Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:We already have mass surveilance (Score 1) 110

I respectfully disagree.

I want body cameras to fix the right-now-today-real-world-conjoined-twin problems of police brutality and illegitimate complaints against police. I'm willing to address the small risk of mass surveillance separately from this.

I understand fully:"Those who sacrifice freedom for security receive neither." I do not see widespread decentralized use of bodycams as a threat to the former. That can be controlled trivially with judicial oversight.

That leaves a question of extrajudicial acquisition of the footage. That might be a problem if we were considering a nationwide program where all of the recordings were dumping into the same datacenter, but we aren't. The implementations we see today have recordings stored separately by each department, most of them in offline storage. That's nearly ten thousand discrete systems that would have to be penetrated and harvested by the NSA. The risk of this appears quite low. .. I seem to have misplaced my tin-foil hat.

Comment This fits the long term goal (Score 5, Interesting) 288

Consider this in light of Mr. Musk's long term goal: Permanent human colonization of Mars.

The high cosmic radiation on Mars means that Habitats are very likely to be underground. Today, no-one makes a tunnel boring machine that will fit on a rocket: Boring Inc.

The lack of fossil fuels means you need a big power source: SolarCity and the battery Gigafactory

Last but not least, you need a way to get there: SpaceX

He's building the infrastructure to make his goal a reality.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 4, Informative) 94

This is different from a submarine in some important ways. On a Submarine, you have many dozens of people to interact with. You are physically confined, but you have some social variety. Your mission is dangerous, but you have the comfort of knowing that it's been done before. Tours are, IIRC, 6 months long.

A Mars expedition is different. You're going to train with these people continuously for at least 5 years. During that time you'll constantly be on your best going-to-church-with-grandma behavior and never speak up about grievances because your actions are being monitored ad nauseum by a legion of shrinks. Then you finally get the mission go and you spend (optimistically) 3 months in a space the size of a minivan. Remember your last trip in a minivan? Imagine being trapped in it for 3 months with 5 other people while NASA is scheduling your day down to 15 minute increments.

If a thousand things you can't control happen to go right then you land on Mars. EVA suits on, and you finally escape that (obscenity laden) capsule. You see a horizon for the first time in what feels like forever. Then you work your ass off for a month and have to climb back in that (expletive) minivan for a risk-laden trip back home that takes even longer than the trip to get there. ... and during the entire trip you don't have a single shower.

It's not "exactly" like life on a submarine, is it?

Comment Re:Ah yes (Score 1) 39

Security bulletins aren't a great way to track how secure or insecure software is. The best way to do that is with the CVE system. Microsoft (and most other vendors) log publicly and privately reported vulnerabilities as CVEs and link to the CVE when describing vulnerabilities.

My hope is that this change will eliminate some of the pain of running down security bulletin data. Right now if someone asks you if you are patched against MS16-040 you have to go look that up, look up each individual KB inside that, see which ones have been superseded by other updates and check that against your CMDB. Making that simpler would be a win-win.

Full disclosure, I work for Microsoft as a dedicated PFE. The above is my opinion and hope, not paid shilling.

Comment Re:I am not going to complain (Score 1) 181

>> Honestly, if they did employ a dozen or so people to do really good translations between articles in major languages, I'd be all for that. But they're not.

They are working with to do this. The translations, individually, aren't great but duolingo spins an army of drones across them until you have good content.

>> It's already been established that hosting only costs them about $2M/year. A few administrators are not adding much to that.

One does not run the 6th busiest site on the internet with "a few administrators." There are developers, QA, deployment engineers, support engineers, huge network infrastructure, server engineers, corporate it to support all of that, and accounting, HR, and legal to support that. An enterprise of this size is non-trivial.

Looking at it another way, Wikipedia is #7 on the list of busiest sites on the internet. Twitter is #8. Do you think twitter runs on 95m/year?

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 2) 181

The WMF stack is one tiny piece of the equation.

Think about the servers, storage, network, and physical plant infrastructure required to manage a site of this size. The people managing them need workstations and email; that requires corporate IT. Someone has to buy that stuff, requiring purchasing staff. Those people want to get paid, so accounting and human resources teams. There are also legal, public relations, and fundraising teams too.

If Wikipedia was a for-profit company they'd have a valuation in the billions. If they manage to do it for 95 million it's a bargain.

Slashdot Top Deals

Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. -- E. Dijkstra