Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"Failed" push for renewables? (Score 5, Informative) 366

Uranium fueled reactors are the result of a premature optimization... they aren't reactive enough to work with oxides as fuel.. so you end up having to do all sorts of engineering to try to keep it from oxidizing, whilst only a small barrier away from water. It was never a good idea. The hydrogen bubble that almost made 3 mile island even worse is a result of this chemistry at work. Not only that, when Uranium splits, it only yields 90% of the energy immediately, the remaining 10% takes millions of years, which means a reactor producing 1GW of heat at load will still generate 100 Megawatts when you stop the chain reaction... and if you can't cool it, the thing will melt down.

Thorium yields 99% of the energy immediately, which reduces the need for cooling after the fact by a factor of 10... plus in a Thorium reactor, the fuel is a liquid fluoride, which means you just have to divide the critical mass in the event of an emergency, and you're done with it. A few flat wide steel tanks encased in concrete would do the trick, even if dry.

I'd happily live down the street from a Thorium reactor.

Comment Thanks Bush/Cheney (Score 0, Troll) 728

There were strong warnings in advance of the 9/11 attack, which the Bush/Cheney administration chose to ignore. (Could it be because they needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to catalyze the "New American Century" vision from PNAC?)
They then ignored the reality that Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and lied their way to get us into Iraq (in accordance with the "New American Century")
It didn't work, because the full might of the country couldn't actually be used (being based on a lie, and not having full support)
This broke Iraq, and gave rise to ISIS, killing or displacing millions along the way.
My heart goes out to the victims in Paris, and the millions of others our nation has displaced, maimed, or killed in the service of our empire.

Comment We're at war... and we're losing (Score 1) 93

Consider yourself in a cyber-war... any line of program you run on your computer can be turned against you... why do you trust any of it with your full authority?

Because you don't have a choice, your OS doesn't give you one. Read up on the principle of least privilege, and the ambient authority model we currently use.

Comment Ambient Authority - Spraying it all over the place (Score 1) 291

There's no way to specify "run this task with this type of access only to this set of stuff" in Linux... which means you're giving your authority to everything you execute. Until this gets fixed... any flaw in any of the code you run can be used against you.

If you could specify authority and filter it, in a similar manner to unix pipes, you'd be able to build a database that can only take local connections, then build a read-only connection to it, then build a web page that could only connect to that and respond to requests... and finally the web server to take requests from the web and query the page.... and an outside hacker would have to pick through each layer on his way to the database... even if the code was only 99% effective, that's a 99.9999% effective block with very minimal effort.

This type of stuff doesn't have to be user-unfriendly, in fact if implemented correctly it would be fairly transparent to them.

Comment Why trust applications? (Score 0) 320

Why y'all continue to trust applications to do anything is beyond me.

You don't hand your wallet to the clerk at the gas station, but you'll hand your whole machine over to any random bit of code, and get upset when it goes awry.

Your OS should ask which files to let your application access... until that changes, you're going to keep getting skunked.

Slashdot Top Deals

[We] use bad software and bad machines for the wrong things. -- R.W. Hamming