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


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

Comment Re:So They think they have a license for that band (Score 1) 136

They were doing no such thing. They were flat out forbidding the use of the devices.

That's what "licensing a spectrum" is! Only approved devices are allowed to use this (part of the) spectrum. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Want to use this part of the spectrum? Pay a $200 license fee.

Comment Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score 1) 280

Instead of criticizing others for your ignorance it would behoove you to spend some researching the topic instead of spouting dogma.

You're now perfectly channeling the crackpot who just knows Einstein was wrong. But for a better crackpot score, you should call me a hidebound reactionary and accuse Nyquist and Shannon of being part of an establishment conspiracy to silence the truth.

Comment Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score 2) 280

introduce uncorrelated high-order harmonics that fall in the audible range

Arguing against math is rather pointless, you know.

and can add a harshness to the sound that makes people tire of listening more quickly.

It's rather the other way around. Most recordings, including some great early jazz recordings, are "unlistenable" if reproduced accurately, because the engineering simply didn't care abotu top-octave noise. In the early days, there wasn't any equipment to reproduce it with any fidelity, and recordings were mastered to sound great on the equipment of the day. More modern pop stuff people just don't care when mastering, as they know their audience will be listening to low-bitrate MP3s anyway, so again the songs are mastered to sound OK for that audience. PLay that on real, modern equipment and it's jarring.

So there's a crowd that loves tube amps, records, and other gear that's lossy (in a nice-sounding way) in that top octave.
But it's the very lack of accuracy that makes stuff sound better.

Also, of course, there's utter scams like HD-DVD, where they put both the normal and HD track on the disc, except they add noise to the "normal" track (really).

Comment Re:Microsoft Update Catalog is my new hero (Score 1) 221

What I'm saying is: this is a valuable attack surface for someone building a botnet. If most people use the GUI, then it won't matter that the scripts are clean if the GUI is dirty (obviously, just because a window that looks like a command prompt running scripts is displayed, that means nothing if it's all presented by the GUI).

There have been attempts to hijack Linux distros before, and hijacking Windows update is a key prize.

Comment Re:Not a bad guess (Score 1) 166

Fungi it the great unknown. It could be as much as 25%. It's hard to find a good overall breakdown, even of just plankton.

What's scary is that among mammals, and land-based verterbrates overall, humans and their domestic animals are the majority of the biomass.

Yes, but my whole point is that's like 0.01% of biomass. Don't confuse the familiar with the important.

Add our machines, which an order of magnitude more active than we are.

Crops are similar, though they go the other way with oxygen. But even at 10x, it's still a rounding error.

Comment Re:Microsoft Update Catalog is my new hero (Score 1) 221

The attacker assured me "the GUI is really just a front end for some scripts". The attacker assured me the screen I see is "a standard command prompt where you can simply look at the screen and see its just calling the MSFT update servers".

This is the risk here. Has it been audited by security professionals? Do they have a process in place to discover that their code repo was hacked? The same applies to Linux distros, of course, where there have been issues (though few have been discovered).

To be fair, they're probably as secure as the MS bits they're built on, but still it's overall a sorry state of affairs.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 92

I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

You seem to be missing the entire point here. It's not about what you think. It's about what the guys at that bar you walk into wearing a camera think. And they're not reading Slashdot.

But they do act predictably. If you go out in a storm with no rain gear, you're going to get soaked. Don't do that. If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well. Don't do that.

How you feel about that is about as important as how you feel about the weather.

Comment Re:Workaround (Score 1) 221

Of course, you lose the security updates if you do that too. Whether that's massively important to you depends on how often you run executables downloaded from the Internet, and what TCP/IP services you run on your computer.

Your security beliefs are about 10 years out of date, unless you consider JS to be an "executable downloaded from the Internet". Almost all malware targeted at home computers is "no click required": mostly malicious JS, but occasionally PDF, or even jpg (remember what that was a joke?), served via ad networks.

So "whether that's massively important to you" depends on whether the machine is used to visit any web sites that serve ads, unless you completely disable JS.

no security updates might be the better of two evils, especially if you don't use IE or Edge

Is MS combining OS and browser updates (and Office?) here? Or is it only the OS updates in the cumulative patch? (Pretty sure the browser and Office patches are regularly rolled into cumulative updates already, but independent ones).

Slashdot Top Deals

Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may revitalize the corner saloon.