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 By any other name (Score 1) 311

If there's a difference between "Star in a jar" and "Cold Fusion", then I cannot for the life of me tell what it would be. The summary very strangely doesn't clarify at all, instead simply to contrast SIAJ to Fission. If they're hoping we won't notice that this sounds exactly like cold fusion, they're going to be disappointed. The whole approach makes me think this is marketing-heavy rather than science-heavy, which bodes very poorly for their actual progress.

Comment Building it would be easy (Score 1) 588

I'm very opposed to such a registry, but it seems silly to ask companies whether they'd "build it" when a small team of two or three people could easily slap postgress and a web interface together. Whatever fraction of the US population are Muslims can't be much... 20 million? Twice that? Doesn't matter, it's easily in the capacity of a free database and some elementary web programming, esp for a site that's not offering lots of complicated choice paths and won't be visited repeatedly by any given person. Seems to me like approaching Boeing and asking them if they'd be willing to build a go-cart... even if every company says No, it doesn't make building it prohibitive in the slightest.

Comment Re:Encrypt! (Score 1) 394

Let's encrypt (LE) runs some kind of agent that does some voodoo to automatically renew certs on a quarterly basis.... If certs want to be free why not just let them be free without requiring these weird agents and piecemeal expiry periods? What's the point in that?

Stray thought: if they renew every 3 months as you describe, I wonder if that's intended to be a substitute for the cert-revocation abilities that come with CAs?

Comment Re:Encrypt! (Score 1) 394

Just to be clear: I was responding to a comment about HTTPS-Everywhere, which -- although stewarded by EFF the way Lets Encrypt is -- is a totally different thing. The first is a browser plugin that attemps HTTPS by default, the second is a cert-issuing program.

I don't have a position on LE, and indeed your post suggests you may have researched it more than I as I'm not acquainted with the description of its inner workings that you give. I'm not saying that I therefor condone thinking LE is confusing or wrong-headed, just that I don't have a position on it at the moment.

Comment Re:Bigger worries then Unsolicited Junk Texts (Score 1) 555

Trump will soon have the power and authority to launch a Preemptive Nuclear Strike and you are worried about the misuse of the WEA's Text Messages?!

Trump will soon have the power to incarcerate you at a whim, and you are worried that he might try to fuck your wife?!?

Comment Re:Encrypt! (Score 1) 394

And with all this HTTPS everywhere malarkey

I call bullshit on you. The EFF's HTTPS-Everywhere is not "malarkey".

I don't know if you're trying to imply that HTTPS-Everywhere forces people to use HTTPS (it doesn't) and that therefor more people are self-signing certs which is would somehow be bad (it isn't)... I can only guess, because your post reads like buzzword bingo, and seems quite intent on undermining confidence in encrypting.

bull SHIT, brother.

Comment missing quote (Score 4, Informative) 45

In a second, more technical, blogpost published that same day, Facebook's Martin Luis Gomez and Andrew Cox acknowledged the failure in passing. "Our first flight lasted three times longer than the minimum mission length, so we were able to gather data on how the structure and autopilot responded under a range of real-world conditions to help verify these predictions," they wrote.

I read that three times trying to figure out whether the "in passing" mention of failure was so subtle that I was missing it. Nope, the editors simply left out the actually relevant quote:

“We are still analysing the results of the extended test, including a structural failure we experienced just before landing. We hope to share more details on this and other structural tests in the future,” Cox and Gomez added.

Comment Obama strawman (Score 4, Insightful) 534

President Obama said:

If everybody took the approach that [they make their] own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.

The "if I let everyone do xyz then it wouldn't work, and I'm therefor never allowing ANY xyz" argument is a classic strawman.

If everybody in the world became mayor of a town then we'd starve to death because nobody would be producing food... YET we selectively allow people to become mayor all the time.

Snowden did not make arbitrary decisions about something mundane to make a buck... he made a very careful, thoughtful decision, expressly for the public good and NOT for any kind of personal profit (in fact it has cost him dearly, even if he were to get pardoned today, which apparently he won't). Shame on Obama for sound-biting it as though pardoning Snowden would lead to a public clamor for all people who make any decision about anything.

Comment Re:Translation: (Score 3, Funny) 203

How is this not in their interest? Why should Google give two shits about what Nexus users want, especially as far as having a bloatware-free phone?

Because they don't want to drive more people to alternative roms.

This is no different from everyone bitching and complaining about Windows 10... the customers aren't going to go anywhere, they're just going to complain and then bend over.

Speak for yourself, ankle-grabber.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions