Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: I don't care about NASA (Score 1) 128

by Kjella (#48649251) Attached to: Can Rep. John Culberson Save NASA's Space Exploration Program?

At this point they are the best way to send cargo to the ISS and in a few year will be the best way to send astronauts in LEO, but if they want to go any further they're going to need a new rocket (stronger than the Falcon 9 heavy).

Uh, you do realize the Falcon Heavy has a payload of 13200 kg to Mars and will be more powerful than any current operational rocket?

NASA as the actual plan for their SLS while SpaceX only has ideas for now.

They have a great plan, but they don't have the money. The Falcon Heavy is funded and should be operational in the first half of next year while NASA is years away from a date that's probably slipping. And I'm not sure why you're saying SpaceX is the one on the drawing board, the boosters are essentially "headless" Falcon 9s while the SLS is a new design. Sure, when or if the SLS flies it'll be in a class of its own we haven't seen since the Saturn V. I wouldn't hold my breath though, while the Falcon Heavy seems very likely that will happen.

Comment: Re: What took them so long? (Score 1) 188

by Kjella (#48647723) Attached to: Cyberattack On German Steel Factory Causes 'Massive Damage'

For your simplified example, it is probably cheaper -- and just as secure -- to have an operator enter the dozen or so keystrokes to order "produce x amount of class y steel" than to design, build, install and support a more automated method. Human involvement has the added bonus of (nominally) intelligent oversight of the intended behavior for the day.

Do you have any idea what the error rate for manual data entry is? Typically about 0.5% of the entries will be wrong. Retyping information is a very error prone process.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 553

by TheRaven64 (#48645719) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

Most of the developing world just doesn't have this problem.

Actually that's not true. India and China did very well out of being a cheap place to manufacture things because of the low labour cost. Now, factories that are almost entirely automated are replacing those staffed by unskilled workers. This means that no one is building them in developing countries and creating jobs there. The only reason that companies like Foxconn have for picking places in Africa for manufacturing now is the the lack of environmental regulation: a few politicians get paid off, but the local economy doesn't benefit and the local environment gets polluted. The path Japan took, of cheaply copying things, being a cheap place to build factories, developing local skills, and then competing internationally with original products, doesn't exist anymore.

Comment: Re:It's hard to take this article seriously (Score 1) 553

by TheRaven64 (#48645709) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?
Exactly. Few workers would complain about automation if they owned a share in the company proportionate to their contribution to the profits. If a robot means that the company can produce more without their going to work then their income would go up and so would their leisure time. Instead, they become redundant in a shrinking job market and the owners get richer.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 352

by TheRaven64 (#48645633) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?
Java doesn't require you to catch every exception, it requires that, for every exception that cam be generated in a method, you must either catch it or advertise that your method can throw it. This makes static analysis and reasoning about exception much easier, because you know exactly what exceptions a particular method can throw. Handling exceptions at the wrong place is a problem with the programmers, not with the language or VM.

Comment: Re:TOR is a fucking honey pot ! (Score 4, Insightful) 84

by Kjella (#48641095) Attached to: Tor Network May Be Attacked, Says Project Leader

You do realize that most "darknets" are built on a "bust one, bust all" model? Pretty much the only security is that the bad guys aren't in your darknet, they've never reached a popularity where there's any plausible deniability. The only other people likely to be in your darknet are the other members of your terrorist cell or whatever you're part of, it has never offered anything for "normal people" for you to hide in. And darknets have actually been used as honeypots, to make clueless people give away their IP to join a private group which turns out to be a sting. It is pretty much the exact opposite of anonymity, it's joining a conspiracy and you're at the mercy of the stupidity of everyone in it.

TOR is trying for something entirely different, which is to keep everyone at arm's length from each other. I talk to you over TOR, you get busted well tough shit they still can't find me. The users don't know the server, the server doesn't know the users. Of course by adding that glue in between you run the risk of the man in the middle working out who both ends of the connection are, but that's the trade-off. TOR is trying to do something extremely hard, it tries to offer low latency - easy to make timing attacks, arbitrary data sizes - easy to make traffic correlation attacks and interactive access - easy to manipulate services into giving responses, accessible to everyone and presumably with poison nodes in the mix. It's trying to do something so hard that you should probably assume it's not possible, not because they have any special inside access.

I actually did look at trying to do better, it was not entirely unlike Freenet done smarter only with onion routing instead of relying on statistical noise. It wouldn't try to be interactive so you could use mixmaster-style systems to avoid timing attacks and (semi-)fixed data block sizes to avoid many correlation attempts but I never felt I got the bad node issue solved well. TOR picks guard nodes, but it only makes you bet on a few horses instead of many. It was still too easy to isolate one node from the rest of the network and have it only talk to bad nodes, at which point any tricks you can play is moot because they see all your traffic. Even a small fraction of the nodes could do that on a catch-and-release basis and I never found any good countermeasures.

Comment: Re:Interesting... (Score 1) 128

by Kjella (#48638543) Attached to: Tesla About To Start Battery-Swap Pilot Program

From what they've said before they expect you to eventually return to pick up your original batteries on your way home, though they haven't said how long you can keep driving on your loaners. If you don't they'll create some kind of fee to offset the condition between the battery pack you had and the one you got. If you're permanently relocating and make arrangements I'm sure they'll offer some kind of system to choose a battery in roughly the condition you had if you want it to be free or to swap for a brand new one if you want to restore max range at your final destination. Otherwise you could swap a 7 years old/100k miles battery for an almost new one for free, that wouldn't be right.

Comment: Re:3 minutes is slow? (Score 3, Insightful) 128

by Kjella (#48638401) Attached to: Tesla About To Start Battery-Swap Pilot Program

It's not about getting it done in 3 minutes, it's about being 3rd in line at 7:20am with 35 minutes left on your drive to work.

If your commute involves a battery swap for a Tesla you should really consider changing jobs. I'm guessing it's more about the weekend rush, Friday afternoon lots of cars will be going on long range trips and return Sunday evening, I'm guessing a battery swap pad is a lot more involved than a gas station pump so they won't have very many of them. They did run a test here recently driving a Tesla ~1000 miles and they said it all worked well but there was a lot of waiting, for every 2-3 hours of driving there's was one hour of charging. I know that when we drive to the capital it takes ~7 hours and we have one 30-45 minute stop, if they could swap batteries on at least one stop they'd be down to one hour charging per 4-6 hours of driving which would roughly be the break time we'd want with an ICE car too. But Friday afternoon I'm one of a thousand lemmings trying to get out of the city, it better go fast.

Comment: Re:Is a lame Seth Rogen flick worth dying for? (Score 3, Insightful) 220

by Kjella (#48635883) Attached to: Hackers' Shutdown of 'The Interview' Confirms Coding Is a Superpower

The first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." but everybody understands you don't have much freedom of speech if you end up hanging from the nearest tree afterwards. Because the law isn't supposed to shield me from lawful retaliation like a boycott only retaliation that's already illegal you don't need a specific law for that. But everybody realizes that targeted action against those who exercise a particular freedom is trying to encroach on that freedom. Of course the government can just wash their hands and say we weren't the angry mob holding the rope, but it wouldn't be a very good government.

Any time you refrain from a lawful action because of the risk or threat of illegal action is a failure of the system of law IMHO. If I can't walk through a part of the city at night they're failing to keep the street safe. If they can't show this movie at the cinema without the risk of terrorism they're failing to keep the country safe. At least if it's a genuine risk and not chicken little screaming that the sky is falling, I mean you can't expect them to be everywhere and prevent every crime everyone's trying to commit. And I don't want to sell out all my rights in an attempt to make it so either. There could be a price for not caving but there's a price for caving too, the terrorists don't need to take away your freedoms if your too afraid to use them anyway.

Comment: Re:I blame Microsoft (Score 1) 145

by Kjella (#48631881) Attached to: Critical Git Security Vulnerability Announced

Yes. There is only one possible name for addressing a file. For a case-aware, but case insensitive, you get up to 2^n variants for a name n letters long. And you _can_ have the same name with different capitalization in a directory as result of errors.

Funny, since Linux does everything it can to break a canonical name model with symlinks. In fact, you could mimic a case-insensitive system with 2^n symlinks like /foo/bar/COnFiG -> /foo/bar/config. And the captialization is the cause of errors in mixed environments:

1) Create file on Windows called "Foobar.txt".
2) Copy it to your Linux machine.
3) Rename it to "FooBar.txt"
4) Do lots of work on the text
5) Copy it to your Linux machine
6) Copy the Linux directory back to Windows.

There's now a 50-50 chance that your work just got overwritten by old crap from step 2). Of course you might argue that Windows is the problem here since it wouldn't happen on two Linux systems, but then it wouldn't happen on two Windows systems either. They just don't play nice with each other.

Comment: Re:Unrelated to Github (Score 2) 145

by Kjella (#48631807) Attached to: Critical Git Security Vulnerability Announced

Tag: NOTABUG and WONTFIX. Case aware filesystems so you can have normal names and not like AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS from the DOS days is great, case sensitive file systems are a really bad idea. Is there any kind of sane situation where you'd like to have two files "Config" and "config" actually coexist that isn't just begging to be confused/abused/exploited? For a marginal performance optimization all POSIX systems have shitty usability. Why am I not surprised? I guess for a server it just doesn't matter, but for the desktop you should file this as a bug against Linux, not Windows and OS X.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...