Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I find your lack of faith disturbing... (Score 1) 389

That is basically the God fallacy that many engineers fall into. You think because you wrote it, that it has no bugs, and that it's fully understood?

I find it can be highly instructive to run a debugger even on working code, that is not cludge code.

I generally find it doing all kinds of crazy, inefficient things that I probably could not have predicted, even if I'm the one that actually designed and coded it!

Humans are very, very bad at writing robust systems; we never understand our software fully.

Comment Re:It's sooo easy! (Score 1) 126

Didn't matter a lot. Maybe it was a honeypot, maybe it checked a whole bunch of sites in a man in the middle attack- but I DIDN'T type in my username, so they would have had to check all the lists of millions of entries and do it very quickly, so I don't think so. And it listed out which breach it was, and it matched up. And I think it used a rainbow table for checking it, so they (allegedly) weren't sending my password in the clear.

It makes little difference, I didn't give a shit about any of the accounts, and I changed them all using LastPass to random 16 mixed character passwords.

Comment Re:3 articles referencing the same statement, misu (Score 1) 126

> You have to always assume your pc has been hacked.

LOL. You can't polish a turd. If your PC is hacked they can grab your password as you type it in anyway, so using an online password storage makes no material difference to security as opposed to using your brain, but the online security is much more convenient, and the online stored passwords are much longer and more random, whereas you've admitted that your passwords are total shit.

Comment Re:It's sooo easy! (Score 1) 126

You know what? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I first typed in random 'passwords' that weren't my LOW security password, and it said that those hadn't been hacked. And I didn't type in any of my high security passwords, and those are different on each site anyway, so there wouldn't be any point.

"Use a few passwords and variations of those. add caps and exchange letters for numbers aka "l33t"

Hahaha. Don't do that, moron.

Comment Re:It's sooo easy! (Score 1) 126

I too have a password I've used over ten years.

I only use this for low security accounts that don't have any financial implications associated to them. But yes, that password got hacked.

I know this because I typed it into a 'has your password been hacked' site and it said yep, and told me what had happened. These sites exist because lists of passwords that have been hacked exist.

IRC I think it got cracked on yahoo or something; it wasn't like anything I'd done wrong.

Comment Re:Yeah (Score 2) 398

Given that the economy usually does better under Democrats, and given that the economy is still recovering from the MASSIVE crash that happened under the last bout of Republicanism. I think the idea that it's all just the businessmen are suddenly happy that they're being lead by a Republican; I'd say that that's a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I mean that's the thing about recovery, things trend upwards, and this story said things trended upwards. Personally I see zero chance that this is anything that could be ascribed to Trump.

Comment Re:Article is extremely vague (Score 1) 218

To be fair, these are research projects. The things they describe usually work, but may not have all the properties you would need to make a commercially successful battery. For example, the cell voltage; it should be as high as possible, some cell types are below 1 volt, which is really too low. Or it may not have very good current capacity, so you'd need excessively large membranes. Or loads of other things.

This is primary research, they're announcing that they've managed to get excellent stability, via some mechanism; even if this particular cell doesn't tick all the boxes, the same trick might be applied to other cells to give a really good battery.

And while I haven't read this paper, for a paper to be published it nearly always has to reveal what they did in sufficient detail that it could be reproduced.

Comment Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 1) 502

They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.

Comment Re:Total Capacity (Score 4, Informative) 192

No, actually pretty similar on average; the solar may even edge it. The nuclear reactor obviously has higher power at night, but much lower power during the day than the solar. The average capacity factor of solar is about 10-20% depending on location, so 9GW of solar will produce somewhere between 0.9GW and 1.8GW on average, whereas this is a 1.2GW reactor; and the solar was installed much, much more quickly, and probably cost roughly the same or even less than the nuclear.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...