Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment No... (Score 1) 154

A hybrid drive is better for MOST users. very few users can figure out how to configure windows to put /users elsewhere from the main drive. It's a HUGE design flaw that they dont let you pick it at install time like every other freaking OS on the planet.

Comment Trashes the car (Score 1) 388

I wonder how hard it is to clean that stuff up afterwards?

Trashes the car. Not a huge deal in a stripped out racing car presuming the fire doesn't do any major damage. In a carpeted passenger vehicle you'll basically ruin the interior and quite possibly parts of the engine depending on the system. While it is possible to clean it it would cost a bleeding fortune to do so.

Comment No he does not (Score 4, Insightful) 388

Seems to me that Elon Musk may have some egg on his face since he so boldly offered to help out Boeing redesign their battery system on the 787 not to long ago

There is a huge difference between catching fire due to (apparently) catastrophic damage from flying debris and catching fire due under expected use conditions. So the answer is no, he does not have any egg on his face.

It seems that Tesla's Li-ion batteries are just as likely to catch on fire!

Any Li-ion battery can become flammable under the right conditions.

Comment Careful (Score 1) 388

c) perhaps evaluate whether a small extinguishing system could be incorporated into the design. (BONUS POINTS)

Have to be careful with things like that. It would be VERY easy for competitors to spin that as "Tesla's are so dangerous they need a fire extinguishing system". Stupid argument under the light of day but stupid people and lawmakers (but I repeat myself) are influenced by stupid arguments.

Comment Some actual facts (Score 2) 527

The US depends on it's software industry; we shipped all our labor jobs overseas to trade them for office work (programming).

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that the US has a multi-Trillion manufacturing sector which employs around 12 million people?

Bear in mind that the size of the global market for software is around $300 Billion and the number of US software developers is around 900,000.

Comment Not always (Score 1) 174

Security done right improves profit.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it is cheaper to just insure a problem than to improve security. Sometimes the security costs more than the loss that would be incurred by not worrying about it. Sometimes you are correct and adjusting or adding security measures is economically sensible. Not all security problems are created equal and not all of them can be economically mitigated by adding more/better security.

Research has proven that you can actually more than get back the cost of spending money on good security and turn a profit by having less bugs and flaws in your systems.

Sometimes true. Sometime not true. It depends on the risks you face and the cost of mitigating them. It is not as simple as more security = better ROI in all cases.

Comment Overlooked or overvalued? (Score 1) 174

Security is hard. Security is expensive. Security does not improve profits

You forgot that the cost of extra security can easily be higher than the benefit provided. Should I add security for a risk for which I am adequately insured even if the cost of the security would be higher than the cost of the insurance? Security is almost always a tradeoff against operational efficiency and cost. Are you SURE you know where the optimal balance between the two is and have done the math to prove it? (If you say yes I'm going to call you a liar) I don't think I've ever seen an IT manager do a proper cost/benefit (including but not limited to financial) of adding additional security.

Too often security gets foolishly overlooked and underfunded. Other times security can be overkill for the value of what is being guarded. The difficult bit is knowing where the difference between the two lies. If you want to get more funding for security then make a business case for it. It's not as hard as you think.

Comment Overtime is never legally unpaid (Score 1) 174

Most employers now routinely expect that employees will be paying attention to and responding within the hour to work email at almost all times of all days.

Citation needed. (the article you cited does not support this claim)

Americans work about 10% overtime, completely unpaid, doing this.

Overtime is never (legally) unpaid. If you are salaried there effectively is no such thing as a 40 hour work week and thus there is no such thing as overtime. If you are paid hourly it is required by law that you be paid for any time worked and not doing so can result in some serious consequences.

Comment Where to draw the line is hard (Score 1) 174

Its really simple, REAL security costs good money, takes real time and effort and doesn't show immediate results on the bottom line so most companies? Just don't give a fuck.

While you are correct about the costs and effort, the cold hard calculus is whether the costs outweigh the benefits. Just because better security can be done it doesn't always follow that it should be done. For companies that deal with sensitive customer information or sensitive trade secrets there is no question the costs *should* be made to be quite high for bad security if they aren't already. (unfortunately too often they are not) Security is highly similar to insurance. You want enough to ensure that you or your customers aren't bankrupted if there is a problem but there is no point in paying for more than you actually need. There are two questions you have to answer. First, what level of risk are you willing to live with? Second, what constitutes "adequate" security for your needs? The first question is probably easier to answer than the second.

I'll use my company as an example. Almost nothing we do requires substantially better security than you would use to secure your personal bank account and computer files. We have adequate insurance to guard against the risks we are most likely to face (theft, fraud, property damage, liability, etc) and the customer data we deal in generally is not particularly sensitive. When it is sensitive we have measures in place to deal with that to a reasonable degree. We could spend a lot more money on security but quite frankly it really would provide little/no measurable benefits to us or to our customers. Could a diligent individual penetrate our security measures? Sure. Could they benefit from doing so? Not much. Would our customers be hurt? Very unlikely. Would the severity of security breach cost us or our customers more than the cost of the extra security? Not that we can tell. So I ask you should we put a lot of money and effort into extra security despite knowing that there is unlikely to be any tangible benefit in doing so?

Comment Re:No Shit, Sherlock (Score 5, Informative) 174

You got that right. Security is hard. Security is expensive. Security does not improve profits (as long as they continue to be lucky). The company that spends money on security while their competitors are not, will lose out. Therefore, who needs it? There's no sense of living dangerously without some really spectacular examples...

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Working...