Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Why yes (Score 1) 264

You could have phones with great security that even the 15 year old girls would be fine with. The priorities toward non-securirty come from the the data harvesting interests of the phone manufacturers, carriers, advertising companies, and (comparatively distantly) snooping governments.

Seriously... the most common phone OS is developed by an advertising company and it's a surprise that security and privacy are low priorities?

Comment Re:Why not a fake account? (Score 1) 264

Zero-filling the SD card will take forever and, by the time the device is grabbed, most of the data on the card will be intact with the partial zero-fill being obvious evidence of you trying to destroy the contents of the card. Much better to keep the whole SD card encrypted and just destroy the key there, too.

Comment Re:Rockets are too expensive (Score 5, Interesting) 311

And a space elevator, of course, would only cost about a Trillion, and there's this little problem of it hitting something (we'd have to make Earth Orbit absolutely pristine and keep it that way) and there's a problem with the kinetic energy if it falls down. Sort of like having many atom bombs go off.

Maybe someday. But right now making rockets as cheap as they can be is a better idea. It's only $200K to fuel up a Falcon 9. We don't get the whole thing back in working order yet, but that would be a lot easier than making a space elevator.

Comment No Dragon 2 Soft Landing Yet (Score 5, Informative) 311

Dragon 2 isn't built yet. The escape test was a boilerplate capsule more like a Dragon 1 than 2. Dragon 2 has not demonstrated a soft landing, because it's not built yet. That was the Falcon 9 first stage.

Also, you can't get Dragon 2 down to the Moon and back up on it's own. Not enough delta-V. You would need to have Dragon ride on top of something that can hold enough fuel. Like a larger version of the Apollo Service Module.

The Command/Service module was originally intended to land on the moon and return without the LEM, before NASA bought the LEM concept, and was overpowered for the mission it got. Dragon is larger and heavier, but a lunar landing one would probably look a lot like an Apollo Command and Service module, and legs.

And yeah, Orion: I'm Not on Board. Big expensive obsolete rocket with no mission that makes sense.

But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.

I try not to watch all of the Mars Colonial Transport speculation. Falcon 9 and Dragon are great, and they're here, and we could do so much with them.

Comment Re:You don't own common sense (Score 1) 1082

the side that goes along with the overwhelming amount of research (not to mention common sense) that suggests more guns = more gun accidents (and of course, more gun violence.)

Then I'm sure you can cite some of this research? The actual fact is that in recent decades, firearms accidents and murders by firearm have both decreased while the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine; like abortions, if you don't like one, don't have one. But if you're going to talk about an "overwhelming amount of research" about crime, you'd better be able to cite some criminology papers.

Comment Re:I think the difference is (Score 2) 1082

your odds of surviving a knife attack are orders of magnitude better than surviving a shooting.

Not if the attacker has decided to kill you, no. Knife attacks are sometimes done specifically to wound or mutilate rather than kill.

The fact that despite the easy availability of black-market firearms 30% of US murders are committed without a firearm ought to clue you in that it's not "orders of magnitude" easier to survive an attack by other means.

The ancient world killed people with blades quite effectively. The armies of Alexander didn't have guns. Nor did the Romans, the folks who gave us the word "decimate".

But the phrase "Guns don't kill people" is verifiable bullshit.

No, assigning intent to inanimate objects is verifiable bullshit. Hammers don't build buildings. Scalpels don't perform surgeries. Guitars don't play music. Gasoline cans and matches don't burn down buildings. Shoes don't kick people. In all of those situations we understand that it is a person, not an object, which is responsible. But many people have an irrational emotional response to firearms due to their status as a cultural shibboleth, and so lose track of this principle.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1082

A gun is a weapon, and has a single purpose. It kills. It kills well.

A gun is a tool, which fires small pellets at a high velocity. Pellets can be fired at a variety of targets for a variety of reasons. Among those reasons are both self-defense and aggressive violence against other human beings. They are neither the easiest not most efficient way to murder human beings, efficient mass murderers use fire while poison is easier for killing one at a time. Your local Home Depot is more dangerous than your local gun store. Firearms are, however, the best means of self- and community-defense yet developed. As the cliche says, God made man, but Samuel Colt made man equal.

The U.S.'s murder rate is linked much more to its prevalence of economic injustice and history of racism than to the legal status of firearms. (There is no correlation between a state's murder rate and it's gun laws, but there is one between it GINI score and its murder rate.) Criminologists are pretty clear that gun control laws have little effect on violent crime, and may increase it by decreasing the ability to citizens to defend themselves.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1082

The interesting thing that I find in the gun control debate is that Progressives show great concern and compassion for gun victims and demand we "do something" because of all the deaths from guns.....

From the site http://www.gunviolencearchive....

Total number of gun deaths in 2014: 12,556

That is a horrifying number and is alarming. However, those same Progressives literally shrug off this statistic:

from the site

Total number of abortions in the US in 2014: 926,200

Thats nearly TWO orders of magnitude more deaths.

I know I know, "clump of cells" and all. But Progressive are incredibly blasé about life in one sense and incredibly dramatic about it in another.

Another statistic:

From the site:

Car crash deaths: 35,092

So I'll finish with this. I get that strengthening abortion restrictions is something that Progressives won't do because well "those aren't people". And the Right won't move on gun restrictions because of the right to bear arms.

But you know what would be the best thing and save a lot of lives would be? How about we keep government from restricting our access to self driving cars because they can't figure out who will be liable. Because the longer we wait to get access to self driving capabilities the more people will be impacted by that last number. And thats one we can actually affect, although ironically by having the government not overly regulate.

Comment Re:pointless (Score 2) 176

The theatrical release, or the Renegade Edition?

If the latter, let me know when and where. I'll bring the laserdisc player and my matted widescreen version meant to show it widescreen on a 4:3 TV. We'll show it via composite video on a native-widescreen and let him or her choose the aspect ratio on the display, but none of them will look right. Zoom will be blocky, stretch will be skewed wide, and 4:3 will be tiny and show overscan and additional black bars on the sides in addition to the top and bottom..

Comment Re:pointless (Score 2) 176

Friends of mine had a very, very early projector TV that had a large box about the size of a dishwasher housing a three-element projector that sat on the floor, with steel square-tubes that led to the wall, where an upright set of steel square-tubes had a curved parabolic screen mounted to them, that at the dead-center was exactly ninety degrees perpendicular to the projector. Even back then, the curve screen was not desirable, it was necessary in order to get the image to look right on a screen the better part of a hundred inches across the diagonal. The three projector elements were not perfectly in-parallax to each other when shining on a flat surface, but the curve of the screen allowed the image to be produced without significant parallax error on the colors.

I admit I was hooked on projectors from that point, but by the time I was able to get a projector for TV, office projectors that didn't need curved screens were readily available. I still have my first one actually, only 800x600 and a dim 300 lumens, but it has optical parallax correction and gets its image through a single LCD, so there are not problems with colors being out of alignment, and with the movable mirror for parallax and a manual zoom lens there's no problem with getting the image right within a certain bounds.

I just don't see any benefit in curved screens now, the content isn't filmed with them in mind, the content generally isn't even theatrically conceived to need a huge screen let alone a curved one, and the screens aren't so big relative to the rooms to where the curve offers a greater screen size than the room naturally could accommodate. So I agree, gimmick.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.