Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Set course for accountability... (Score 0) 372

You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)

Then the person who wrote the article is a moron. It's legal because they say it's legal. They're the authority on what's legal or not. The word you're looking for is moral.

. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous.

Why? Because a chair costs that much?

Comment Re:Set course for accountability... (Score 0) 372

And what purpose is that other than to satisfy the delusions of grandeur of the people running the place and the people holding the purse strings?

I don't know; What are command centers for again? The NSA deals with more information passing through its networks than, say, AT&T. I wonder what AT&T's NOC looks like, and if it costs as much as a recreation of the Enterprise bridge. I bet it does.

That might be tolerable in a corporate environment, but not a government one. This is pure, unadulterated waste. "Selling" isn't part of the mission.

Heh. How naive. The NSA is a support organization; They exist solely to 'sell' their services to the FBI, DHS, and CIA. They are, as it were, the outsourced IT of the government. If they aren't making the news, proving their worth, what they do will just be absorbed by one of them. Or do you think "the government" is just one big happy family and people don't have cross-jurisdictional issues, turf wars, competing objectives... ? Yes, the NSA very much does need to sell itself to Congress. Especially when idiots like you are busy foaming at the mouth about privacy, civil rights, etc., apparently blithingly unaware that the NSA is simply the service provider. They aren't making these decisions... and they're quite happy to have everyone believing they're the ones calling the shots... It's just another deception. And all warfare is deception... keep your detractors distracted so the real players can move freely.

Comment Re:Set course for accountability... (Score 0) 372


Well, I'll be down-modded again for this, but the bridge of the Enterprise has been modelled for use in many types of command centers; NOCs, military headquarters, etc. As it turns out, the layout of the bridge actually has a functional effect. Submarines as well borrow elements of the Enterprise layout -- our nuclear submarines, for example. As it turns out, science fiction often leads to realworld advancements. Tricorders. Comm badges. Phasers. All of these were science fiction, and now they're science fact. Why should the bridge layout somehow be a cry for "accountability" ?

The bridge serves a real purpose for the NSA, but even if it didn't, there's plenty of data centers that have fancy-looking NOCs that are only there to look fancy for the big wigs. The 'real' NOC is usually on the other side of the wall, and it's just a room with some tables and cubes along the sides... and maybe a ping pong table in the corner. But showing them the geeks instead of the sexy but non-functional "bridge" of their data center doesn't sell as well.

Why would the government be in any way immune to these things? Why do we scream "accountability" when they do the exact same thing private companies do? Oh, your taxpayer dollars, blah blah? That's your argument? Before you bitch about the NSA's star trek bridge to show off to congressional dignitaries... think about how much more you're paying for patent lawsuits clogging up the courts, or overzealous police officers writing tickets, or about ten thousand items above it that are costing more of your precious taxpayer tears, er, I mean, dollars...

Let the NSA geek feel like he's Captain Picard. You know you would too if given the chance.

Comment Re:Monopoly (Score 4, Interesting) 113

Which frankly blows my damned mind, its like "do no evil" is some sort of RDF instead of just another slogan like "think different" and "where do you want to go today?".

I mean from the nasty stuff we are learning from Snowden to the locking down the backend (where is the public API for Google+? Last I checked it didn't exist) to their using spammer techniques with Chrome like tying it to unrelated third party software which I would say is not only evil (because Joe and Jane don't know how to reset the default browser) but seriously douchey time and time again we have seen Google act just as nasty as MSFT and Apple yet...crickets. Hell it doesn't matter what they do, even ripping off the old "Requires IE" bit not only will people refuse to see this as nasty you will often see them charge to DEFEND whatever douchey thing Google does! When I pointed out on one forum that Google was using the old toolbar spammer trick of tying Chrome to programs like CCleaner and Defraggler I even had one defender say "Well I downloaded Chrome and didn't get CCleaner" because he was so fucking desperate to defend an obviously scumbag behavior he was grasping at any straws he could find!

I don't know, maybe I'm weird but I don't believe in "flying the flag" of ANY company, especially not the megacorps. If they make a good product like Win 7 or Android 2.x? I'll be happy to give credit where credit is due. If on the other hand they put out a product I think is crap, like Win 8 or those proprietary as hell and NSA wet dream ChromeBooks? I'll be the first to start passing out the rotten tomatoes. I honestly do not understand this whole "corporations as ballclubs" mentality, first I thought maybe it was a form of buyer's remorse, you have invested all this money into something you really don't have a use for so you defend and try to justify it like the gal I saw struggling to use an iPad for a grocery list, but then you have the free products like Chrome and Google Search that are just as militantly defended...I don't know, maybe I'm one of the last sane guys in the nuthouse but jumping through flaming hoops to defend some supermegacorp that would happily shove them under a bus if it made the stock bounce 8% is just insanity to me.

Comment Re:Android is not Linux ... (Score 1) 321

Which is why I never understood why the FOSS advocates cheered android...what is the difference, really? It doesn't support the four freedoms, the drivers are pretty much all proprietary, and it takes an act of God and skills beyond the majority to unlock many of the phones. I looked into unlocking my LG and it was over a page long with half a dozen points where it said "If you get this wrong or it fails YOU BRICK YOUR PHONE" which was enough to make even an old techie like me reconsider, a regular user would have turned back at the page and a half of insanely complex moves. Hell most folks can't even re-partition their PCs, and they are supposed to re-partition their phone by CLI? Not likely.

So I honestly don't get it, and this is coming from somebody that loves his Android phone but frankly Android has more in common with TiVo than it does with Linux. I may have my arguments with the FOSSie faction but I give credit where credit is due and the big difference between Linux and the other 2 is how trivial it is to change anything from the kernel on up. Don't like the DE? Change it to one of a half dozen or even go headless if you want, don't like the video subsystem? Rip out X11 and replace it with wayland or Mir, same goes for Pulse with ALSA and even the OS can be swapped out while keeping your data and settings. With Android honestly you have to jump through just as many hoops to unlock it as you do your average iPhone and it involves the same risks in a lot of cases, and even if you do there is a good chance that the community won't have drivers for your model, so what is the diff?

Comment Re:Android is not Linux ... (Score 0) 321

Exactly Linux users claiming android is as ridiculous as them claiming Chinese MP3s, in the case of Android its all about Dalvik and the kernel means exactly jack and squat. If you ripped out the Linux kernel for BSD, Windows, symbian, hell anything it really wouldn't matter as far as applications go as its all about the VM.

As for TFA? It again proves what I've been saying for years and that is FOSS isn't magic, the ONLY real advantage is it gives you the CHANCE, not the guarantee mind you, just the chance, to keep a piece of software no longer supported by the devs alive. Its not gonna help with security as one look at the obfuscated c contest entries will prove you can hide malware in plain sight and if you are good (such as the coders paid the big bux by certain three letter agencies) only the most studied of programming experts would be able to spot the malware, it doesn't magically lower costs as Dell found out when they had to keep a dev team just to have their own fork of Ubuntu to keep Canonical and upstream from crapping on their drivers, the only real advantage is the chance that maybe, just maybe, you can get enough like minded people together to keep old projects alive.

Now as for JWM? It really doesn't have a niche, which is why its most likely dying. The server guys run headless or use the most simplistic of GUIs to get their work done and hardware has progressed so rapidly that frankly even a dumpster dived P4 can run something like E17 or XFCE so having something less feature rich than XFCE but uses more resources than headless just doesn't have a niche. Last project I heard of that used JWM as a main DE was DSL and that has been dead for awhile now. I just checked and Puppy also uses it so maybe an appeal to their forums would be a good place to start? although looking at the Puppy Remixes it seems like JWM isn't even popular among Puppy users, with XFCE and E17 being much more popular to build a remix around than JWM. Still that does give one at least a starting point on where to drum up support.

Comment *facepalm* (Score -1, Troll) 113

"Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because...

Because the paid shill has conveniently omitted the possibility of collusion and/or conspiracy. And there have been plenty of examples where corporations in this industry have colluded with each other to price fix. In fact, during the analog to digital TV transition, the prices were over double what they should have been. The government is, you know, thinking about, maybe, possibly, getting around to investigating that, you know, someday. Don't hold your breath.

I don't think you'll find very many people here that believe that the government and large corporations aren't in bed with each other. Money talks. So, I gotta ask, Mr. Doctorow... how much did they pay you to talk about how Google can't possibly be evil, when the evidence for your position is so pathetically underwelming? Perhaps Google is a special little snowflake that somehow wouldn't engage in the kinds of unethical behavior that almost every other Fortune 500 company did? Perhaps you believe that mass-collusion between corporations and the government isn't possible... and there's another explanation for the current global recession?

Because if you can, step forward and collect your Nobel prize on economics. Otherwise, the door is on your left. Don't let your paid-off ass hit it on the way out.

Comment Re:Must we call him a genius? (Score 2) 163

Because unlike an athlete, like say a sprinter or boxer, where every second past maturity counts against them, somebody who has a brilliant mind can do great things for decades if they don't burn themselves out first? Look at Sagan, Hawking, hell Einstein did some of his best work in his later years.

Again sayings exist for a reason, and "the candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as quickly" has endured so long because it is truth,again I've met a few of these "wunderkind" in my time and they nearly always end up a burnout or a basket case before they are 30. Ironically you mentioned sprinting when in reality a better description of life would be a marathon and if you use all your energy you would be screwed?

Comment Re:Several errors. (Score 1) 337

No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)

Hawking proved... No, he did not.

Unless of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. A direct observation is rather difficult because of the aforementioned alignment issue with blackholes -- in fact, every theory of black holes suffers the same problem of a lack of observation being, well, you know... black holes. Hawking's theories are the best-fit model to date, and until and unless better evidence comes along, that's what most physicists are going with... as you, yourself, pointed out.

Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not.

the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not.

You get one or the other. Any theory you care to pick; You don't get both. If it's not rotating at the speed of light, then the particles do not 'think' better of it and shoot out the poles... where would they get the energy to escape from the accretion disk then? You can't escape gravity without energy to counter-act it. I'd love to hear your ideas about how those jets are blasting out particles without some kind of gravitational force pushing them back out -- the kind of gravitational force that, near an event horizon, can only come by something capable of vectoring it away at near the speed of light .. like, I don't know, something rotating at the speed of light with the gravitational force of, say, a black hole.

The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle.

Well thank you. And how, exactly, do you propose that two objects interact with each other's gravity, and yet only one of them accelerates? Everywhere else in physics, when an object in space passes at a right angle to another, they affect each other's orbits -- and, wait for it -- their spin too. Now if this is happening constantly around a black hole, how exactly do you conclude that it's ... not rotating?

Allow me to clear up your confusion on this matter, as although I haven't read your pet book, I do understand something more basic: There are many types of black holes.

The physics I outlined above is accurate for a rotating black hole. However, here's the glitch that you missed: Non-rotating black holes also emit energy. See that first blurb about Hawking radiation I posted above -- whether it's rotating or not, it emits radiation. The only thing rotation does is concentrate the emissions at the poles... the accretion disk does cause a lot more matter to be ejected at the poles as spacetime is locally deformed there and they can pickup enough energy to bounce off... but not all black holes have an accretion disk, and hawking radiation doesn't depend on rotation; It depends on phenomena that happens at the event horizon where virtual particle pairs are pulled apart...

The reason it can't be observed is because this radiation occurs in such a small quantity over such a long period of time, and at such low energy levels... that we haven't yet found a black hole close enough that current technology could directly observe it.

But to just handwave and say "no, no, no..." to one of the most interesting problems in physics is stupid. Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about the best fit model. And what I've stated... that's the current state of the art. If you want deterministic physics and models that are beyond questioning, go into religion. It's the only place where dogmatically repetitive denials of what anyone else says you disagree with is endorsed.

Comment Re:Poor statistics (Score 1) 512 others pointed out I said it "will give you a warning" NOT "HDDs make noise you can hear" in point of fact you can get an SMS, or email, when a drive exceeds a limit that YOU set.

Try HDDLife Pro, last I check they have free trials so it won't cost you anything to try it and it will give you warnings if your drive starts having ANY SMART faults, not just low enough to trip a SMART warning, and will also warn you if the drive starts climbing past its normal operating levels. I use it with my SMB customers, works great.

Oh one final thing...I've dealt with over 20 failed SSDs and not a single one, not one mind you, threw any SMART errors before failure. Instead you would literally find it worked one day, dead the next. With the HDDs I've probably had who knows how many over the years with various customers die and in the past decade I have yet to come across a failing HDD that was impossible to get the data off of, if no other way you could always throw together a clean box and change the platters. i have yet to hear of anybody recovering data off an SSD without paying a top notch recovery company to the tune of a couple of thousand dollars.

Comment Re:Poor statistics (Score 1) 512

Are you stoned? WHAT money saved? The cost per Gb makes SSD much worse than HDDs, the controller failures (see "coding horror hot/crazy scale" for several PAGES going over 2 years listing failure after failure) makes them more expensive and if you data is worth ANYTHING you will have to use full disc encryption (thus negating a lot of that SSD speed) or just give up your warranty because while its pretty easy to zero out a HDD that is dying when an SSD controller fails there is NO WAY IN HELL to wipe the drive so I hope you don't mind some refurb factory in Taipei getting access to your SSD's data.

So I'm sorry but there is NO "savings" for using SSDs, like Ferrari its speed above all, above reliability (which will get worse as the shrinks and levels of MLC make corruption much easier), above capacity, in fact you honestly won't save any on power with a modern OS that isn't RAM starved as Win 7 and above can simply cache most used files in RAM and park the drive.

Comment Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score 1) 189

And you are frankly full of shit, Nokia hadn't been a "premium" brand since the late 90s, in fact only in parts of Europe were they even known, the USA saw Nokia as the company that along with Motorola made shitty dumbphones sold at Fred's and other dollar stores. There is your "premium" brand for ya chief, sold right next to the generic soda.

As for Nokia making any money with Android? I'd point out the #2 maker of Android HTC is expecting another year of losses because guess what? In a race to the bottom only the leanest of companies will make consistent profits...hey that is what i said would be the case, didn't I? Like it or not Nokia was top heavy, had too high of an operating cost, too little experience in the Android smartphone market, no experience with writing low level drivers for Android, and their factories cost more per unit than HTC,LG, and Huawei and all of those are showing inconsistent profits, again if they are lucky a few dollars per unit because surprise! That is what a race to the bottom is, it is great for consumers because they price gets as close to cost as can be while still making devices profitable but Nokia's costs made their ability to compete in that shark tank non-existent. Even their ability to compete with dumbphones has been falling like a stone thanks to the Mediatek SoC that lets Chinese companies and those subcontracting (like Motorola) to sell dumbphones for sub $10 USD retail. I'm sorry but Nokia didn't have the chops to play in the Android market, they would have been eaten alive, as HTC,Huawei and others are right now.

Comment Re:Must we call him a genius? (Score 1) 163

The candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast, truth is truth.

Ironically by doing everything in moderation I'd say I'm doing better now creatively than i was 20 years ago, at least as far as my music is concerned. Part of that has to be finding a damned good guitarist/singer/songwriter to work with and a nice tight drummer and sticking with the 3 piece format which makes me have to really bust my ass to make the band sound full with so few instruments, but I'd also say knowing when to step away and clear my head REALLY helps.

I have seen many push themselves like this kid, both in IT and in music and ya know what? It never ends well, they either burn out of fizzle out. I drive my GF nuts with all my sayings but truth is truth and "everything in moderation" is something frankly all should try to live by IMHO. I would love to see a follow up when this kid is 30, I bet he'll have had a burn out or a breakdown.

Comment Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score 2, Interesting) 337

It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.

This is not true. Hawkings proved this already; Look up Hawking radiation. Black holes will eventually evaporate if it cannot attract enough matter to sustain its size. Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole, and it's also been proven that not only does matter in the accretion disc accelerate to the speed of light before crossing the horizon, but that the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light creating relativistic frame dragging.

All of this would not be occurring if it "vanished out of existance", and thus violated the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, whether a 3D or 4D universe, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The information, that is the quantum state, of mass and energy that is eaten by a blackhole is later ejected as what could be termed high energy 'noise'; x-rays and gamma rays. Black holes, it would seem, convert matter into energy, which is then re-emitted; They accelerate entropy locally, but they do not, in any way, "vanish" things. What goes into a black hole does eventually come back out... but what comes out, to the best of our knowledge, is a smear of particles which are emitted along a gaussian distribution with regard to energy state.

It should also be noted that the standard model is known to be flawed in that it cannot accurately predict extremely high energy states -- this is one of the reasons why black holes are so interesting to astrophysicists; They are currently the only observable phenomenon where such high energy levels are. Unfortunately, because we are not directly aligned with the poles of very many black holes, which seem to align themselves to the galactic gravity plane for reasons not yet fully understood, there simply isn't enough observational data to say with confidence what the properties of such high energy particles would be.

Answering these questions is essential if we are to successfully create a grand unified theory. The standard model has already been proven to fall short of that; And quantum mechanics still can't even explain gravity... the Year of the Proven Quantum Gravity Particle comes about as often as the Year of the Linux Desktop... which is to say, we're still waiting.

Comment Re:technocracy - the end of a monetary system? (Score 2) 625

I take it you didn't see the infamous "Let him die!" cheers during Ron Paul's speech? Even Paul had a look of horror on his face at the blatant fucking GREED that was on front and center display. Whether anybody wants to accept it or not the top 10% of the capital holders are made up in a large part with sociopaths whom if you told "Millions of men,women, and children will die if you do not stop" would say "fuck them peasant scum, charge 'em for the mass graves to dump their sorry corpses in".

This is why I really wouldn't be surprised to see the world go through another dark age, as those at the top frankly would pull an Andrew Ryan and burn the forest to the ground rather than share it with the poor.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell