Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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 Why knowing about Super Earths are pointless... (Score 1) 38

The universe is an electromagnetic universe. The physics in space and planetary bodies work very similar to that of magnets in zero gravity. This is why the Earth itself has a magnetic field. It's why the Earth has a northern and southern pole which are magnetically negative and positive. It's why all the planets in this universe align precisely at the equator of the sun, despite how far apart they are. The universe is electromagnetic.

Gravity is an electromagnetic force. The larger the object, the stronger its gravitational force. This is how magnets work. The larger the magnet, the stronger its magnetic force. So, can a human safely land or even *stand* on a supposed "Super Earth" without serious complications? The answer is NO, because, remember, the larger the object, the stronger its gravitational (magnetic) force. Essentially, gravity would increase the larger the planet is, and we'd be crushed by that same force. Our equipment would be crushed, landing would be several times more dangerous since we use primitive fossil fuel propulsion systems for flight, and parachutes - using pockets of air - to resist the force of gravity. It's very primitive. We wouldn't survive on such a planet, let alone, land safely on it!

Comment And that's the interesting thing about it... (Score 1) 1

This is something that most people were already aware of. Unfortunately, Microsoft put themselves in a tough predicament. Windows will probably never be secure. I say this because Microsoft has to make sure their OS is backward compatible to applications that were used to running under an insecure OS model. Each OS they build will have to carry that huge duffel bag of insecurities such as: applications demanding for root access, even when it doesn't need it. Applications that operate too closely to the kernel. Applications that are poorly coded and are severely susceptible to exploits like buffer overruns; which in turn, run as root.

Microsoft's solution is to run all of these applications inside of a sandbox. However, the sandbox runs too closely to the kernel. So, when an exploit is found to the sandbox, the whole system is in jeopardy (are we seeing a pattern here?).

Of course you have a bigger issue on your hands when Microsoft isn't able to keep up with the number of exploits for their system and only release updates on Tuesdays and not when the patches are available. Then you have clueless users who don't even understand what an update is let alone what patches are. All they know is that their application either works or doesn't work.

On top of all I've said, Microsoft likes to tout as if they're the most secure and cheapest OS solution around when, in reality, they're the most expensive and insecure OS solution available. They like to make unfair benchmarks and comparisons with their products versus other products to try to distort the facts. Many people fall for this. Meanwhile, Microsoft rakes in the dough... off of people's ignorance of course. Therefore, Microsoft finds no need to actually make their OS as secure as the competition (lets not even mention Apple).

So, with all of these issues, I really don't see Windows getting any more secure than FreeBSD or Linux.

Comment Re:Confession Time (Score 1) 387

You're far too lenient. When it comes to repairing a computer with a hard drive with bad sectors, I don't even give the thought the time of day. BAM! Time for a new hard drive! Bad sectors turn into lost data in the long run. It could spell sudden BSODs or even very slow performance. Why reinstall the OS if a bad sectors on a HDD could cause even more problems? You're just asking for the computer owner to call you right back complaining the same things they sent their computers in for is happening again. Get a new HDD (I usually have the customer pay for the necessary parts here), then install the OS. I have a habit of informing the customer about Linux. Linux is very easy to use now-a-days. I let them know that Linux is very safe to use and works with all of their favorite websites and many of their favorite applications. Some applications are even possible through a 3rd party application called Wine. I then inform them that Linux is virtually virus and spyware-free. I let them know that I can then set up their PC to have both Windows and Linux and they can try it for themselves. Most people I've introduced to Linux this way have stuck to Linux and never gone back.

Comment Re:Well, they screwed up with 11 (Score 2) 441

I think the issue is deeper than that. From what I understood, Shuttleworth has been butting heads with the Gnome developers for quite some time. They're constantly removing functionality from Gnome every release and they are very reluctant in having Gnome comply with standards agreed upon at The functions in Unity were supposed to be added to Gnome as an added bonus, but the Gnome developers rejected the idea. App Indicators were also rejected. One of the developers' excuses for not including libappindicator in their builds was that it didn't integrate with gnome-shell. Huh? It doesn't integrate with gnome-shell because it was never added in the first place! The drama doesn't stop there. There's a ton of things the guys at Gnome just refused to do that would help unify Linux, but they simply refused to do it. Canonical just had enough of it and decided to drop Gnome and focus on Unity. You really can't blame them. Canonical has tried for many years to come to some sort of agreement with the Gnome developers, but to be perfectly honest with you.... They're assholes. Read all about it here:

Comment Re:Am I reading this correctly? (Score 1) 417

You mean, once the contest enters the phase where you can run a program remotely, people attack the Mac first, because they want to win the Mac, and Windows and Linux are successfully attacked minutes later.

Umm... No. Linux has yet to be successfully exploited. Last I checked, it's still considered to be the reigning champ.

Comment Re:So why would anyone want to do this? (Score 1) 229

What the Entroplus is saying is that super computer operators have more room to customize the OS to get the max benefits from it. This will allow the super computer to run more efficiently. Linux also allows for scalability that simply isn't present in Windows; or at least, as simple and readily available. On another note: When I speak about scalability, I also refer to different architectures. A good example would be Sparc.

Comment Re:Mouse? (Score 1) 303

Are you kidding? The points weren't "covered" at all. The guy basically said, "Look. Shut up, take it up the butt and walk it off like a man." He said this to pretty much every criticism he decided to debate. Then he'd turn right around and do the very same thing he's criticizing people for. For example: He ranted at how people can't rate beta hardware since it's in the development stages. Yet, in the next paragraph, he goes and sings praises about how it's the next best thing since sliced bread. The article seemed more like an advertisement than a preview. He completely "forgets" to mention that the Milo demo was actually 'guided' by programmers behind a curtain. He also neglects to realize that without a release date, it's very possible we may not see Project Natal at all this generation. Concerning the "in a dark room" area. I was referring to detecting multiple people in a dark room.

Comment Re:Mouse? (Score 1) 303

But doesn't Project Natal need ambient lighting conditions in order to function properly? In a pitch dark room, I would imagine the device would be useless (even with infrared). Last I checked, infrared can't detect color. I also don't think it can tell the difference between two people in a dark room without being able to detect color.

Comment Re:Mouse? (Score 5, Interesting) 303

This technology seems kinda fake to me. If you refer back to E3 where they first showcased the device, there were several odd and unexplained things going on. 1) The twitchy avatar character shown (especially when the guy tried to show the bottom of his shoe and couldn't.) seemed to show that the technology wasn't really complete. 2) The other presenters wore dark clothing that seemed to contrast better with their surroundings. Yet, the people in the promotional video wore more colorful clothing. 3) The device only seemed to be able to detect only wide movement and not subtle movement like the promotional video suggested. 4) Most core gamers would like to take advantage of this technology. However, most gamers like to play in dark rooms. It seems to me that it'll be more difficult for this camera to adjust to harsh lighting conditions (dark rooms, lens flare, moving background lights, etc.). 5) It didn't feel as though the camera could decipher between more than one person, because no one (presenters or journalist in the closed room) tried to test it with that in mind. Sure it could detect more than one person; but could it tell the difference between the two? 6) Where are the games that utilize this technology? It seemed that all that was available were tech demos. I'd very much like to see this technology put to use in actual real time environments instead of controlled environments. It gives me the sense that this project is a little premature and may not see the light of day for a long time.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos