Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:One port to rule them all... (Score 1) 100

From the article:

There will be two types of Thunderbolt 3 cables supported at launch: passive and active. Passive cables forgo DisplayPort 1.2 support, don’t require special internal circuity to operate, and only support transfer speeds of 20Gbps. Active cables, on the other hand, are DisplayPort 1.2 compliant and will support the full 40Gbps.

So yes, it sounds like you'll be able to use cheap passive cables, provided you don't need more than 20Gbps or Displayport support. Which would b the vast majority of use cases.

Comment: Re:A Nuclear power plant on your legs (Score 1) 100

Really? You already have a USB chipset onboard that is designed to negotiate the power being delivered *by* the laptop, how much more difficult will it be to also negotiate the power being delivered *to* it? I'd bet very little - and in exchange the user gets the confidence of knowing their laptop can charge from any standard 100W USB-C charger. The greater opposition I suspect would be laptop manufacturers not wanting to give up their juicy replacement cable business. And frankly, aside from a certain well-known boutique brand, most laptop power cables seem to be pretty rugged, and I doubt there's *that* big a market for auxiliary power cords.

Comment: Re:One connector to rule them all. (Score 1) 100

Don't worry, things will still be nice and confusing: It is valid to use a "Type C" connector in conjunction with a USB2 chipset(at least on the peripheral end, and probably in practice on the computer end). Further, if the "Type C" connector is actually USB3, there is the matter of "Alternate mode".

"Alternate mode" allows the Type C jack and cable to act as a conduit for an entirely different protocol(Displayport and MHL have previously been announced, Intel's announcement presumably means that thunderbolt is along for the ride); but only if the system has the hardware necessary to implement whatever the other protocol is, and that hardware is suitably connected to the Type C jack in question. It doesn't actually give a USB 3.1(gen1 or gen2, yes there's that difference as well) device the ability to natively handle the other protocol in the USB silicon, merely to politely carry it from one end to the other, if the upstream device can generate it and the downstream device can accept it.

So, when you combine this with the inevitable variations in how much power is available(spec allows for up to 100watts; but given that very few laptops, much less littler widgets, even have a hundred watt brick for their own needs, it is clearly the case that most Type C ports will be good for substantially less); a Type C port can do almost anything; but is required to do effectively nothing beyond acting as a USB 2 slave device and not starting any fires when plugged in. It might have full USB 3 silicon, it might not. It might support 10GB/s traffic, it might only handle half that; it might deliver 100 watts of power on request, it might be incapable of doing much besides browning out without a powered hub to protect it. It might have implemented one or more 'Alternate mode' protocols, it might support none.

It will certainly be exciting, at least...

Comment: Re:DHS was never about Homeland Security (Score 4, Insightful) 276

It's never 'welfare' if it involves defense spending: the spending doesn't have to actually increase security, or deliver a product that actually works(it's even acceptable to putz along for a decade or two until the project becomes so hopeless that it is quietly killed without ever delivering a product); but so long as it's for 'defense' and involves some sort of visible business, it's not welfare.

Since this is bullshit, we simply treat it as axiomatically true, which sidesteps what would otherwise be a tedious and difficult matter of 'proof'.

Comment: Re:Still needs another vulnerability (Score 1) 79

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#49821107) Attached to: Macs Vulnerable To Userland Injected EFI Rootkits
Exactly. When it's your own gear, you only have to worry about vulnerabilities that can be exploited despite whatever measures you have in place.

If there's potentially malware that embeds itself hard enough to resist a disk wipe, or even replacement, you have to worry about the prior owner's security, incompetence, potential malice, etc. And that's even if you aren't cool enough to have the NSA 'implant' teams intercepting your mail.

Given the size of the secondary market for things with firmware in them(ie. basically all computer parts more sophisticated than cables; and even some of the cables these days), I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't already become an epic clusterfuck. Especially with scary little things like LOM modules, which are full computers, most commonly with independent NICs, that you graft right into the brainstem of your servers. Flooding the market with poisoned LOM cards/modules seems like the sort of thing that might even be worth it for a commercially minded criminal, much less a nation state looking for juicy secrets.

Comment: Re:What about the cost for enrichment waste? (Score 3, Insightful) 124

by dbIII (#49820647) Attached to: Cool Tool: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator
Ssh, the cargo-cult fanboys want to pretend there isn't any and that it can all be fuel, so instead of starting a fight let's humour them so they will at least start to consider costs for once instead of pretending it's all "too cheap to meter". Maybe they will learn something and be informed about the topic instead of thinking of it as magic perfected in 1970.
However if you want an answer, for the very active waste there is Synroc - bit of a guess as to how much it can be scaled up to drop costs but at least it (finally) exists. The less active stuff is a lot easier to handle and store, which is just as well because it makes up the majority of the volume of nuclear waste

Comment: Re:Grounds for termination (Score 1) 527

So here's another one - don't work for a place large enough to have a legal department that can get you sacked :)
I'm in the resource exploration sector, and things can move slooowly. Ten year old emails do get dragged out at times when the client wants to have a bit more done on a project. Data tapes from the 1970s even get dragged out of storage at times when the client has lost the original. So sometimes business convenience outweighs the risk of negative outcomes from legal discovery.

Comment: Sometimes there is very bad advice (Score 1) 527

That's an interesting answer kids, pretend to be self-reliant by sponging off others and start a business when you have little experience on how to do anything involved with it. Why would we want the kids to have their attitude adjusted to that?
A different answer is to get some skills together so you have something to sell first. If you can't keep it in your pants long enough to get that far before having kids then why do you think you have enough self discipline to run your own business anyway?
This "get your attitude adjusted" shit is condescending and hilarious in this suggestion where an "entrepreneurial type" is supposed to sponge off their parents. It sounds more childish than entrepreneurial to me.

Comment: Re:In Office Politics... (Score 1) 527

I don't play office politics, but I do document everything

Now that's a good tip, a related one is you are responsible for stuff that other people use make sure you have excellent logging/records/snapshots/real backups/etc. There really are "dog ate my homework" people out there that will try to get you sacked for losing emails/documents/etc that never existed as a distraction from them not doing the work in the first place. It won't cure them but you will no longer be the path of least resistance so they'll try their tricks out on others instead.

Comment: Re:1 thing (Score 1) 527

The link doesn't answer the question as to whether that 55% and 70% is from the total of people who were interviewed or the total of people who got the job. If it's the latter then that's bad news for people who do negotiate.
Also it's going to depend on the position and past experience. A recent graduation with no work history doesn't have much to negotiate with and it could be a race to the bottom if the employer considers all recent graduates to be equivalent. In other situations there is a lot more room to negotiate.

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team