any of the many other things that are supposedly in it. So he did not follow policy in this respect.

What is in the policy is the actual policy for system level passwords, and the enable password for network kit is definitely a system level password. It states:

"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."

Simple, clear, and Childs was definitely in breach of it: only he has these enable passwords, and did not put them in the database.

For him to argue that the rules for personal passwords applied to system-level passwords and take it to ridiculous extremes - well, this was always bound to end in tears.

Comment Re:The difference is quality (Score 1) 134

This is straight up bullshit, I don't know if you live in Klan Country but I have lived within the US in California and Arizona and I'm not sure if a more diverse set of people live anywhere else in the world.

I would say England is more diverse - in London there are more than 300 different languages spoken in schools (and an estimated 700 spoken in all). For comparison in Los Angeles there are 92 spoken in schools (and 224 in all).

I agree though - anyone who thinks the US is not open to other cultures has strange opinions.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 349

I love it. Gullibility by design (TM), the new prescription. The disturbing part of the equation is that price is part of the effect, so I'd expect that a 50$ pill could have a bigger placebo effect than a 5$ pill of identical composition, provided that the patients know it.

This is in fact true - more expensive placebos are more effective than cheaper ones (well, ones that the patient believe are more expensive).

Slashdot Top Deals

Chairman of the Bored.