Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:High Kardashev means the opposite (Score 1) 257

This has been played out in the media in a way that a "high" Kardashev (no relation to the Kardashians I believe) is exciting, in that it points to a very advanced civilization. In reality it is the opposite, a signal requiring a civilization to have fully harnessed a star means that it is less likely to be an actual ET signal.

That's if the signal were sent isotropically (all directions simultaneously). If the signal were targeted at our planet, it only requires the advancement scale we're at. And assuming they're better than we are at detecting planets on distant stars, they could be sweeping through the neighborhood, targeting interesting solar systems. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that a civilization that advanced would waste their energy sending radio signals out into the void rather than targeting their efforts.

Full disclosure: I'm skeptical of extraterrestrial life in general, but find it odd how the civilization advancement was highlighted.

Comment Re:"of course i'm protected, i just cant say how" (Score 1) 206

"There are some additional things I do," Spafford added, telling the reporter that "I'm not going to give details of all of them, because that doesn't help me." Bruce Schneier had a similar answer. When the reporter asked how he protected his data, Schneier wouldn't tell them, adding "I'm kind of a target..."

So... security by obscurity is apparently highly regarded by the pros. Good to know.

That's not so-called "security through obscurity." Typically, that term refers to taking the same (ineffective) measures as everyone else so that you don't stick out. On the contrary, he's saying that he does take special measures but chooses not to disclose them.

Comment Re:I'm an amateur photographer but... (Score 4, Informative) 159

Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

The 5D series is notable because the Mk II revolutionized video production. Everyone from teenagers to AAA Hollywood production units were using them. They weren't a replacement for cameras costing tens of thousands more, but they were close enough for most shots.

Comment Re:Travelling at 20% of the speed of light (Score 2) 218

You'd be much better off having a slow, steady acceleration all the way there and a slow, steady acceleration all the way back.

There is no "back" and there is no slowing down or orbiting. It's a flyby approach and the only thing that returns are communications.

Comment Re:Heu.. ???? (Score 1) 400

No, I'm asking how is cutting off a path of a file (as an example of the kind of shortened output Powershell commands can produce) informative? And yes, I know it's fairly easy to overcome, but it just strikes me that this is the kind of GUI-centric thinking (this kind of output is straight out of a Listview object) that infects Powershell.

If it is fairly easy to overcome, write a quick function to overcome it. Don't people write shell functions for this very same reason in Unixland?

Comment Re:Heu.. ???? (Score 5, Informative) 400

And objects, big fucking deal. I've been using Bourne variants for a quarter of a century and never thought "Boy, I wish I had classes".

You never wished for an object-oriented shell because you are already proficient in Unix shells, and it is clear you have only ever tried to make PS fit the Unix paradigm.

What I particularly dislike is how it automatically filters output, and you have to use arguments or other applets to give you fuller output.

Only the view in the console window is filtered by default. If you send the pipeline to a csv or xml, you'll get everything. It filters the console view because there is far more and more complex data being send along. It is not Unix, the pipeline is not compose of flat lines of text.

Comment Re:At her disposal (Score 1) 86

Some dipshit is going to come here and tell you that "their" is only used in the plural. (They're going to be wrong.)

Of course it is used. It is a handy shortcut in conversation but reeks of weakness in anything more formal than a text message. Either pick the gender of your antecedent or make your antecedent plural.

Some dipshits are going to come here and tell you that "their" is only used in the plural. (They're going to be wrong.)


Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay