Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Can't get there from here (Score 2) 709

Just about anything else. No sanely designed programming language will ever require you to label each line of code and throw and require the lines to be renumbered whenever you want to put new code in the middle.

I take it you haven't used any BASIC variant in the last 20 years or so. Line numbers, as in GWBASIC, aren't required for any modern BASIC.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 4, Insightful) 217

Nothing has evolved, it has only specialized.

The bigger question is how this complex machinery of life developed in the first billion years of Earth amidst massive meteor impacts. People can call it what they want, but knowing that all life that has ever existed has existed essentially unchanged from three billion years ago defies explanation of "evolving" in first one to two billion years to the amazing complexity of how cells work and then staying pat for almost three billion years and only losing capabilities, not gaining new and more complex capabilities as one assumes from casual science study and reading.

Why would you expect the "gaining of new and more complex capabilities"? Evolution is not oriented towards perfection. It's oriented towards "good enough". So it's quite possible that all those 3 billion year old mechanisms have been "good enough" to meet all conditions encountered since then, in which case unless the "new and more complex capability" provided a substantial survival advantage, it won't have become commonplace. And since "more complex" generally means "more expensive in terms of energy consumption", any mutations in that direction could quite likely have been a survival *disadvantage*.

Comment Re:Why not the US government? (Score 5, Informative) 201

Apparently Google has already given some or all of the sniffed data to authorities in Germany, Spain and France. I wonder why the US is causing so much more controversy?

Perhaps the US government is asking for more data (eg data from other countries) or has refused to meet conditions Google had set for the European governments, when handing over their shares of the data?

The issue is that it is *not* the US Government asking to see the data, it's the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. Who may or may not have any legal justification for even asking for it.

Google has already underwent an FTC investigation over this issue, and an FCC investigation is still pending.

So how many levels in our kludgeocracy should Google have to explain its actions to?

Comment Re:Better Score? (Score 1) 109

This is most likely in response to their poor score in the NSS Labs report. Maybe their score will improve from 3%?

Er, no. That report evaluated performance against "socially engineered malware" only. In short, it tested how well the browser handled protecting the user from being careless or gullible.

Chrome's sandboxing is intended to limit the damage if an attack is encountered, not to keep the attack from happening by warning you that a given site hosts malware.

Comment Re:160 seconds? Windows? Bad example (Score 2) 343

Why on earth are they mentioning how fast rainbow tables can break an old windows hash? That has nothing to do with most pages running apache on linux. The example password would last for quite a while against a brute force attack. Anyone worth their salt wouldn't allow that many auth attempts from one IP. Get it worth their salt? Lololol. Anyhow why is the windows example being used in this article at all?

You missed the point of using rainbow tables in the first place. It's not about brute force guessing a password - any system that's still vulnerable to that sort of attack should have the admin taken out and shot. It's in the case where an attacker get hold of the file containing *hashed* passwords, and want to work out what passwords correspond to those hashes (which is what happened in this case).

Windows, Linux, whatever - if a file of hashed passwords can be obtained, and those hashes aren't salted, then they are vulnerable to a rainbow table attack. They probably just used Windows as an example because there are so many attack tools written specifically for the hashes employed by the folks in Redmond.

Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 2) 147

What I do not get is, of course weight will be different in nature. Weight is dependant on acceleration due to gravity and mass. An atom would weigh more on Earth than it would on the moon.

I think these chemists mean 'atomic mass'? I'm an engineer so correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't alone in that opinion - there is some controversy over the name, simply because it is *not* a "weight" in any sense of the word.

The most popular suggested replacement is "relative atomic mass" (the base unit is 1/12 the mass of a carbon 12 atom), but even that is somewhat misleading since it's actually intended to be relative to the average atomic mass of a sample of the element as found "in nature".

The change is a result of them realizing that that there is actually some variation in the proportions of the different isotopes in samples found "in nature", so instead of a single fixed value, it requires a range that the average should fall in, based on observed variations in those proportions.

Comment Re:Could someone kindly explain (Score 2) 1505

The house essentially creates the law, and must pass it. It then goes to the senate which can revise it. In practice these tend to go on at the same time. Once it passes the house and the senate, the president can pass or veto it (veto only makes it require a larger margin).

Laws that authorize the spending of money *must* originate in the House (per the Constitution). All other types of laws can originate in either the House or the Senate.

In the US (and other common law countries) laws can be ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. Should a law be challenged and get high enough, it can essentially be repealed by the supreme court.

Note that nowhere in the Constitution is this authority explicitly granted to the judiciary. It's not explicitly granted to *anyone*. But early in the country's history, the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided that it was the the job of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of laws, and since it's been 200 or so years without anyone amending the Constitution to say otherwise it's pretty much generally accepted that the courts *do* have this power.

Comment Re:Separate secure channels? (Score 2) 346

Has there ever been an explanation of what all the diplomatic traffic was doing going through the pentagon? Wouldn't separate channels, and perhaps distinct cryptology, whose individual security is checked and tested by the NSA be more secure in any-case?

In the aftermath of 9/11, lack of information sharing was cited as a critical flaw that allowed the attacks to happen. So they responded with information oversharing...

Comment And I though slashdot articles were badly written (Score 2, Insightful) 606

after sensitive defense documents were photographed using a telephoto lens in the hand of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick as he arrived at No 10 Downing Street for a briefing,

Well dammit, tell him to get the telephoto lens out of his hand...

Comment Re:Cool..... (Score 4, Interesting) 222

Apart from the first couple of days of owning the fridge to set the temperature to something sensible, in the last 6 years, the controls I've wanted to use are "defrost" (once). I can also see the use for the "just got home from supermarket, chill a bit more please" button, but it's not something I need as I'm close enough to the supermarket that my food is still cold when I get it gome.

Just wait until they start putting RFID or something similar on food packages - then it'll be easy to patch in a "take inventory" mode, and have it tell you what you're out of.

Or for some of us, maybe a "time in fridge" monitor to warn us when something has passed "somewhat stale" and is heading towards "biohazard"...

Comment Re:bigger than seagate (Score 5, Informative) 354

Without knowing the case specifics, I can't say with authority how likely this is to be overturned, but if Seagate can demonstrate that the project fell apart for business reasons that could not be reasonably anticipated, it'll die on appeal. And it is very likely that it will.

First, if Seagate could have established that the person was hired for a perfectly valid position, which went away as a result of business conditions they couldn't have forseen, then they wouldn't have lost this trial in the first place.

Second, the "At will" issue is irrelevant - the lawsuit was based on a law that says employers are not allowed to lure people into relocating unless there's an actual job waiting for them.

Finally, appeals are generally based on issues of law, not issues of fact. So unless Seagate can come up with a good legal argument why that state law doesn't apply in this case, it's unlikely they'll get a reversal on appeal. At best, they may get the award reduced.

Comment Re:Realtime Rotoscope: Death for makup/costume art (Score 1) 89

But...what if you were being attacked by CLONES of zombies....or zombie clones....

Someone call hollywood, i smell a hit!!!

"We thought we were smart. Creating a horde of clones to do all the menial jobs that us Americans didn't want to do anymore. And with them genetically programmed to die after a year, we were going to have an endless revenue stream selling replacements.

It never occurred to us that they might not *stay* dead..."

Comment Re:Wait... what? (Score 4, Funny) 374

There is a plot. Almost always a mindlessly superficial plot which people ignore and wish wasn't getting in the way, but is included to get around the Miller test, but it is a plot.

Off topic, but I ROFLed after reading that link - something called the "Three Prong Obscenity Test" sounds more like a porn quality control standard than a legal doctrine :)

Slashdot Top Deals

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language