Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment WTF with the title (Score 4, Insightful) 154

Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?

From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"

A more sensationalist title I've not seen on /. for a while.

How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:

Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty
Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content
Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty
ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions

sheesh.

Comment Re:Killing me softly with Slashvertisments (Score 1) 73

Dear god this must be a slow news day - I have never seen such a blatant slashvertisment in all the time I have wasted here.

Obligatory you must be new here.

Don't forget to introduce him to this!

1) Have slow news day
2) Post slashvertisement
3) {{eyeballs}}
4) PROFIT!!

p.s: Did I screw up? Opps, I forgot to use '????' on step 3. Now our secrets out! My bad!

Comment Re:If only they knew how to even use a hammer (Score 1) 62

Certainly the collection of the data should have never happened. However, instead of punishing the ISP, Anonymous is punishing the people who's data was copied from the ISP by publishing it to 'teh interwebs'. The ISP isn't going to be held accountable if someone (AKA: a criminal) uses this information to steal identities.

Here's the crux. Let's say that the stolen data isn't used by a criminal organisation for 5, 10 or more years. Enough of it will still be valid for identity thieves to use 10 years from now. Companies usually only pay for about 2 years of identity protection after a data breach like this. (Which is another problem, I agree!) That being said... Good job, Anonymous! You effectively made more than a few victims to your childish antics which will negatively effect these peoples lives for years to come.

So. Who did Anonymous victimize again? The ISP or ump-teen thousand innocent people?

I'll end this by discussion by filling in the typical idealistic response now. "But,...but,...those people shouldn't allow their data to be retained and shouldn't be doing business with that ISP."

As if they had a choice. By the ISP, by the government, or by Anonymous.

Comment Re:Adverse reactions? (Score 1) 575

His lessons are too slow. It's like getting a lesson from Grandpa Simpson. He only teaches one tiny basic concept per video and it takes him at least five minutes to get there and another five repeating, and repeating, and repeating. I can't watch more than half a video before I can't take it anymore.

Not all students can learn as quickly and easily as most /. readers.

Indeed. In fact /.ers are so smart that most of them don't even have to read an article to know all the answers!

Well, *yeah*! We *knew* that, Genius!

Comment Re:Just like their trains... (Score 1) 389

Neat article you linked to there. Here's how it read to me.


TERRY GROSS: Right. So you know, you write that in Dubai they don't have, like, a sewage infrastructure to support high-rises like this one. So what do they do with the sewage?

KATE ASCHER: A variety of buildings there, some can access a municipal system but many of them actually use trucks to take the sewage out of individual buildings and then they wait on a queue to put it into a waste water treatment plant. So it's a fairly primitive system.

GROSS!

ASCHER: That's right. I'm told they can wait up to 24 hours before they get to the head of the queue. Now, there is a municipal system that is being invested in and I assume will connect all of these tall buildings in some point in the near future, but they're certainly not alone. In India many buildings are responsible for providing their own water and their own waste water removal.

So it's, it's really – we're very fortunate in this country that we assume we can plug into an urban system that can handle whatever waste the building produces. That's not the case everywhere else in the world.

GROSS!

ASCHER: Right. Well, you know, you have to remember that a place like Dubai really emerged in the last 50 years. It was a sleepy, you know, Bedouin town half a century ago. And what you do is when you bring in the world's, you know, most sophisticated architects and engineers, you can literally build anything, including a building of 140 or 150 stories. But designing a municipal network of sewage treatment is in some ways more complex.

It certainly requires more money and more time to make it happen, so one just seemed to jump ahead of the other.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 167

The trip Columbus took was ultimately to find a cheaper way to India. The fact that he found a new world was merely a coincidence, and actually meant a failure of the original mission.

Really? You're saying Columbus failed? Knowing what we know today about the shape of the world - which peoples of his time most certainly did not - can you really sit there and say he failed? He never had a chance! When someone is set up to fail, whether the participants know it or not, can you call it a failure? IMHO, I think not. Tragedy, maybe, but not failure - especially when so much more was learned about the world and set about events that altered the lives of damn near half the planet.

The investors that financed Columbus' trip were in it to make more money.

In the old days, government attitudes had swung perhaps to the other side: they completely ignored risks and were quite reckless at times. Good for exploration, bad for the health of people.

It might be interesting to add that a large portion of the explorations was (co-)funded by companies. The East India Company (both the Dutch and the English one) were companies, and were not owned by the crown or government.

It's also interesting that Spain offered Columbus 10% of any trade proceeds he gained from his trip. He was never paid.

Comment Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t (Score 4, Informative) 228

And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.

But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.

In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )

This is not correct. Actually the atmosphere in the boat while underway is 19-21% oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels are around 20% worldwide. The atmosphere on the ship is no different in any way from the atmosphere that you are currently in most likely (gas wise). What IS different is the pressure which changes with the depth the ship is at, the amount of time since the ship has "equalized pressure" by putting the exaust mast up, and the amount of people on the ship (you all breathe out more than you breathe in).

And this is where *your* boat took chances. Our boat kept the oxygen levels at about 13% to 15%. Yes, you read that correctly. Again, the smokers had to inhale *deeply* while attempting to light their cigarettes so they could create enough air-draw across the surface of their *lighters* to get the lighter to even light so they could light their cigarette. Low oxygen levels starve fires.

You say you've been in 3 fires and they were extinguished within 10 minutes? I'm very glad you did. However, wow. Amazing. How many captains did your boat(s) go through? While we had our own scares we only had 1 real fire on board while underway and it was nothing more than a smoking rag. Someone left it on top of the CO2 Candle where it began to smoke. It was amazing. I was one of the few who showed up in an EAB. Three guys showed up in their skivvies. People were on it *instantly*.

The only other time we had a near miss (and the scariest moment of my life, hands down) was when our 4500lbs Hydraulic line ruptured in the engine room. It was spraying 4500lbs PSI hydraulic fluid into the engine room. If the roving watch underway hadn't been standing *right* next to the kill switch when it ruptured I might not be here today. We surfaced and remained surfaced for 3 days drawing circles on nav charts in sea state 3 to sea state 4 seas. If the oxygen levels were any higher AND (I stress AND) the fluid would have sprayed at 4500psi for more than 30 seconds, it would have been a flame-thrower.

It's purely up to the CO on what level of O2 he wants the boat to run around at. Maybe they've enacted some regulation since I got out in late 1996; but, don't sit there and say I'm not correct. Certainly, in port the ship's O2 levels are in keeping with the surround local atmosphere - ~20%. Our boat kept O2 levels low purposefully under-weigh.

But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.

I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.

Okay so oddly enough there isnt really an "emergency route" on the ship for reasons that I wont detail here (it would take too long to explain). I do have to say that there are contingency plans in place for this kind of thing under normal in-port and at-sea times. But more importantly, the question asks why wasnt the hatch just shut? The answer is pretty simple actually. When the ship went into dry dock, they most likely removed the hatch all together. In other words, even if they used the "suffocate the fire" approach, it was probably done by putting a large piece of steel or other object over the place where the hatch would normally be. That would mean that more than likely what ever they used to suffocate it, was manufactured on location within the period of time that they state that the fire was burning.

Why remove the hatch? Because the hatch is only so big around which limits the size of the equipment and items that you can get on board in one piece. Try fitting a diesel engine through the hatch only wide enough to allow a MK-48 torpeedo to fit through. Square peg in a round hole kind of thing.

As a submarine sailor (nine years total, onboard the USS Ohio (SSBN 726), USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720) and USS James K. Polk (SSN 645))...

The goat locker (Senior enlisted quarters) on our boat (SSN-702) had a hatch that allowed personnel to escape from the chief's quarters to the torpedo room. The officers quarters bathroom had a panel that could be removed so they could escape into middle-level passage if their door was blocked. 21-man and 9-man berthing quarters were the only places that I know of where you were blocked in if the main door was blocked - oh, and the sonar array access tube.

USS Phoenix SSN-702

Comment Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t (Score 4, Informative) 228

I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is

yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.

Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.

And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.

But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.

In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )

I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.

Let me address this. While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to. See my previous post, above.

But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.

I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.

Comment Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t (Score 4, Informative) 228

Pardon my ignorance here. But I have a question.

I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is (every crew-member is trained in fire suppression on a sub). But since this ship was presumably unmanned and in dry dock, and presumably also still air-tight, why didn't they just close all the hatches in the effected areas and shut off the oxygen? I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen.

I am a former submariner.

1 - A submarine in dry dock is basically a ship on ship. A problem on one constitutes a problem on the other.

2 - There is a lot of piping throughout the boat. It contains either oxygen (@ 10's of PSI) or hydraulic fluid (@ thousands of PSI). If the piping burst, its source is a giant tank containing much more of the stuff in a different location of the boat. There are isolation valves, however, which may mitigate the problem for a while.

3 - There's this thing called a nuclear reactor. It's shut-down while in dry-dock but still requires power to keep it safe.

4 - Separating the reactor and the forward compartment is a giant tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel oil. If it over heats, well, yeah, kiss your asses goodbye.

5 - There's a HUGE battery on the boat for when the boat needs to run off of battery power. It contains an enormous amount of energy - so much so that if it caught fire and exploded, the sub, the dry-dock and the facilities surrounding it would be damn near vaporised. I think anything within a few miles would *easily* have its windows blown out if not flattened.

6 - If the reactor has a problem, you'll basically have Fukushima on your hands.

7 - Submarine fires (when the get large enough) dont stay a single class of fire for long. There is too much hydraulic fluid, electrical line and combustible materials for it to remain one class of fire for long - ergo, one can not simply spray water (seawater, btw) to extinguish it.

So, no. Shuttering the place up and trying to starve the fire isn't exactly a proactive manner to extinguish a fire.

Throw in skeleton crews (most systems shut down), lots of welding, oil and whatnot all over the deck and you have a recipe for disaster on your hands. I'm surprised there arn't more fires of this magnitude more often.

More questions? Guess I'll read below and answer some there, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?

Working...