Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Billions can attack a network target (Score 1, Insightful) 22

If your asset is attached to the network, literally billions of people could potentially attack it, from anywhere on the world. Not only that, but they can unleash automated attacks upon your asset from other Internet targets they've previously compromised.

If your asset is on its own network, or is non-networked, that cuts down on the number of possible attackers tremendously.

So, critical infrastructure should NOT be on the Internet, or at least not without a correspondingly LARGE investment in security commensurate to the risk.

--PeterM

Comment Attack cross-section of networked things: large (Score 1) 230

There's a large difference between a vulnerability that requires someone to be physically present to exploit it (graffiti on a wall) and a vulnerability that potentially anyone on the planet with an internet connection can exploit--or a radio.

I actually agree with you, it's often not cost-effective to secure things that require physical access to exploit. However, network-connected things have potentially billions of attackers.

Furthermore, the attacks can be automated, so that one person can attack millions of targets.

Anything connected to the Internet is at far more risk than anything that is not.

--PM

Comment Actually, we can still have full employment (Score 5, Interesting) 147

Humanity doesn't really have to support people who never contribute. (Most people will retire or whatever, and some will never be fit to work).

1) Shrink the work week. (I consider this nonviable because it is wasteful)
We can shrink the "work week" to almost nothing. Then everyone needs to "work" at those few jobs which are still essential. You just divide up the work smaller and smaller. I think this is a stupid idea, because the overhead on learning the skills tends to infinity.

2) Employ everyone in jobs that can't be automated. This means people working in arts, and maybe the sciences (if that remains unautomated), eradicating the last of the diseases that still afflict humanity, etc. This means that the people who control resources will have to demand *far far* more arts and science than they currently do. Yet in an abundance society, there will be effectively more resources to demand creative output from people than there are people. Seems like no problem, it just takes willingness to put resources to use this way. This way, we can keep "work or die", but there *has* to be a commitment from those who control resources to *accept* whatever creative work can be done by the people that are alive. This is by far my preferred vision of human future, thanks Marshall Brain for the inspiration. It preserves motivation to continue creative work instead of allowing humanity to descend to total meaningless existence.

3) Provide handouts with no expectation of work. This *may* work out well, I don't think it's a proven fact that people won't do creative things without threat of starvation. I think some will be driven to create despite having all necessities handed to them.

Good outcome or bad depends only and solely on the greed of those who control resources. If they want to hog all the resources to themselves, far beyond their needs, then yes, it'll be a mass slaughter. If they want to allow humanity as a whole to use the available resources is some more equitable way, then it could end up as a paradise.

--PeterM

Comment Re: Even if my job isn't replaced, I still lose (Score 1) 99

So you acknowledge that you're screwed and need the help?

Good. I'm sort of tired of the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Instead of helping just you, how about we help everyone who needs to work?

Like for example, pay labor the same fraction of corporate productivity that labor got in 1973? Everyone would get 2x the purchasing power. I think that'd help you a lot more than I personally could help you. It would also help me.

--PM

Comment And lack of consumer purchasing power (Score 1) 99

The OTHER factor that idled the factories for 3 months was lack of demand.

D'you think the market would have been "flooded" if laborers had 2x the purchasing power?

And 2x the purchasing power is *exactly* what labor would have if labor had the same share of corporate productivity that labor had in 1973.

Instead, GM would be looking to build more factories instead of idling their capacity.

"Virtuous cycle: productivity increases leads to more pay in wages which leads to more demand which leads to more investment in productivity increases."

Guess what got broken when the elite started hogging all the benefits of increased productivity up to the top?

--PeterM

Comment Re: Even if my job isn't replaced, I still lose (Score 4, Insightful) 99

You know what, you're right about ME. I've built up enough funds to be in the "owns things" class. I personally will be just FINE, unless of course, I get unlucky and some unanticipated medical expenses wipe me out. (This could easily happen to ANYONE who isn't independently wealthy.)

However, there are a LOT of people out there, mainly younger than me, who weren't born with wealth and who rely on their labor to have any sort of standard of living or future. Right now, many of these people are living paycheck to paycheck with no chance to get ahead right now. I know lots of these people. They are often more inherently talented than I was, and work just as hard or harder.
  However, they don't have the same opportunities, in general, that I did. They had to pay more for school and are saddled with debt. Fewer jobs are available to them.

The "ownership class" isn't open to them because, without reward from labor, they can't bootstrap themselves into it.

And unlike a lot of people who have succeeded, I'm not willing to turn my back on those that come later and say, "I got mine. **** you."

--PeterM

Comment Even if my job isn't replaced, I still lose (Score 5, Insightful) 99

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that if a substantial fraction of labor gets displaced, market forces will tend to devalue *all* labor.

Yes, maybe *my* job is safe, but my pay doesn't have to stay high.

Suppose all truck drivers are replaced with automation. That's 1M more people on the job market. Yes, maybe they can't do MY job, but, with no alternative, they'll try to get educated and move up the labor food chain.

And with more people in general chasing ever fewer jobs, there'll always be someone willing to do any given job for cheaper--including mine.

Arguably this has already happened significantly. Do you realize that the share of corporate productivity that goes to labor has shrunk in half compared to 1973?

That if labor got the same share of productivity today that it had in 1973, that we'd all have 2x the purchasing power? I'd love to be paid 2x the purchasing power. I'd be done with my mortgage, be completely unworried about retirement and paying for medical care, etc.

I welcome automation replacing labor, but we have to find a way to distribute the resulting wealth such that the people who own things have don't have ALL the wealth and so that the people who can no longer make ends meet in a depressed labor market can live decent lives.

--PeterM

Comment Re:Ya know what? (Score 3, Insightful) 281

You a troll? This guy didn't say "I got mine screw you". He served the community by taking a risk and getting himself and his kids vaccinated. That's the exact opposite of "got mine screw you".

What he's saying is, "I contributed to the public safety at some small risk to myself and mine, SCREW the people too selfish and cowardly to do the same!"

Comment Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit (Score 4, Insightful) 532

Hello,

    There are in fact a few positive reasons for smoking. Nicotine helps schizophrenics regulate their illness. Also, nicotine helps some intestinal disorders.

    However, seemingly the use of e-cigs or nicotine patches or other safer nicotine delivery would provide the same benefits at far lower risk.

--PM

Comment Burning gas directly drives turbines (Score 1) 504

When you burn natural gas in a gas turbine, which is I think routinely done in the USA, the burning gas/air mix directly spins a gas turbine. There is thus no intermediary medium as you claim.

That is one of the reasons gas is cheap to use. There's simply less capital involved in handling the intermediary medium. No boiler, steam generator, steam turbine, condenser, heat exchange.

https://powergen.gepower.com/r...

--PM

Comment Maybe more for the oxygen byproduct (Score 1) 228

The other product of the reaction is oxygen. You can't get energy out of ethanol without "burning" it, which would require an oxidizer (probably oxygen), however, you could make ethanol, discard it, and the people could breathe the oxygen generated.

If it's a pretty efficient process, the oxygen might be the "killer app" for Mars purposes, not the ethanol.

--PM

Comment I realize that you are wrong. (Score 1) 249

There IS still an issue if your child is immunized AND vaccines are effective.

1) Vaccines are rarely 100% effective. So something like 5% of people vaccinated can still get sick. Furthermore, in the case of measles, which is highly contagious, >~5% vulnerability in the population to measles is enough to support an epidemic. ~5% vulnerability means that measles doesn't get the chance to spread and is incapable of becoming epidemic.

2) It's an issue for ME anyway, if people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine, or are just sick, get sick because of vaccine non-compliers weakening herd immunity. For example, I don't some poor kid on chemotherapy with degraded immunity to die because someone else couldn't be bothered to get the measles shot.

I don't get vaccinated just for myself. I also get vaccinated FOR EVERYONE ELSE, and especially for the most vulnerable.

As for the rest of your comment, it is so incoherent that it's hard to decipher what you mean. Yes, vaccines fade in how well they provide immunity with time. That is why I get booster shots periodically--as should everyone. That said, the subclinical cases you mention are often also not very contagious.

--PM

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Working...