Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Re:But which kind of stroke? Too thin or too thick (Score 1) 41

To throw another wrench into the decision matrix, an ischemic stroke is caused by a clot that has been jammed into a narrow blood vessel. If the patient is not particularly healthy he may have fragile arterial walls, in which case the clot can damage the artery. Ironically, this may lead to the clot doing its intended task, becoming the thing preventing the damaged artery from hemorrhaging. In these rare and undiagnosable cases, responsibly using tPA (or spider venom) to dissolve the clot can actually lead to a hemorrhagic stroke.

Comment Re:What do you expect? (Score 3, Insightful) 151

Just think about how many movies have come out in the last 20 years, and even RECENT TV shows/Movies whose plots break down immediately if a true Panopticon/Big Brother society exists.

CallerID would have wrecked 25% of Columbo episodes if it had existed back then. "Won't somebody please think of the screenwriters" is an unusual take on technology changes!

I recently rewatched the original Day of the Jackal from 1973. The entire movie was the suspense of the police chasing him via a paper trail of hotel registrations and phone calls, and I couldn't help but think that the whole movie would have been over in about three minutes if SQL existed.

Comment Re:More than 20 years but not really vunerable (Score 1) 58

The point is its a security design flaw to provide an anachronistic feature that no one cares about anymore. (Almost) no one uses ssh to "tunnel" a window for every application that is initiated within their own user session, but that is literally what needs to be done (and a kludge, mind you) to actually have a "secure" xwindow session. While I grasp that xwindow maintainers don't consider it a "compelling" security hole, they should have deprecated the feature decades ago, to resolve the security issue (and implemented an alternative if they thought it was "important" enough to keep).

Comment Re:Auto Elevation (Score 1) 58

What happened to using the system environment path which is already secured?

Where do you think the system environment path comes from? Why would you include a feature that isn't necessary either for system operation or system security?

Auto Elevation. Microsoft introduces UAC. People get annoyed with it. Microsoft introduces Auto Elevation. Guess what, still annoying and now possible security hole.

Its heartbreaking that Microsoft doesn't have security architects capable of guiding a redesign of their platform to reflect current OS security theory and practices.

I am fine if Windows asks me to enter a user and password to elevate. It works on my *cough* Linux desktop. Annoying? Yes. Secure? More so.

Its also considered a backward practice. Modern authentication systems should not require a "hackable" password. Also, any system administrator using a GUI interface that relies on xwindows (xorg) can be totally vulnerable to hacking. Security design flaws in xwindows were never fully removed, even after twenty years. Everyone is counting on newer graphics architectures (mir, wayland, whatever) to eventually resolve those issues.

Comment Re:PasswordSafe (Score 1) 415

unique 8-11 character passwords [...] Look up rainbow tables, people!

The rainbow table I'm aware of only goes up to 9 characters with a 4TB dictionary for NTLM hashes. Granted, with a more targeted dictionary, you may get up to 11 characters. While I'm sure 11+ characters could be vulnerable to rainbow tables, it would require serious hardware investment. I try to go over 12 characters myself, for passwords I care about. And it goes to half for a SHA256 hash string (64 bytes).

Comment Re:Zero Chance (Score 1) 447

For what it's worth, Facebook could easily put a big crimp on it's fake news by vetting its news sources. Only publish stories from sources that adhere to some set of standards for truth and/or retractions. Why they don't eludes me.

Because Facebook wants to be able to call individual Facebook user submissions as "news". They also don't want to hire humans to manage the newsbot sifters to make sure nothing that may damage the Facebook News brand (like a shitpost). What I find egregious is that Facebook could easily declare their "news" feed a rumor mill, avoid all this angst, but those greedy f**kers just want to call user innuendo and content "News" for marketing purposes, but not exert an iota of responsibility in validating the content.

Comment Re: All in the timing (Score 1) 195

We have laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants. I presume that you want the President to do his job and enforce the fu**ing law. As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.

Chasing after employers for illegal immigrants is not productive step at this moment, because the penalties hasn't been raise since the 1950's. What is rational is a comprehensive immigrant policy, that include cracking down on employers, having migrant worker visas, processing of current illegal immigrants to put them on a legal status, then enabling a path to citizenship, cease trying to deport kids of illegals that have been raised in this country and are adults now, and yes, real enforcement of immigration status once a functioning system is in place.

I don't care right now if the current immigration laws are enforced right now. They don't fucking work right now, as is. Pissing away more money on the current enforcement regime is a waste of money. A fucking wall won't do jackshit. Indiscriminately deporting what we've rounded up at INS now, just means most of them will be back in a few years. Its just digging a hole up to your head, then filling it up, then digging another hole. The system, as is, will not significantly reduce the rate of illegal immigration.

2. you're not in favor of Presidents doing extra-legal things like not following existing immigration laws.

I supported most of what Obama did during his term concerning illegal immigration. An executive order is not "extra legal" when the fucking Congress won't do their fucking job.

As opposed to not doing his job by ignoring said laws.

How did Obama "ignore" said laws? He's done more deportations than any other administration, including George W Bush. Its been a waste of time and money. Do you seriously care about PotUS's following the law? Where the fuck was your outrage over the PotUS breaking the law when the Bush administration conducted an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq???

Comment Re: All in the timing (Score 1) 195

As do I. But what Trump is doing is implementing the most venal, dumbest possible way to do this. And it still won't work, its already been tried. Any successful plan has to include financially savaging employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Most immigrants are only coming here for the "lucrative" job. They were running out of the country when the banks collapsed in 2008 and the economy shut down.

There's a difference between addressing immigration reform and spitefully destroying people's lives and shitcanning our economy just to make condenscending dickbags with anonymity feel smug.

Or even a legal immigrant who came here thinking Americans would come to eventually accept them and their children, but instead had Trump provide encouragement and legal indifference for another generation (20 years) of racist xenophobia against them.

And these people have every right to wish that piece of shit was dead, or at least crack jokes about him. Trump is not a good guy. Trump may not be an intellectual leader of the alt-right, but that doesn't give him the pass George W. Bush's gets for his clusterfuck of a presidency.

Comment Re:Not to be a wet blanket... (Score 1) 355

1) Eventually a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. Which then ensures humanity or civilization won't be wiped out by a space rock every 300K(?) years.
2) Having the self-sustaining colony on Mars also means more living area to populate with humans. Not prime real estate (unless you're dystopian), but possibly better than living in your toilet on Earth.
3) Once man can sustain themselves indefinitely outside of Earth, it may become lucrative to collect useful materials outside of Earth, process it in space, manufacture something useful in space, and then send that to Earth. Yeah, automated robots could do that too, but it may be too difficult to manage/repair those devices the further out you go for materials away from Earth.

Comment Re:Not to be a wet blanket... (Score 1) 355

But you can't plan to go to Mars with that plan. You have to spend decades first developing the robotics to do sophisticated manufacture in space/Moon. Then you're sending that factory to the Moon, rather than Mars. Oh yeah, there's no (known) iron or aluminum, or anything useful, other than sand (silica) to mine on the Moon. Then somehow you have to be able to mine an asteroid, when most asteroids are in an orbit farther than Mars but before Jupiter. Which means you'll probably be doing that with an automated robot as well. Unless you want to spend money developing a habitat module that can sustain human life in space/Moon without a radiation shield for about a year. And that's assuming there are asteroids with useful materials to mine within rocket distance of the Earth that is less than the distance to Mars. And where will be the savings in rocket launches or Earth materials for this scenario?

Comment Re:Not to be a wet blanket... (Score 1) 355

1) going to Mars from the moon would be simpler, and cheaper.

No, it would not! Based on what rationale? You'd still have to build and rocket most of those Mars station components on Earth. The Moon doesn't have known deposits of iron or aluminum to smelt and manufacture into useful devices by robots on the Moon. Even if there was enough harvestable water on the Moon, done by robot, you could still send an automated robot to Mars to do the same chore.

2) mining on asteroids would be cheaper

Again, in what sense? The only way it would be cheaper would be to process the ore on the Moon, and ship it to Earth, but it would still be even cheaper to process the ore from a space station located a a Lagrange point.

It blows my mind how people here claim to understand basic science and a layman level of engineering, but can't comprehend the basics of orbital mechanics. (It doesn't take much more energy to go to Mars rather than the Moon. They're about equal in difficulty to do at this point in space science/engineering.), or how projects require money to be developed (there's no money saved testing a sustainable hab module on the Moon, rather than testing it on Mars.) Why are people so convinced that Spain needed a colony on the Azores before they could send Columbus to the "New World"?

Comment Re:I hate to say it... (Score 1) 355

Guess why I think Space Nutters are misanthropic, maladjusted, religious nutcases?

Because you're a moron.

Directed space nuttery can result in new scientific and engineering knowledge that can be applied to desirable outcomes, whether its a self-sustaining colony on Mars, or abundant energy collected from satellites and microwaved to an Earth based collector, or harvestable H3 on the Moon to power a fusion power plant, or whatever.

Universal healthcare just extends the life of organic beings that has to die anyway. UBI may not even be economically sustainable or "desirable" in a capitalist society, and basically rewards people that can't do anything useful for existing. I'm not sure if a leisure society could have significantly desirable economic or cultural results. I'll withhold my condescension on that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your code should be more efficient!

Working...