solved using this. You might want to look at https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

In a nutshell, the Post Office has a customer base of only about 400 companies. The actual American public is lost in the noise as far as the Post Office is concerned.

Interesting article, however, I suspect the editors are a bit mistaken. I strongly suspect that Mr Delaire is NOT using TIG welding in his machine, but instead is using MIG welding. Also I have to wonder if Mr Delaire is aware of http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
If not, he may be able to save a bit of effort and time by building upon the work someone else has already done.

You might want to do a bit of math before making such a statement. 700TB is a very large amount of data. And in order to do that in a week, would require quite a bit of data transfer bandwidth. To wit:

700,000,000,000,000 / 7 days = 100,000,000,000,000 / 24 hours = 4,166,666,666,666 / 3600 seconds = 1,157,407,407 bytes per second.

Do you really write 1.157GB/second every second for a week? And if so, what data interface are you using? I'd really like to know since SATA 3.0 can only handle 600MB/second. Perhaps you're using SATA 3.2 which does have the required speed?

Now in an environment using multiple drives, you can get to the 700TB mark much more rapidly with much lower per drive bandwidth. But then again, that's not the test criteria. They are testing how much endurance individual SSDs have.

Seems that such a device would be an ideal candidate for inductive coupling. Both for charging and data transmission. The device would consist of two parts. One part implanted into the body, and a second part held on the skin over the implant. That would avoid a semi-permanent skin penetration acting as an infection risk.

Not everyone is comfortable with public speaking. What you're complaining about is what is called "verbalized pauses" and almost all untrained speakers suffer from it to a degree or two when speaking publicly. Training, and practice with public speaking tends to eliminate that.

Unfortunately, that isn't likely to be true. A lot of Type I diabetes is, at its root, an autoimmune disease. The immune system goes crazy and kills off the islets of langerhans. So let's say you do get a grown pancreas from your own cells and have it transplanted. Well, your immune system then proceeds to kill of the islets of langerhans and you're back at square one.

Gee. Send the data in the clear along with an encryption key so it's stored at the remote site in an encrypted form. There's no way that a NLS will allow for the interception and disclosure of the key is there?

Frankly, that "solution" is a rather poor one at best and far too likely to give the customer a sense of security while in reality their data is totally accessible.

The comment on not using aerodynamic down force is rather telling. Only reason I can think of for not doing so is that if they did, it would consume power that could otherwise be used for more speed. And since motive power isn't being supplied through the wheels, traction isn't all that important. I do wonder if steering will be entirely via the wheels, or if they're using aerodynamic means.

It does address the issues you mentioned. As for the tool chain (compiler, linker, loader, etc), that is addressed by making them diverse. The term 'compile' means the entire chain from source to binary which includes the entire tool chain. As for the CPU issue, there's nothing in the source that mandates that you must create a binary for the same CPU as you're executing on. So do DDC on multiple CPU families (Intel, ARM, PPC, etc) and compare the final results. And the beauty of DDC is you can do it even if the tools you're using have been compromised. The only requirement is that the tools not be compromised in EXACTLY the same way. Any difference in the actual behavior of the tool chain will result in a difference in the output to be compared. If you're extremely paranoid, there's nothing preventing you from executing the tool chain inside an emulator to bypass any issues you might have with microcode.

You just might want to look 'Diverse Double-Compiling' as a method of countering the attack described by Ken Thompson in 'Reflections on Trusting Trust'. A paper on DDC is at http://www.acsa-admin.org/2005...

Ah, but the tamper evident seals are on the actual item. Not the package. And if customs wants to look at the item, they can easily retrieve the photographs hosted on the manufacture's site. And if they match the tamper evident, randomized seal, then drug hiding is ... not very likely ... unless of course, you wish to believe that the drugs were stashed at the time of manufacture. The reason for sending the photograph to the customer prior to shipping is to prevent a TLA from breaking the seal, tampering, replacing the seal, then forcing the manufacturer to change their web site with a new set of photographs of the new seals.

Seems to me that unless the law prohibits it, tech companies will need to start using tamper evident packaging. Then it won't matter if the NSA, CIA, FBI or other 3 letter agencies intercept the product during shipping. Perhaps glitter embedded in varnish painted over critical screws/fasteners, then photographed from various angles and posted to a web page, or emailed to the customer prior to shipping. Then if the item is intercepted the 3 letter agency will have a rather ... difficult ... time bypassing those seals such that careful examination upon receipt against the photographs received earlier won't reveal any tampering.

Typical misconception of GPL. You are required to share any code modifications /IF/ you distribute the modified executable. If your changes are for your use only, feel free to keep 'em to yourself.

Although to be honest, if I had mod points, I would have rated fizzer06's comment as +1 Funny.

incompleteness theorem. And as some earlier posters' stated, the correction is simple. Simply look again. The 2nd image collected will be different from the previous and if the NN is correct, will resolve to the correct interpretation.

I'm pretty sure that the $5 million policy is for accidents caused by the vehicle while testing. AKA.... Unproven technology. Once all the tests have been passed, the insurance requirements for the general public would be more in line with the the insurance requirements for non-autonomous vehicles. And I suspect that since the autonomous vehicles would have a lower accident rate, the insurance premiums would be lower as well.