Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:You would think science could help (Score 1) 275

Yes, because everyone know, you have to mow down thousands of acres of trees to build a platform and processing area that is smaller than one acre in size...

Oh that's right, you basically don't destroy any trees to frack. Very empty headed logic, or you just don't understand the science behind drilling.

Comment Re:Self-inflicted (Score 3, Insightful) 76

Yes, and those idiot's votes count the same as yours and mind. It is amazing how many people "me too" jump on some bullshit I've already proven to be false a few times before. Hoax is the poisoning of the mind for people too stupid to do their own thinking and prefer their news in a 600x600 image square. Whoever controls these drones, controls the vote, because they are half the population.

Or to paraphrase George Carlin, think about how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the population is dumber than they are.

Comment Re:Except for the one that doesn't (Score 1) 148

When I last evaluated zxcvbn (2 years ago) it was, however, a denial of service waiting to happen: it tries to estimate entropy by brute forcing its way through a bunch of different strategies for predicting structures in passwords. At the time it was possible to let a single (server-side) check take minutes of CPU time by carefully constructing your password. It may have improved, but I'd be careful if you really want to deploy it. Preferably use some client-side port; at least that way you just chase away a user with bad habits rather that let anyone that wants to DOS you.

Comment Re:High failure rate (Score 1) 209

They are using consumer drives for data center needs, this is the big reason their failure rate is relatively high. Still, with the redundancy, it is cheaper to run this way. Rumor is that Google ran that way with off the shelf computers. Use dirt cheap commodity products that are good quality, have exceptional redundancy, throw them away as they implode.

Comment Re:Harm (Score 1) 93

Kind of funny, our company is on the cutting edge actually, but in fluorescents, not LEDs, which are terrible for producing what we would consider high output of UVB or UVA. There is a huge difference between 320nm and 399nm, yet both are "UVA". 320nm has a lot more energy, and as you up in frequency (down in nm), it forms a Bell curve and gets exponentially more damaging. It also goes down in penetration, which is why you can get a quick flash burn from UVC (100nm-280nm) that doesn't penetrate more than a few layers of skin, but it is very damaging to those layers. And of course, the real kicker is how much you are getting.

And the reason it has that warning on it is simple: anything with any measurable amount of UVA must have that warning by law. The FDA regulates this (CFR 1040.20 for sunlamps, for example). I'm used to seeing them regularly for inspections. For some reason, general lighting fluorescents are excepted from this warning, even though they do produce a measurable amount of UVA.

Comment Re:Harm (Score 3, Informative) 93

385nm is invisible to almost all humans, being on the long-ish wavelength of UV, and I wouldn't really say it was very damaging. Everyone likes to jump on the bandwagon like they actually know something about UV when in fact they don't. I've worked with it over 25 years, still do. Out of the millions of products sold, I've never had an injury reported. People do get hurt with UV, but that is exceedingly rare and usually because they didn't follow directions or did something really stupid.

Inside fiber, it is pretty harmless. Most plastics block it (excepting OP4 acrylic), the vast majority of paints absorb it and won't reflect it. It has a smaller wavelength, thus more waves per centimeter, ie: more data. I'm not saying their plan is good or bad, but blanket calling UV dangerous and not workable is ignorant.

Comment Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns (Score 1) 94

Netflix has proven that the main reason people pirate isn't about money, it is about convenience. We want media our way. I haven't pirated anything in forever since getting Netflix. Pirating is easy, but then I have it on one machine, and I don't want to copy everything to every non-networked machine. Netflix is simply easier to use for most people, the variety is quite good, and the price is reasonable. This downloading might be an extra $$ feature, but if it costs 2 bucks more a month (same cost to them, really), people will use it, particularly those on the road who tire of mediocre internet access in the average hotel.

Comment Re:Reasons (Score 2) 306

or don't use the Facebook app. I don't, yet I check in with Facebook from time to time, then close out the browser in my phone. They are soon to stop allowing people to use their chat unless you install their app, and again, I won't install it. I don't want Facebook to run in the background, but I still want to use Wifi and even GPS. If they stop allowing you to use any Facebook without the app, then I will stop using it on my phone. It isn't like Facebook makes me money or enriches my life, it just lets me talk to family without having to actually talk to them.

Comment Re:That's OK (Score 1) 189

I agree. I've already decided to not install the messenger app no matter what, told people I chat with. What sucks is when you try to use regular chat NOW, it will bump you to down toad the app a couple of times, won't let you into the regular chat until you do a couple of gyrations No thanks, just like I said no thanks to Windows 10.

Slashdot Top Deals

How come everyone's going so slow if it's called rush hour?