You misunderstand. The bus is ethernet. You can plug anything you want into the ethernet plug without giving it unlimited access to your system memory. Just like you can plug anything into a (mythical) properly implemented USB bus without any risk, but UNLIKE Firewire and Thunderbolt.
40Gbps ethernet cards use DMA securely and offer sustained data rates that USB can only dream of.
USB 3.0 has this exact same feature (DMA), so yes, yes you should expect a USB thumb drive to be able to do this.
Ethernet controllers work by DMA, yet they do not offer random access to anyone who plugs anything into the bus. There is no inherent reason why DMA means full access.
Thunderbolt and Firewire are different, in that they are "controllerless". They are simply PCI bridges.
That is pretty much how industry works. There is a right way to shut down a plant, and it involves a lot of things done in the right order. You can do an emergency shut down, and that will not kill anyone, but you will at minimum have to throw a lot of the stuff away that was going through the plant at the time.
Steel works are about a worst-case example of this. Lose power at the wrong time and you have no-longer-melted steel stuck in all the wrong places with no way to remove it. Removing this risk is impossible.
It is difficult to think of something LESS secure than plugging USB sticks into production equipment. I will take ethernet over that any time. At least the ethernet controller and driver is likely to be fairly secure, unlike the USB host and driver.
Moreover, if they do exist they should be wholly insulated from the Internet
Systems which are insulated from the Internet rarely get security updates and security reviews often miss them. Yet all it takes is a compromised laptop on the wrong network or a USB stick inserted into the wrong machine, and suddenly the whole "secure" network is up for the taking.
Critical systems should be designed to function despite FSB, Mossad, and the NSA all have having direct access to every LAN. Alas, that is practically impossible to achieve today, industrial systems and management functions do not have the necessary security features to work in such an environment.
Show me a car that gets 6l/100km *and* has an 80l gas tank and I'll sell you a bridge.
I know it is cheating, but you can fairly easily do 1000 miles per tank in a modern diesel, as long as you stay below 60mph or so and avoid cities. I did around 40l for around 1200km over a couple of weeks in a rented BMW.
They work for bilingual users. Case-insensitive file systems are limited to languages with identical case folding. The rest of us are screwed.
do you feel it's a good thing for something.dat and Something.dat to reference two different files? Because that would never confuse users, right?
Case sensitivity is locale-dependent. If the user is bilingual, the file system then has to guess which language the user is thinking in when opening files.
They were a truly great people and culture who were light years ahead of this disgusting and degenerate "progressive"/Jewish multiculturalist tyranny we find ourselves subjected to.
You missed the memo. You people are supposed to be on the Jewish side against Islam now.
Well, Iraq was pushed to collapse. That did not go so well. Syria was pushed to collapse. Not ideal either.
Burma/Myanmar was not pushed to collapse, and instead relations were softened. That is going fairly well.
I am not sure the push-to-collapse strategy has any successes to its name. Well possibly Germany 1945.
The problem with electric pianos is likely to be the speaker, not the electronics.
A nuclear reactor has a life span in decades, and needs more than a decade to pay itself back. There is no way anyone is going to make that investment when the business case involves something as speculative as tar sand. Tar sand is barely profitable now, who knows what it will be like in 2 or 5 years, never mind the 20+ you need to justify building a reactor.
The same amount of oil will be burned if it comes from tar sands or from a well.
Oil from a well causes considerably less CO2 emission compared to oil from tar sands. The tar sand does not boil itself.
So the master plan is to force producers to burn more fuel in the course of providing fuel so that consumers will burn less fuel?
More or less, yes. An actual extraction tax which would provide revenue (and replace harmful wage taxes) would be infinitely preferable, of course. However that is not on the table,