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


Forgot your password?
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:Death throes .. (Score 1) 43

The PlayBook fiasco made me sad because it was so good. OS is way better even now than Android on the same size hardware, and the PB hardware was great, if a little unexciting.

Everything you say about the store and Android and support is correct. Which meant that the platform as a whole is useless except for limited situations (we still use ours for reading ebooks and browsing, but that's about it) but the gizmo itself was anything but crap.

Comment Re:However.. (Score 1) 247

Soyuz was apparently considered, but the Columbia orbit was really difficult to get to from the cosmodrome. I don't remember if it just wasn't possible, or if it just would've taken even longer to get ready than the Atlantis. There was an Ariane considered too apparently, just to get some more CO2 scrubbers up there to buy more time, but that would've inovolved developing a completely new packaging and delivery system or something like that. I don't remember the specifics but it wasn't feasible either.

Say what you want about NASA's competence, but you can at the very least assume that if random internet commentators can come up with an idea, then the highly educated rocket scientists at NASA probably could have as well, and if the mission in the report was presented, there's a pretty good chance that it was because that was actually the most likely one to succeed (however unlikely it actually was). Unless you think that random internet commentators are actually smarter than the collective wisdom of everyone NASA has or could have contacted when doing this report after the fact.

Ultimately, I'm not entirely convinced that the "let them have a great mission and then maybe get killed in seconds on re-entry rather than force them to have a crappy terrifying mission and die slowly from CO2 poisoning over the course of several days" wouldn't have been, ultimately, the right choice, even if it was only made by omission rather than officially. I know that if I was an astronaut, I'd choose the former.

Comment Re:PFsense (Score 2) 264

If I remember correctly, I tried Vyatta, and because I don't know IOS, I flamed out trying to configure it.

PFSense was only marginally more difficult than OpenWRT, so it kind of suited my level of expertise.

With it being on a VM, it means that I have one box that is my router, file server, media server, and experimentation box all in one, which is convenient for me.

It does mean that the hypervisor is - in theory - exposed to the net, but since it never communicates externally except through the router software, it has basically no attack surface, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. (he said hopefully) \

Comment PFsense (Score 4, Informative) 264

I have PFSense running on a virtual server, which I recommend to anyone. Perhaps not on the virtual server... it kind of adds a layer of complication that most people probably wouldn't care for, but it works well enough.

Hopefully no huge flaw comes out on that without me noticing. That would be embarrassing.

Comment Re:Cracked! (Score 1) 306

On windows I know it can happen. I remember some kind of 'secure' image thing a long time ago ('97?) that could only be viewed inside a plug in, and if you tried to do a print screen, you just got an empty box. I don't know how of course, because even at the time I didn't care enough.

Perhaps something through Direct3D, since I know you can't do a screen capture of that kind of stuff.

Anyway, probaby still easy to circumvent, but not necessarily by print screen.

Comment Re:Noooooooooo!!!!!!1111!11! (Score 1) 541

If you read my comment, you'll see that I have no problem with people deciding for themselves what they should or shouldn't do.

However, as the old saying goes, your freedoms end where mine begin, and since their freedom to not vaccinate clearly infringes on the rest of the world's desire to not die, society has the right and to a certain extent responsibility to exclude those who endanger it by their choice of inaction.

Do I really think people should be airdropped on an island? No. I was engaging in a certain amount of rhetorical exageration.

I do think that any daycare or school that I send my son to must have a policy of vaccinations for everyone who attends, and I think that hospitals should have a policy of not allowing those who are vaccinated to visit, and if a hopsital needs to admit someone who hasn't done what they should, they should put them in a different wing than those who have until they've been proven not to be carriers.

I am not alone in wanting to restrict behaviour that endangers the society we live in. Try building a breeder reactor in your backyard and see how fast your freedoms get curtailed. Spray Agent Orange to get rid of your weeds, run your waste water pipe out to the street into the storm drain, shout fire in a crowded theatre or play Justin Beiber at concert levels in the middle of the night, and then tell me how far your liberty goes. How about you punch out a cop, shoot a bank teller or shit on the sidewalk? What, you wouldn't be allowed to do any of those? Better break out the blue wode and claymore! Your FREEDOMS have been curtailed!

Get my point yet? For a society to function healthily, reasonable restrictions and patterns of behaviour have to be put on people. If you really don't want to be a part of that, and play by the rules, you should find a place where you don't have to, but be aware that you don't get to receive the benefits of the rules either.

I make you sick? Huh. Must be catching.

Comment Re:Noooooooooo!!!!!!1111!11! (Score 1) 541


"All of the whooping cough-related deaths in California occurred in babies too young to be fully immunized against the illness, which is why parents and caretakers are being urged to get booster shots. Typically, babies are given a series of vaccinations, then receive booster shots between ages 4 and 6 and again after age 10.

Many parents forgo vaccines for their children because of concerns about autism, typically fueled by misinformation on the Internet, said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a University of California-San Diego professor and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Comment Re:Noooooooooo!!!!!!1111!11! (Score 1) 541

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear from the above note, I did get my son vaccinated, knowing all the risks and possibilities involved on both sides. Even if there was a chance that the vaccination did do everything people said it did, I would have been in there holding him while the doctor jabbed him in the legs.

And if he had become autistic, I would have loved him the same as I do now, but I don't think it would have changed my mind and each and every subsequent kid would have recieved the vaccinations as well.

Why? Because that's the price you pay for living in a civilisation where most of these diseases have been eradicated. It's like taxes and obeying traffic laws - it might suck, but unless you pay the price, you don't have the moral right to recieve the protections they afford you.

Comment Re:Noooooooooo!!!!!!1111!11! (Score 3, Insightful) 541

Or worse, how about the pre-vaccination age babies who died because kids around them hadn't been vaccinated. If it was just the people who didn't get the shot by choice who were dying, then I wouldn't mind this whole thing nearly as much. The problem is that once you fuck up herd immunity, you've fucked it up for everyone, including the very young, the very old, and those with compromised immune systems. And, of course, the really horrible thing is that the people who don't get the shot, may actually survive MMR perfectly well, since by the time they or their parents have made that choice they are a bit older and more able to resist the disease, they've just made it more dangerous for everyone around them.

And (and and and...) of course, as other people have mentioned, they're putting a chunk of the population at risk of death, simply to save themselves from the (as it turns out, rather specious) chance of getting a no doubt life-changing, but absolutely non-fatal disease.

In short, and pardon my directness, but speaking as a parent, fuck those who don't get the shots for themselves and their kids right in their entitled, self-centred, arrogant asses. They and their spawn should be given the choice to get them, and then airdropped on a remote island with all the rest of the assholes who think that the chance of their precious little snowflake having a disability is more important than the life of other people's so they can't screw it up for the rest of us. /rant finished.

Comment Re:Indeed. (Score 1) 204

My internet connection is faster than any of the network connections that were prevalent in the '80s.

The requirements for what would need to go over the wires has changed, but whatever... The fact remains that I can access a terminal over the internet now at much higher speeds than I could have done over local connections back then. I could actuall

Comment Re:Why would you refuse a breathalyzer? (Score 1) 1219

Presumably, they aren't using the refusal to breathe into the machine as probable cause, they're using the same criteria that they used to determine that they wanted to test you to begin with to be probable cause. So, they poke their head in the window of your car and smell your breath, and given that smell, and the conversation they have with you (I'm going on how they do RIDE checks here by the way, but I assume it's the same) they decide whether or not to do the breath test, and that's the reasonable suspicion that they use to do the voluntary test, and if you refuse that, get the warrant for the blood test.

It's worth noting, that the process is the same as has been explained to me before, just that the timing is shorter: You don't take the breath test, so they haul you off to jail, get the warrant, take your blood. Same thing now, just without the hauling you off to jail - nothing else has changed.

Of course, and as should be evident, IANAL, I'm not even american, so I don't really know your constitution

Comment Re:Hmmm, don't really like the guys tone (Score 1) 473

Sure, and I don't really see anything wrong with rehabilitating the symbol if people want to do it. Not something I'd want to be spending my time on, but whatever floats your boat.

However, and I think this is the original point, the place for that rehabilitation, the place for the conversation is not within a video game platform. Or at least, by MS's choice, not their video game platform.

Once the conversation's been had, and if it's been resolved, then I'm sure MS would be just fine to allow people to use the symbol - let's all try in a hundred years if things go right. From anything I can tell, nobody's saying (well, nobody at XBox, anyway) that the conversation couldn't take place, just that they don't want the conversation, or the symbol anyway, to take place on their site in that way. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Of course, it's also completely disingenuous to suggest that someone who wants to use the swastika in a war shooter (even if it does take place in after the war) but that's beside the point.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.