You are doing bug tracking by hand??? We used to that back in the 1990's. I was given a three day task to sort, reorder, prioirtize about 200 open tickets in a single text file. Wrote a script in six hours to do this automatically, and had the report completed in minutes. Today, we would just use bug-tracking software like Jira

https://www.atlassian.com/soft...

I've been pointing out the risks of router poisoning for, what, 17 years now.

Ever since the NSA started demonstrating router poisoning, it was only a matter of time before even the script kiddies figured it out.

I've been pointing out that the current rash of cryptocurrencies have excessive reliance on trust for the past year.

This sort of attack was inevitable. Bitcoin can plead semi-innocence because strong authentication is counter to strong anonymity. However, no router on the Internet should accept rogue announcements - even from three letter agencies - or accept unauthorized changes to the running configuration or active router tables.

MITM attacks are exceptionally dangerous and the hazards can only get worse.

IE is supported? When did this happen?

Last I heard, they reluctantly release updates when other parts of the OS beat them on bugs per kg of code. (They stopped measuring lines when someone googled the term.)

I wouldn't worry too much about Fukushima, per se.

It's the fact that the State Secret law passed days after the abandonment of the pacifist sections of the Constitution, at a time Japan desperately needs to get rid of masses of deadly radioactive material, that you need to concern yourself with.

The union of the two sets is not equal to the universal set of all nuclear power options.

Your argument is therefore irrelevant. Please meme and try again.

I can accept that, but with reservations.

A lack of timely information lies at the heart of all nuclear accidents, large and small. It would seem to follow that to improve safety, you'd want to improve on sensors - the number, resilience and backups.

They were using helicopters, IIRC, which raises the question of what cameras and other sensors could have been used on those helicopters to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.

Did they try firing simple rockets into the reactor core? Something capable of carrying a rad-hardened instrument package and a transmitter capable of being received by a helicopter. A camera, a spectrometer, a thermometer even. Something that would extend their knowledge of the problem.

If they failed to make any real effort to prepare an adequate sensor grid in advance and failed to take basic steps to minimize uncertainty, then blunders from a lack of knowledge can't be blamed simply on that lack of knowledge. It stops being one of those things and starts looking like a massive failure and disastrous incompetence.

Back when the accident happened, a significant number of Slashdotters were saying that no meltdown had occurred, that there was no significant structural damage, that no radioactive material would reach the sea, that the incident was overblown and that the plant would be largely still operational.

At this point, the discussion is not about how thoroughly the facility has been totalled but in what way.

I don't care that there was limited data available at the start, drawing conclusions from data you don't have (aka making things up) is not an excuse. If you don't know, don't pretend you do. It is because TEPCO pretended that they knew that the world lacks much-needed nuclear power. It is because TEPCO made things up rather than obtained data that an accident was possible. Don't be a TEPCO.

For those who defended the company, who downplayed the crisis as a nothing, who ignored any available information that didn't suit their preferred outcome, I am still awaiting an apology.

An apology for deliberate pollution of the debate
An apology for every post by every sceptical slashdotter modded to oblivion for the purpose of stifling debate
An apology to Slashdot itself for so abusing the moderating system
An apology for depriving the community of your own thought processes
An apology for not once, in all subsequent Slashdot debates, conceding that honest debate is superior to dishonest control

Maybe, by 2024, pride and conceit will be at levels where this is possible.

It's basically looking for a needle in a haystack, but for a router, the haystack is a lot smaller than on a full OS.
Any code affecting normal operation speeds would also be easier to spot - additional packet inspection can incur a noticable hit on a device that prides itself on passing packets as quickly as possible and allowing as many simultaneous connections as possible.

A billion dollar security firm won't sign up for a $120 per year service per site to not see the data behind the breach, but to be given an unsubstantiated statement of whether they allegedly are affected or not.

Why would they? That would just be opening up for all kinds of protection rackets.

Could be worse:

- Here, my $120, what's going on with this?
- You're affected. Change your password, goodbye.
- But, hey, my web site doesn't have any passwords, how can it be affected?
- Yes, you're affected, goodbye.

Until they pony up some evidence, this sounds like scam much like the cold callers who tell you you have a virus.

True. Having two left eyes or two right eyes would be awkward.

Assume they cracked the NSA backdoor default password and can now access everything on every computer not running a hardened operating system. In other words, everything, whether you change your passwords or not. Further, assume they have remote access via UEFI to every motherboard built in the past year.

You might as well, that level of access has been built into modern technology, if this group hasn't figured it out, someone will. Or maybe already has.

We live in an age where technology is insecure by design. You can either abandon all hope (my preferred option) or you can adjust your approach to not depend on external security.

It's 70% average. For the Democratic judges, it's much lower. For the Republican judges, you could probably dispense with them and use the code as it stands. Since the algorithm falls short of true AI, this clearly implies a lot about how decisions are made and what with.

Since you fail on the example you tried to parse, I suggest that although the theory is easy, personal prejudice always takes precedence over what is written.