Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Grain of salt (Score 2) 36

I don't trust the federal government to be telling the truth here.

I can't find the Slashdot article, but the FAA was caught lying in front of congress about how drones interfere with other aircraft. They were taking every occurrance where a pilot says that they see a UFO, and counting that as a drone. Another example was the case where a commercial plane was damaged by something striking it, and they claimed it was a drone even though they found no evidence of it. They found their boogeyman and want to blame everything on it.

We have a problem that government agencies can make rules without having to prove their case. And they aren't elected officials so they don't answer directly to the people.

It could be that various government organizations see drones as a threat to government opaqueness. The FAA is going to do everything they can to limit drone use. This is where the surveillance society swings the other way - people can keep better track of the government. Whenever we see these claims about drones, take them with a grain of salt. Start asking what evidence they have that there was a drone present. Most drones are so cheap and light, that a 2mph breeze will make them uncontrollable. It strains believability that firefighting helicoptors are threatened by bits of plastic lighter than many birds. Are there really drones operating over forest fires? Until I see real evidence, a random pilot claiming "I couldn't do X because of a drone" isn't going to convince me to tighten regulations.

How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 377

Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 728

He pointed out her untruthfulness about a long list of things, one at a time. She said she only ever used a single mobile device. The FBI said that was untrue. Why? Because she used several of them. It's not a matter of English usage or context.

Are you really suggesting that she, a person known to be glued to her device, wasn't clear on the fact she used several, instead of one? She said she never handled any classified information on that account. She, who as the nation's top diplomat and read in on all sorts of extremely sensitive material and programs involving billions of dollars and life-or-death activities, was unable to recall the dozens of email threads - including top-secret and ABOVE top-secret material - in which she participated? Or understand that things like imagery from the NRO of sites in North Korea are born classified? She claimed no, and the FBI said her characterization of all of that was untrue. Are you saying that she really meant it when she said that knew she'd turned over every single work-related email because her lawyers had read each and every one of them ... which the FBI reported was untrue (to say nothing of the thousands more they turned up, which she had deleted)? I know I don't need to run down the list of 100%-exactly-wrong things she said, even under oath in front of congress, as she tried to wish this away, because you already know about them. They're not "context" problems, or her not double-checking things. She repeated these untrue things dozens of times for a year and a half.

Comment Gains resolution, loses brightness (Score 1) 68

First all the viewers must sit quite still and not move outside a narrow band in their seats. Even after that each seat gets a slice projected to it. Though the projected image fills your field of vision, it is a narrow slice and the brightness perceived will be less. Anyway the effect will be more like the 3D image on printed magazine covers like Nat Geo. With color bleeding fringing and 3D in some small central area and quite blurry in the periphery.

Comment Re:Free time (Score 1) 245

was old enough to know that their degree in Religious Studies and Art History was not going to pay the bills

To a lot of employers a degree was proof that you would be able to get up in the morning, turn up for work and be able to figure out what to do with simple paperwork. The actual content didn't matter a lot for non-technical jobs until there were so many unemployed around that recent graduates had a lot of competition.
Some people who did those degrees you are contemptuous of some years ago see those of us who completed degrees based on science and technology as "the little people" who were "not taught people skills" and are working as management. So while it may seem a stupid idea to do such courses now it was not in the past, may not be in the future and possibly isn't really that much of a stupid idea now. What was stupid in hindsight was what I did - an engineering degree with a tight focus on manufacturing inspired by an approaching obvious manufacturing boom. It was stupid because the boom happened in China while engineers were laid off elsewhere.

Comment Re:Hidden Service Directories (Score 2) 32

From Wikipedia:
"The core principle of Tor, "onion routing", was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul Syverson and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, with the purpose of protecting U.S. intelligence communications online.
Onion routing was further developed by DARPA in 1997.[17][18][19]

The alpha version of Tor, developed by Syverson and computer scientists Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson[20] and then called The Onion Routing project, or TOR project, launched on 20 September 2002.[1][21] On 13 August 2004, Syverson, Dingledine and Mathewson presented "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router" at the 13th USENIX Security Symposium.[22] In 2004, the Naval Research Laboratory released the code for Tor under a free license, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) began funding Dingledine and Mathewson to continue its development.[20]

In December 2006, Dingledine, Mathewson and five others founded The Tor Project, a Massachusetts-based 501(c)(3) research-education nonprofit organization responsible for maintaining Tor.[23] The EFF acted as The Tor Project's fiscal sponsor in its early years, and early financial supporters of The Tor Project included the U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau, Internews, Human Rights Watch, the University of Cambridge, Google, and Netherlands-based Stichting NLnet.[24][25][26][27][28]

From this period onwards, the majority of funding sources came from the U.S. government.[20]"

The link is if you need more than that...
but after the last sentence, do you, really?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming