Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Blame the ISPs (but especially Dyn) (Score 1) 126

Properly configured DNS secondaries hosted at different ISPs would have completely mitigated the problem for everyone but Dyn. Because Dyn hosts its own secondaries, hitting Dyn downed both primary and secondary servers.

ISPs need a peering pool arrangement for DNS secondaries, where secondaries are distributed over the entire pool.

This is how it was designed to work: multiply connected redundant secondaries.

The worst damage possible in that scenario is the inability to update DNS information hosted at Dyn itself, or to initiate zone transfers in or out of Dyn.

That reduces it from an attack on the DNS infrastructure to an attack on Dyn itself (which is much less important to everyone but Dyn).

Comment Set up correct secondary DNS servers (Score 3, Interesting) 80

Set up correct secondary DNS servers.

If the secondaries had not been hosted at the same company, but instead at various companies around the world, the attack would have had no effect on anything but traffic.

This is, by the way, how multiply connected networks are supposed to work.

This could be easily accomplished at no additional cost by having a peering-pool arrangement between all the host registrars, so that we ended up with a multiply connected redundant network.

Kind of how we designed the thing to work in the 1960's and 1970's, and DNS itself in the 1980's.

But a lot harder for law enforcement to issue DNS-based takedowns on, of course. Since it would route around the damage and keep functioning. As designed.

Comment Re:Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing (Score 1) 81

I appreciate the explanation, but isn't it more that the new system was added in rush (to replace the old ones) as opposed to it being the first time used? It seems like the NASA successes were first time uses of those landing systems also, from what I remember.

Also, I really don't understand how IP applies since these are not products for commercial sale nor used for commercial purposes. I don't see where NASA could even bring a suit.

Comment Not Practical (Score 1) 130

You can't just handwave away the massive cost of proving a charger per parking space, nor even the cost of an outlet per parking space along with the electrical lines buried capable of having every single parking space drawing enough current to charge...

Even if that were practical what exactly do you imagine will happen to someone's personal charging cables or equipment left unattended overnight. Thieves are taking copper pipe out of buildings with the water still on...

Comment 3D first, self-flying much easier (Score 1) 60

Great. Let me know when it's bulletproof in a 2D environment and I'll consider the 3D version.

That's actually backwards. Solving for the 3D case is vastly simpler, because while in the air you have very few obstacles to content with, you basically just have to be sure you can react to other planes, and have programmed in the coordinates of no-fly zones - otherwise travel is just a straight line. There are already drones that can find their way back home if the control signal is lost, and almost drones that can fly around tree branches without hitting them...

For takeoff landing you can simply dictate that a solid volume of sufficient space must be below or above you to land/takeoff.

Comment Re:It was a premises warrant. (Score 1) 367

He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed

Meaning the fingerprint gathering for the use of opening the phone is tantamount to compelled testimony in the general case, while the fingerprint gathering for the use of identification and matching is not.

Keys don't change. Fingerprints don't change. A biometric identifier is therefore not affirmative.

Combinations can change. Pin codes can change. Utilizing either requires active participation in a process. And is therefore affirmative.

Fingerprint usage is therefore tantamount to using a key, and if you are stupid enough to use a biometric identifier as an access method, you've picked a non-affirmative access method.

Comment It can be solved - the solution is Hydrogen (Score 1) 130

I've noticed that also in the past when traveling and staying with friends in Europe.

That's why I still think the future for most electric cars will end up being hydrogen, not battery power - though with advancements like these battery may be a higher percentage, especially if you could go somewhere just one day a week to spend a half hour charging.

Comment Normal is not what you think (Score 1) 130

Long charging times are for most people only a problem on vacation. Normally people commute much shorter distances than the maximum modern electric cars can drive and can charge their cars at night.

I love how you say "normally" when the vast number of people who have cars live in apartments where it may not be "normal" to have a plug anywhere near the car at night.

Is your goal to have electric cars for only the elite? Or for EVERYONE? If electric cars are to break out of a tiny niche for the rich they have to work for people who do not own homes.

Comment That would be the real game changer (Score 1) 130

Non-electric cars are simply more practical for most people not just because of range, but also charging time. Even Tesla Supercharger stations take way too long for most people to tolerate.

But if you have 1000 miles of range, suddenly it's much more practical to live with a very long charging time because you can wait a day or two to find a good charging solution - plus it would mean you could get somewhere faster than with a gas vehicle since you wouldn't have to stop on a long trip to fill up.

We'll see if the tech actually materializes in real life, but I really hope it does.

Comment Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing? (Score 2) 81

First of all, I don't see much mention that they still have a new satellite in orbit around Mars so the mission is at least partly successful.

But with a string of failures to land on Mars from the ESA, and a string of successes from NASA you have to start to wonder - what is it that is lacking in the ESA program that is not able to get landings right? Is it just different approaches to the problems of landing that are not panning out over a few attempts? Is it some kind of engineering process failure that they just are not accounting for some possibilities? I was wondering if anyone had any insight.

I wish the ESA the best of luck and really want to se them succeed, as the more craft studying mars the better (though they are all a handful of beans in comparison to the first human to land and study there).

Slashdot Top Deals

Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting for a dial tone.