Just basic literacy will help a lot. Most conflicts in the world involve illiterate soldiers on one or both sides. Modern war is very expensive, and very destructive. War almost never makes economic sense. Most countries have market economies, so if your neighbor has resources that you want, you don't need to take it by force, you can just buy it.
Bad for you, worse for the other guy. Don't underestimate how much the stronger player can abuse their position until they go one step too far.
That's because most (but not all) USB serial devices use +5/0v rather than +/-12V. Most but unfortunately not all of them are tolerant of +-12V. By the same token, some 12V serial devices will communicate with a TTL serial port and some won't.
Going by spec, it's the TTL level port's fault if they don't communicate, but it's so common these days we might as well consider TTL the standard and 12V operation is a bonus.
The TTL level ports started showing up well before USB was a thing.
Just to make it worse, there are now 3.3V "serial" ports in the wild and some of them do not tolerate TTL levels! That's not good, but at least they are implemented only as header pins on the board and not a 9 pin D.
You're right -- sorry about that, and now fixed.
They can't make a modern reactor explode like Chernobyl did. It's not physically possible. Our oldest reactors could be convinced to have quite a meltdown and result in huge damage, but the terrorists would have to maintain control of the reactor for a good while and could not make it explode.
1: Ransomware is on the rise, with new vectors.
2: There is zero incentive (financial or otherwise) for IoT vendors to do anything but lip service to security. As a PHB told me a few years ago, "show me where purchasing a padlock, a card access reader, or a secure appliance has ever shown a financial gain for any company other than to Assa-Abloy or a lock maker." Of course, this is fallacious reasoning, but it is pretty common.
3: Testing is abbreviated at best. The goal is to get the IoT devices to market fast... worry about glitches, bugs, and security items later, or maybe fix them in the 2.0 version.
4: There are no IoT security standards, or architectures .
5: There is no assurance about security, other than maybe a pretty lock icon, or "protected by 256 bit AES"... generic drivel. When I buy a padlock, I can buy one with "Sold Secure", "Insurance lock rated", or other ratings that the lock passed some heavy testing. When I have an electrical appliance, it is UL listed. There is no body that can show security compliance for an IoT device. So, I have nothing but the word of an advertiser.
All and all, IoT devices are a win/win for tracking companies and blackhats... but for the people shelling out cash for the devices? Not much. I don't have any BlueTooth light bulbs, nor deadbolts accessible from the Internet. And I plan to keep it that way. In fact, if I were to pay for an expensive fridge, it would be a fridge that used propane or natural gas, so a power outage would only turn off the light inside, not affect cooling.
: An example of a reasonably secure architecture would be devices that communicated via BlueTooth or Wi-Fi to a hardened hub appliance, which then communicated to the Internet. This way, there would be no direct access from the outside to IoT devices, and the hub appliance could be configured with IDS/IPS rules to block out a compromised appliance.
It may be excessive in some sense, but USB serial has absolutely replaced serial ports on desktop and laptop machines. I can get all the serial ports I want by plugging in inexpensive USB serial devices. The microcontroller in the device may be excessive, but no more so than the glue logic for a PCI device would be just to transmit at 115,200 bpx MAX.
I agree completely on the parallel port. The only remaining use I have for a parallel port is as poor man's GPIO lines. Unfortunately, for reasons that elude me, the standard for USB parallel ports doesn't accommodate that at all.
And it sure has hell wasn't Greenpeace or the Clamshell Alliance.
It was the 1980s oil glut that did the deed. That was especially devastating following on the heels of the 1970s oil crisis, because so many companies who entered the alternative energy business in the late 70s only to have the floor cut out from under them in 1980. I had a good friend who quit his job at a software company in 1980 to go to work for a company developing a seasonal thermal energy storage scheme. He was an accountant and according to him the numbers were solid as long as oil prices were north of $100/bbl. That was in May of 1980 when oil was trading at $114/bbl. 13 months later the price of oil had fallen to $60/bbl. For the next five years the Saudis tried to prop up falling oil prices by cutting back production, but in '85 they gave up, opened the spigots, and oil prices dropped to $23/bbl.
The economic reaction was entirely what you'd predict with oil prices at a 40 year low. The development of new energy technologies stalled. Cars got bigger again and SUVs of unprecedented size and low fuel economy became wildly popular. And new nuclear plant starts dried up. Oh, the industry pointed the finger at the big, bad environmental movement, which is laughable because so far as I know they only nuclear power plant ever canceled due to protests was the monumentally stupidly sited Bodega Bay in 1964. Imagine for a moment the Clams and all those guys didn't exist; it wouldn't have mattered in the least. Nobody is going to invest in new nuclear power plants when oil is priced at $18/bbl. But it sounds better to say that the Greens have put you out of business than to say the prices you used in your revenue projections were off by an order of magnitude.
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing