Forgot your password?

Comment: No sensible person ever though it was impossible (Score 3, Informative) 108

by daveschroeder (#48027003) Attached to: Apple Fixes Shellshock In OS X

But even here, again, when you look at a typical OS X desktop system, now many people:

1. Have apache enabled AND exposed to the public internet (i.e., not behind a NAT router, firewall, etc)?

2. Even have apache or any other services enabled at all?

...both of which would be required for this exploit. The answer? Vanishingly small to be almost zero.

So, in the context of OS X, it's yet another theoretical exploit; "theoretical" in the sense that it effects essentially zero conventional OS X desktop users. Could there have been a worm or other attack vector which then exploited the bash vulnerability on OS X? Sure, I suppose. But there wasn't, and it's a moot point since a patch is now available within days of the disclosure.

And people running OS X as web servers exposed to the public internet, with the demise of the standalone Mac OS X Server products as of 10.6, is almost a thing of yesteryear itself.

Nothing has changed since that era: all OSes have always been vulnerable to attacks, both via local and remote by various means, and there have been any number of vulnerabilities that have only impacted UN*X systems, Linux and OS X included, and not Windows, over very many years. So yeah, nothing has changed, and OS X (and iOS) is still a very secure OS, by any definition or viewpoint of the definition of "secure", when viewed alongside Windows (and Android).

Comment: Re:net metering != solar and 10% needs new physics (Score 2) 409

by mcrbids (#48024285) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power

Nice to see *informed* input!

I would argue that the problem is the flat rate pricing of $/KWH. A KWH produced at 1 AM has far less value than one produced at 7:00 PM. Why are we charging them the same? Much of the issue you mention would largely vanish if electricity prices were negotiated more frequently. EG: hourly or 15 minute increments. If there really is a surplus of power between 10:00-2:00, as you state, then the price during that time of day would be low to accommodate. This would create an incentive to input power when there's matching demand, and let the utility company profit off the difference.

Yes, it's a significant cost to upgrade the power grid and contracts to work this way, but when has it been bad to connect buyers to sellers in a way that reflects an accurate use of resources?

For example, I read a study a while back that pointing solar panels West of due South resulted in a much better match between electricity use and demand

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 488

by Reziac (#48014191) Attached to: Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit

As it was explained to me by the engineering dept. at SoCalEdison, the more power I use, the more it costs them, so they'd rather I used less, and if I used none at all that would be perfect.

Incidentally Sam's Club has started putting little wind generators on the lampposts in their parking lots. Manager at the one I frequented in SoCal told me this had already dropped their power bill by 5%, which is significant if you're in retail (even bulk-wholesale-priced retail).

Comment: Re:LEDs should be date stamped (Score 1) 591

by Reziac (#48009631) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

I've had CFLs all over the map too, from with lifespan in months to over a decade. When they fail, first they get dim, and at that point the transformer is also getting too hot. I pitch them then as a fire hazard (I've had 'em seriously brown the lamp socket).

On thinking about it, tho, CFL and incandescent lifespan was about the same in a given fixture or socket. I put one of each in several fixtures (both open and enclosed, some old, some new), and in the 13 years I owned the house, not a one of those burned out. Conversely anything I put in the open porch socket burned out in a few months, regardless of the season. The large open desk lamps, always in 3 to 5 years. How much a given light was used didn't seem to be a factor.

Comment: Re:Its not the CFL/LED (Score 1) 591

by Reziac (#48009583) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

I've found that the first symptom that the transformer is going bad (without going around burning my fingers on 'em) is that the CFL gets dimmer. Without fail, those have overheating transformers.

I've had 'em last anywhere from a few months to over 12 years. Perhaps significant, incandescent lifespan was similar in the same sockets.

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_