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:Not, "Can this work?" It's, "WHERE can this wor (Score 1) 66

Through a number of phases of the modern age, different airlines have attempted to offer air-taxi services from the three main airports around NYC to Manhattan. The economics would seem to make sense at first blush. The relative distances, potential market demand and locations make sense. And, yet none of the big airlines still offer these ad-ons to their mainline service, while, at the same time, they have offered significant incentives to attract big-money customers. The natural conclusion is that the devil is in the details and there must not be sufficient demand or market support for the routes to make financial sense. Not the least of which is that the fraction of the population who feels comfortable riding in a helicopter is small (consider how many people intensely dislike propeller planes, and then understand that helicopters are worse in nearly every way for ride experience when compared to jet flight).

Comment More silent? (Score 1) 66

More silent? How can they be more silent? Silent means they make no noise.

That said, VTOL aircraft are far, far from quiet. Even if you made them battery powered (good luck with that, as the power densities required are really pretty serious) to eliminate most of the power plant noise, they would still be damned loud due to the massive amount of air that needs to be thrust downward in order to move the craft upward. How much air? Equivalent to the weight of the craft. All the time. More, if you want to move up. Given that air is substantially less dense that most flying crafts, this means heaploads of noise. No matter how you cut it, aircraft are loud, close up, as long as you are depending on displacing air to provide thrust.

Comment Re:Php tied to platform? [Re:PHP] (Score 1) 292

R has a big following amongst people who aren't actually programmers per-se. Typically you see it used for analytics everywhere ranging from credit scoring, to insurance risk analysis, to demographic/health/geographic analysis by health services, city planning services and so on and so forth.

That's probably why R does so well because although it's not a great choice for programmers in a lot of cases, it's fantastic for analysts.

Comment Re:Java is not C-based (Score 1) 292

The only thing that is relatively C-like in Java is the syntax

...and if you take that as the definition of "C-based" then every language mentioned in TFS is "C-based" apart from Python. Silly article.

Also silly because the hard bit of learning a new "language" is not the language per se (all the languages discussed are multi-paradigm with a procedural/OO slant - no Lisp/Smalltalk/Haskell in that list) but the framework(s) and APIs associated with a new platform (which is usually why you are switching language).

Comment Re:What the Idiotic Hell./ (Score 4, Interesting) 292

Of course popularity matters.

1. More popular languages you can find less expensive developers for...(or more total developer talent for a given amount of money)

2. More popular languages are likely to have stackoverflow posts with examples for every single basic task and explanations about what errors mean. (before you gloat about how you don't need help from SO, have you ever faced goddamn C++ linker errors? Might as well have an Ouija board out to find out what the mistake is)

3. More popular languages work on more computers and are likely to continue to work in the future

4. More popular languages tend to be faster. Usually a shit ton faster. Java has gone from a bloated mess to a bloated mess that is often within spitting distance of C on performance shootouts. That's from the popularity spurring further development. C is almost always king of the hill and nothing is faster. Python? Rust? Whatever n00bs. Those languages may be nice to write complex code that only gets run occasionally but if you need high end performance they aren't going to cut it.

Comment Re: So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 198

Even this DDoS attack is still drastically smaller than Akamai's purported bandwidth. The whole point in their network is that they're supposed to be so distributed, with so much bandwidth that withstanding even this should be trivial - they claim to serve upto 30% of the world's daily requests, their network has a capacity of 30 Tbps and they're bottling it in the face of a 0.6 Tbps DDoS attack.

This was really always Akamai's selling point - precisely that they do have far more bandwidth than any DDoS will ever muster. DDoS protection is in fact one of Akamai's single largest selling points - it's plastered all over their site, so if they're now saying they can't be bothered to deal with them then again, what's the point in Akamai?

So sure you're argument makes sense for a provider that doesn't own a colossal amount of bandwidth, but you obviously don't know Akamai else you'd realise your entire argument is moot in relation to them because they're not short on bandwidth. You argued that you can't ever win against DDoS attacks unless you have more bandwidth, and, er, well, they do - by a massive margin and the chance of anyone building a bot net with the bandwidth to rival Akamai's capacity is basically zero.

Taking the DDoS on the chin, which they could trivially do even with existing customer commitments whilst working with ISPs to deal with infected machines would've been a massive benefit for InfoSec (and been great for their profits as it would let them boost their reputation further and reduce future impact on their network). Instead they've decided to act with the attackers and tell the world they can no longer be trusted on their main selling point.

Comment Re:Who wants one? (Score 1) 174

That's exactly what Siri does. RTFM

Link? Because everywhere i search i find references to the iphone basically recording your command, and sending the audio clip to be processed by the cloud.

It sounds like maybe in some cases it'll figure out an answer even without the cloud. But odds are it sent it to the cloud while it was processing it locally, just in case.

And while I'm find with the agent on my phone sending specific requests to the cloud, the raw audio of every command I give it... nope.

So if you have a link that counters this then enlighten us with a reference, rather than just an 'RTFM'.

Comment Re:Well, that's a start. (Score 1) 97

Of your three cases, the officer in the first is facing criminal charges with up to 20 years in jail. Obviously the system works.

The second two were running around in public with realistic looking guns, and didn't quickly do what the officers ordered... Are you suggesting that people should be able to point fake guns at cops with no repercussions? Too many officers get killed on the job, already. Requiring psychic abilities in use of force decisions will make that number sky rocket.

Comment Re:A simple reality check (Score 1) 495

The global warming "scientists" are the same "scientists" who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us

A single idiot journalist in TIME magazine who wanted to stir things up and boost circulation?

You've been conned by someone and are letting the side down. As engineers we are supposed to apply science and not bullshit.

Comment Re:I'm just guessing they won't study the fraud (Score 1) 495

Why would they deny FOIA requests and conspire to find a way around them?

Look up "distributed denial of service attack" for why.
A bunch of unscrupulous pricks set up a letter campaign to make requests to keep those "evil" scientists too busy to actually work. It was pretty obvious since it was coming in alphabetical order.

Why hasn't Al Gore

People in politics LIE. Ignore the showman on stage and talk to the real people behind the curtain.

Comment The two have been conflated at the start (Score 1) 495

They are connected very tightly by politics - well, money paying for that politics really. One of the arguments pushed strongly by the deniers is that climate change is just a trick to force companies to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc. That was really the start of the PR campaign against scientists some years ago. Since some of the companies involved were donors to Republicans it all got very political.

Before the "debate" was kicked off with millions in PR money conservatives such as Thatcher were on the side of reality instead of PR. The only reason many conservatives are opposing reality King Canute style today is because of donor money from those who think climate change will be used as a reason to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc and that new regulations will cut into profits.

Who knows - if it happened today instead of back then the Koch brothers and others may have donated to Hillary instead and the political situation would be the other way around, but historically it's the Republicans that decided to deny reality despite earlier conservatives listening very closely to scientists. Eisenhower would probably tell all the deniers to fuck off and let him run the country as well as he could with expert advice instead of playing stupid PR games of make believe.

Slashdot Top Deals