Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment wrong and trivial solutions (Score 4, Interesting) 378

First, dozens of people shouldn't have administrative access to a particular ATM at once. Where I work, most systems have one or two people with passwords. If both people get hit by a bus, you can boot from a USB stick and proceed from there, but only two people have admin accounts.

Regarding the logistics of controlling who has access to what, every organization with more than a very few employees needs to manage who has access to what, and that's been true for thousands of years. It's very much a solved problem. Most companys use Active Directory for this purpose. Since ATMs already have card readers, an obvious answer for routine maintenance is to have the employee swipe their employee ID card. The ATM then uses its existing network connection to authorize access via AD. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, the solution was a key rack held by a designated employee. Other remployees would check out the keys they needed to use that day. It's kind of an interesting problem, but one that has been solved since roughly the Roman empire or so.

Comment best in thread. (Score 2) 170

I think this post may be the best in the thread because it answers the question (time based, not coy power), it's somewhat practical unlike astronomical solutions, and recent events show it would be secure. If multiple motivated governments can't find an airliner, someone in a Snowden-like position could be reasonably confident that a small container dropped even just off the coast of California would remain there for quite a long time.

Comment EPA: methane 20 times worse (Score 1) 322

The EPA says:
CH4 (methane) is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

As you said, in thelong term methane becomes co2, so if you're worried about co2, you should also be that much more concerned about methane. Therefore, one who is concerned about global warming would be concerned about hydroelectric. Not that it matters much - there are only a certain number of places that can be flooded by building hydroelectric dams. Hydro is self-limiting.

Comment Methane (hydroelectric) much worse than CO2 (Score 1) 322

> without greenhouse gas emissions. States with access to Hydro

Methane, which hydroelectric dams produce thousands of tons of, is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. You do go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you do it because it'll never run out. Natural gas is a better choice in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. See ex Fearnside for details, or International Rivers links to good to sources of detailed info. (International Rivers is not objective, but they link to reliable sources).

Comment Wishful? Trade is a two-way street, is it not? (Score 3, Interesting) 322

"China is enormously dependent on access to advanced-country markets". If Americans, for example, didn't have access to BUY goods from China, a lot of our inexpensive consumer goods would cost quite a bit more. Cables for electronics, lightbulbs, trash cans, trailer hitches, and a million other things would cost alot more to produce domestically. Therefore, cutting ourselves off from China would mean we could afford to buy less - we'd all become poorer, in terms of purchasing power. In that way, we're nearly as dependant on China as they are on us, are we not?

Krugan certainly knows more about global economics than I do, but he's not shy about the fact that his writings are as much about promoting a liberal agenda as they are about understanding how global markets actually work. His book and blog are both titled The Conscience of a Liberal. Perhaps this proposal is a bit of wishful thinking, of wanting to promote "green", setting aside the fact that we don't really have much leverage over China. Heck, we've been trying for decades to get them to have some respect for basic human rights and we haven't been able to coerce them to do anything on human rights that they didn't want to do. They've been quite bold with claiming territory and sending warships to places they ought not be, so they don't seem to think the western countries have any leverage to rebuke them.

Comment most unions don't choose the managmnt. Union presi (Score 2) 216

It was a former union president who pointed out to conservatives the problem of having unions "negotiating" with the politicians they put in office. This is completely different from most unions, who negotiate with companies. An endorsement from the police and teachers' unions normally all but guarantees the election for a mayor or city council. Throw in some cash contributions and campaigning by the teachers' union and the police union ...

What ends up happening is that the police and teachers unions hand money to a mayoral candidate. A month later, the now mayor hands your money to the union. It's a win for the union and a win for the politician, a lose for the taxpayers and citizens who aren't represented in this process. The politician is supposed to represent the citizens owes a huge favor to the union.

Prior to the 1980s, was kind of common sense, everybody saw the conflict of interest. In the 1980s, a former union president became ppresident of the US, and defined modern conservatism. Because Reagan pointed out the obvious conflict of interest, democrats suddenly didn't want to talk about it. Democrats extreme and illogical support for screwing the citizenry is only because that was the position they had to take in order to be opposite of Reagan - who, as president of a union, obviously wasn't anti-union. He was anti-screw-over-the-citizens-with-an-obvious-conflict-of-interest.

Secondly, and even more importantly, what do unions do when they don't want to accept a negotiated contract? They go on strike. If GM doesn't give the auto union what they want, there is a strike and GM doesn't build any cars for a week. If the police union doesn't get what they want, they go on strike and there's no police protection for a week? Really? You think the union should be allowed to hold the entire city hostage like that?

Comment GP didn't say public or watch it (Score 1) 216

> you might well miss whatever it is that you're wanting to see because you're looking at a different monitor at the time.

Who said anything about watching 24/7? When an event like this occurs, the attorneys get the video from car #54 at 2:45 PM.

> Nor the logistical challenge of uploading that much data to a server while the officer is out on patrol.

Yes, that's true.

> There's also the issue of all the people they come into contact that don't necessarily want their images being put on a publicly accessible website.

Who said anything about a public web site?

Comment Chevy Silverado VHO, GMC Syclone (Score 1) 417

The longevity of the B-52 is impressive.

> imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette.

GM DID make a Chevy Silverado VHO and the GMC Syclone, which was in fact faster than a Vette. The Silverado VHO was a pretty good truck, which was a little slower than a Corvette. I don't know how the Syclone was for truck duty, but I do know that a work truck and a fast car both rely on having a powerful engine and stiff suspension.

Comment Pendleton Act only outlaws requiring political con (Score 1) 272

The Pendleton Act only says that civil service employees can't be required to make political contributions , and can't be fired FOR FAILURE TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. The president can fire executive branch appointees for any other reason (except race, religion, age over 40).

Comment by coming home most of the time (Score 1) 417

> How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)?

First mission: kill some bad guys
Next mission: kill some bad guys
100 missions later: get shot down

Generally, a pilot doesn't keep flying around after a mission, waiting to get shot. You do your job, then go home. If you do your job 11 times and you're still alive, that's the 11:1 kill ratio.

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise your boss. Get to work on time.

Working...