Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Integral layer of the Trusted-Computing/DRM sta (Score 1) 34

Every time people hear what it actually involves is outrage and opposition, at least all the way back to when Intel first announced that they wanted to hardcode identity numbers inside CPUs in 1999. But the corporations involved have been relentless, and have sunk countless billions of dollars steadily forcing it forwards, and building front organizations to obfuscate and whitewash it.

With Windows 11, Microsoft was finally able to FORCE Trusted computing hardware into every new computer. Not just every new Windows computer, but every computer.

Every new Intel PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new AMD PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new ARM PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. The only processor lines that DON'T have it are the microcontrollers.

There are some unlocked smartphones available, but as far as I can determine it's literally impossible to buy a smartphone that doesn't have hardware trusted computing built in.

I specified that enforcing Trusted Computing at the internet access level is still a long term goal, they couldn't get away with it today. However they are well on the way to success. Virtually all new hardware supporting trusted computing, all the front groups rolling out standards and systems, and as it gets incorporated into things everyone is going to increasingly running into situations where they get locked out of stuff if they're not Trusted Computing compliant. Streaming already restricts you to the worst quality if you're not compliant, and it's only going to get worse as pre-Win11 computers fade out and as more things require it.

Comment Re:Dual purpose age-bracket signal :o (Score 1) 128

I'd hardly call exact date of birth "low information content".

And yes this does reveal exact date of birth, regardless of the bullshit obfuscation that it supposedly only reports age range. The server simply tracks the reported result every time the user connects, and on some specific day the result CHANGES to announce their date of birth.

-

Comment Integral layer of the Trusted-Computing/DRM stack (Score 1) 34

This is based on SLSA (Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts), brought to you by the same fuckers making Trusted Computing and the TMP (Trusted Platform Module). It's part of the same shitstack to prohibit you from altering your software and to lock you out of your own files, and to send spy reports out over the internet so you can be cut off if you "fail" the Trusted Computing check.

The software can use a TPM's (Trusted Platform Module) Sealing function to encrypt your data such that it's impossible to access your own data if the software is modified. It can then pass control over that data only to software updates that carry a signed security certificate from Broadcom (or any other company using this system).

It is no longer open source, your system no longer works as you can no longer access your Sealed data if you change so much as a single letter of the code. Even recompile unaltered code won't work, unless you magically manage to get your build environment absolutely identical to the company's build environment and get byte-for-byte output. Even that may be impossible with the newer levels of non-deterministic compiler optimizations.

Also, with TMP's Remote Attestation feature can be used to transmit your machine's software configuration over the internet, so that you can be cut off if your system doesn't match Broadcom (or other company's) cryptographically signed certificate.

And then of course there's Network Access Control (NAC) / Trusted Network Connect (TNC). In the long term, the goal is for ISPs to use NAC/TNC to interrogate your computer for Trusted Computing compliance, and deny you any internet access whatsoever if your machine isn't compliant. Software with this sort of "security" certificate would pass inspection, while any attempt to alter the code would be detected as "tampering". You then get "quarantined". What "quarantine" means is that you are denied internet access - with the exception that you do get very restricted access which can only be used to download the approved software to "fix" your computer into Trusted Computing compliance.

Comment "Smaller than a hair" - no (Score 1) 15

If you read the article carefully, they are talking about lenses THINNER than a hair. I see several of the posts here thinking the width/radius of the lenses is this small, a reasonable mistake given the way this was written. Having a radius that small would severely reduce their light gathering ability, requiring very bright light or very dim images or very long exposure times.

-

Comment Re:No, this is not why (Score 1) 177

"....China turns to nuclear power to try to meet carbon emissions goals....."

No, this is not why. They are not trying to meet any carbon emission goals. They have no goals, other than growing the economy and making it sanction proof.

Most American military believes that China's air quality has gotten so bad that the Chinese government is afraid of creating the first air quality government overthrow.

They are trying to control carbon emissions to keep from being defenestrated.

 

Where does this crazy idea come from, that the Chinese are fully sold on the climate emergency

You can meet carbon goals for reasons other than the environment.

 

Where do people get this wishful thinking about China from?

Do you actually get a towel to wring while you plead, for authenticity?

Comment Re:A trap for moronic investors (Score 1) 177

Duh. This is a variant of a typical "Nigerian prince" scam.

They actually made the ship. It's a running nuclear reactor that delivers power in the real world. No Nigerian Prince scam has ever built a working nuclear reactor, little buddy.

 

The completely unreasonable proposition is a feature to filter out everyone, but the most moronic investors.

Uh. The Chinese government is doing this, and isn't taking investors. Be less paranoid.

What's unreasonable about putting a nuclear reactor on a ship? America's been doing this since 1952. It's 2023.

Comment Re:Thorium mining (Score 4, Informative) 177

Mostly I'm on board with your excellent comment. A few things though.

 

However, on average, despite being transformed into uranium, it's radioactive products are on average shorter lived

It's not clear why you believe this. This is not correct. Uranium decays the same way regardless of how it was created.

 

But TLDR: it's about the same as traditional reactors.

The LFTR advantage isn't a real thing. It's a youtube myth.

There's no real problems with class 3 PWR in an engineering sense. It's safe, it's reliable, it's well understood. America has had more than half of the world's meltdowns - over 100 - and a reactor has never killed a person here. There's a good argument that nuclear power is not just the safest power technology, but indeed the safest technology of any kind, ever invented.

LFTR claims four advantages:

1. Safer. Horseshit. We've never run one and we have no idea what its safety characteristics are. Back in the 1950s we thought PWR couldn't melt down, too. Lars and Ed are just unimaginative; it's not very difficult to think of serious problems beginning with the infiltration tank cracking. Go ask Cavan; he can go on for ages about unconsidered risks.
2. Cheaper. Again, horseshit. We had built 20 nuclear plants for the price we've spent researching this one. Nuclear plants have been made by individual teenagers. You might as well spend ten billion dollars inventing a cheaper $5 watch. You will never build enough of them to pay the delta off.
3. Small modular scale. ***Horseshit***. Nothing in engineering stops anyone from building PWRs at that scale. The reason we don't do it is economic: the structure of the legal overhead from auditing and validating a plant makes them not cost effective. That's why France and South Korea regularly build smaller plants than anyone else - they have advanced auditing schemes that do not require anywhere near as much pointless overhead.
4. Factory buildable. Well, this would be a nice advantage, except y'know, I've been hearing Lars talk about converting a shipyard for more than 20 years, and work hasn't begun, yet. A factory to build regular PWR could be built much faster than that, including replacing Japan Steelworks, if anyone actually wanted to.

They solved a bunch of problems that aren't the problems the industry faces; they built a device that needs a legal and regulatory regieme that doesn't exist; and now they can't figure out why they can't get customers.

And you think those deep brains are going to solve this?

 

Probably a bit less, because you can basically burn the thorium completely, where with Uranium you still have like 90% of the fuel remaining when you pull it out as waste.

You seem to be forgetting about breeder reactors.

Comment Re:"zero emmissions"? (Score 1) 177

Neither. You can handle yellowcake with your bare hands safely. They wear gloves to protect the fuel, not the person.

You know your relatives are eating off of uranium plates, right? It's called "fiestaware," and they're eating trace amounts with every forkfull of ceramic dust

It's unfortunate that slashdot has fallen so far that any time someone with no experience in a field doubts something, they say something sanctimonious like "can't tell if trolling or wrong"

that sort of behavior will severely limit you in the long run, tailor

Comment Re:I remember (Score 1, Informative) 177

You conveniently overlooked the 20 years of red-tape profiteering and corruption

That's probably because those things aren't real. I also ignored the vampire squad .

It's practically a patented American budget-destroying process

I don't suppose you have a single specific real world example of this moaning you're doing that you're able to give evidence of?

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...