A "secure" password does nothing to mitigate keyloggers. The only thing that does is two factor.

I think the comments regarding the password strength were general, and basically the usual Slashdot topic drift.

IMO it's way past time for two factor everywhere. Federating logins makes that much more feasible.

actually the encribed version is easier to read than the PDF from IEEE (we have a site license to IEEE pubs where I work).

I personally replaced thousands of those deathstar drives. Thats how you get the left side of the bathtub curve.

Does anyone actually use drives in a commercial environment that are more than 3-4 years old? By the time they are that old they aren't worth the space they take up and the power they consume, i.e. 1TB per form factor as opposed to 3TB in the same form factor.

I worked at an on-line service for several years way back in the late 90s and early 00s and this data is consistent with the data I collected then over perhaps an order of magnitude more units. While 25K drives may not be a lot in the scale of today's internet services it is more than enough to draw statistically valid conclusions, as opposed to that, oh, 1 drive in your desktop gaming system that failed 1 day after the warranty expired.

Repeal Obamatime!

happens all the time where I work.

public affairs photog says "do something scientific looking"

click

et voila

the ought to know better than to have that enabled at launch. You need to characterize the wheels on orbit and be sure that the limits are good before you turn that one on.

Thanks, that was a great article, but apparently it could still use more debunking, because that myth seems to be as firmly entrenched as ever.

Correct.

Essentially all rocket and spacecraft technology is on the US munitions list, whether it makes sense or not.

ho hum

wake me when the feds file suit

yup, and JWST incorporates a bunch of the pie in the sky ideas that have been floated in this thread like a giant sunshade and mechanical cryo-coolers.

Its a requirements thing. If the requirement is for 5 years of service then all the parts are life tested for the equivalent of 5 years. If the requirement was for 10 years of service the parts testing would cost a lot more. Because most of the subsystems are redundant even if some subsystems fail at 5 years the mission can continue longer. Generally, spacecraft last a lot longer than the design life anyway. Landsat 5 has been in use almost 29 years. ATS-3 was in use for 34 years. TDRS-1 was in use for 26 years. Nimbus-7 was another one that was in use for way longer than anyone ever imagined.

Low orbit satellites like this one are deorbited. Either they have to be designed for a controlled reentry into the ocean or be demisable, that is to completely disintegrate on reentry. Designing for dismisability is tough. You have to limit the size of all hard parts, and the harder they are the smaller the maximum size is. Off the top of my head, a titanium part can't be be bigger tham 2cm square, but aluminum can be 10cm square. Composites can be larger still.

wow, thats really interesting. why is it I never have mod points when I really want them?