Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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 Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

I'll use food manufacturing plant I worked at as an illustration:

1. A production department produced the item - measuring, slicing, dicing, baking, mixing, frying, what have you. Production happens on-site.
2. Packaging involves portioning and sealing the item into a container, putting those containers into boxes, and palletizing the boxes so forklifts can move them about. Packaging happens on-site.
3. Distribution happens almost exclusively in a warehouse: taking product from the packagers, and dumping production lots in a warehouse. Then they picking individual boxes of products from one pallet and re-palletizing many different products into into individual orders for shipment. Distribution happens on-site.
4. Shipment is where they take a warehoused order, load it into a vessel (train, boat, truck, aircraft, etc), moving the vessel, and then unloading the vessel at either another warehouse, or a point of sale. Shipment by definition, touches sites, but is otherwise off-site.

They're utterly distinct, and have well-defined interfaces.

There are two ways to parse it (parenthesis added for clarity - I hope)

1. (Packaging for Shipment) and (Distribution)
2. Packaging (for Shipment or Distribution).

In any event, let's got with the way that the businesses hope to save money:
- "packaging for shipment" is just that - packaging inside a factory.
- "distribution" involves the folks working in a warehouse.

Shipping (and the truckers suing for overtime) on the other hand, have a good argument: shipping is not distribution.

Comment Re:2500 gallons? really? (Score 1) 331

Humanity grows in size, so we use more land to grow food.

At the end of the day, it comes down to "Can we grow food on this land," regardless of the land's "natual" state.

After that, it's a matter of "how can we profit the most by growing food on this piece of land." -- whether the profit is 'mankind's' overall profit, or just the landowner's pocketbook.

I've seen a number of "shock" billboards lately about the amount of water required to grow, say, a single egg... yet the billboard commits the sin of omission of not stating the staggering amount of water used to grow oats, for example.

It's not that oats are less water efficient than eggs, but that 50 gallons of water needed to grow a single egg is less worrying when you compare it to the amount of water needed to produce a bowl of oatmeal.

While the average consumer doesn't know exactly how many gallons of water it makes to grow a tomato, a hell of a lot of us grow gardens, and dump several thousand gallons of water into the garden each year -- and know that a tomato or carrot is far from "cheap" in terms of water required.

Comment Re:Credit stuff is one thing, federated ID is next (Score 1) 66

If anyone ever comes up with an easy way to break this, then everyone's going to be in for a round of password changes and free credit monitoring.

You mean like the Ashley Madison hack, where the hackers found a weakness in the implementation of bcrypt, and were able to compute user passwords in "Hollywood time"?

The bottom line there is that, like encryption, non-experts shouldn't develop their own implementations of a password hash. (Similar to "non-experts shouldn't implement encryption").

With a good implementation of a state-of-the-art password hash (such as Argon2), breaking a password hash isn't feasible.

Passwords, however, are so last century.

Anything that takes security seriously has a 2nd factor, of which there are a couple of excellent open standards, including OATH and FIDO U2F -- the latter of which involves cryptographic hardware and an encryption key which can't be recovered from the device (unless, maybe, you're the NSA).

With FIDO U2F, even if the password is in plain text, an attacker downloading the password database will be unable to authenticate without the U2F device (and its encryption key).

Comment Re:ObamaCare (Score 4, Insightful) 283

No. It was largely an attempt to get everybody in America on a health care plan, the idea being to grow the size of the pool of people paying into health plans, and distributing the costs across all Americans.

It's had a vigorous effort to repeal it before it was passed, and the alternative is shaping up to be right out of a Christmas Carol: "If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Comment Re:So could I... (Score 1) 274

GPS Disciplined NTP.

Some GPS modules have a PPS (Pulse per second) accurate to around 10 ns, though cheap ones are more like 20-200 ns. Interrupt latencies on the computer adds some inaccuracy.

But with a Raspberry Pi 3 and a $35 add on board, you can get a stratum 1 NTP server accurate to a couple microseconds.

https://www.ntpsec.org/white-p...

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...