Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Budget and Timelines (Score 1) 311

First, no reactors built in the past twenty years (except in China, IIRC) lack those safety features. Passive safety might not be an official standard from a regulatory agency, but is still effectively a standard.

Second, yes, passive safety most certainly does make a plant significantly safer than active safety, particularly when you have two plants right next to one another. Imagine a scenario where a containment accident occurs at one reactor, along with a fire that damages the external power feed to the second reactor. At that point, it is unsafe for people to bring diesel fuel in to keep the emergency generators running to keep the pumps running to cool the second reactor while it shuts down, and suddenly you've gone from one meltdown event to two.

Comment Re:Humans, not AI... (Score 1) 184

Any AI in the foreseeable future will be under control of human beings, either due to laws or financial ownership. I'm not the least worried about AI, but having watched this election, the humans in my country scare the shit out of me.

I agree that it seems implausible that an AI will "rebel" and set its own goals, that is still sci-fi. But ordinarily those scary men would have to enlist the help of many others, like the old DDR (East Germany) where almost a hundred thousand of a population of 16 million were STASI agents. Use a NSL, use a computer to transcribe it and analyze who is talking to who when and about what and for how long and you could have a quite Orwellian database with only a hundred people involved. Same thing with bank transactions, electronic tickets, number plate scanners, facial recognition, deep packet scanning and whatnot the automatic collection and processing enables a very small but organized and powerful fraction of the population to surveillance and control the rest.

I'm not really sure we could reverse that trend because just like we might discuss the pros and cons of everyone having tiny little digital cameras on them at all times it is still extremely unlikely to change. The average person is leaving more and more electronic traces and even those who try to avoid it is often found by metadata from their friends or they stand out by being the black hole that isn't sharing. Very often the system is rigged towards it, for example we didn't want bus drivers to get robbed so much so now it's a lot more expensive to pay cash than a prepaid subscription or cell phone payment, both of which link to a real identity here in Norway. People do what's cheapest so the few people who pay cash stand out. And really it's no problem until it is a problem, but then you're usually too late to change it.

Comment Doesn't really matter who fired the shot (Score 4, Insightful) 115

It doesn't really matter who was firing the shot, so much as all those loaded, pwn3d weapons remaining in the wild that can be pressed into service again and again. This is not the first such event, it's at least the third. It won't be the last either, and the only way I can see to stop it is to permanently dismantle the IoT until it can be rebuilt from the ground up with security in mind. If security is too hard for the poor vendors and end users, then don't rebuild it. The health of the network as a whole is far more important than any single purpose for which it is used -- besides which, the devices can't be trusted to do their jobs anyhow once they've been pwn3d.

Make the vendors take them back in a recall -- could be a service recall in which they are made field-upgradable, or if they're hard-coded then they get the Galaxy Note 7 treatment as the hazards they are. Those who won't take them back should be cited under FCC Part 15 rules and have their certifications revoked and fines levied. It is easily provable that the devices are "causing harmful interference". It's time to get them off the network. Like yesterday.

Comment Make someone care, IoT device owners don't! (Score 1) 249

Time to demand recalls of all affected devices as the hazards that they are. Those who wish to keep them become responsible for what they do -- if your IoT "cloud" shits all over the network again, you get switched off.

If the end users don't care (and may not be able to care if they can't patch the devices), then it has to go a step up the food chain. If the manufacturers won't comply, pull their FCC certifications.

Comment Re:Creating Structural Monopoly (Score 1) 168

Maybe you missed where I said, "apart from the existence of the cable authentication". Yes, they still require those ICs. What I meant was that AFAIK, Apple isn't going after companies that make fake Lightning cables with their own homebrew fake authentication chips unless they advertise them as being genuine Apple cables. Similarly, they're not going after third-party companies that wire up resistors to the two data lines to enable fast charging, so long as they aren't advertising them as being Apple chargers.

Comment Re:Wow... (Score 1) 168

If Apple was truly concerned they would issue a spec for free.

There is a specification. There are minimum requirements for separation between low-voltage and high-voltage sections that are part of various electrical codes and safety standards. These knock-offs don't meet those safety standards. They should not even be legal to import into the United States, much less sell.

The fact that Apple's designs greatly exceed the standards to the point of being exceptionally paranoid is nice and all, but not strictly necessary. But failing to meet the standards is very bad.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 425

If you've ever used Lotus Notes then you know where most of that support comes from. What a steaming pile of crap.

IBM uses a ton of custom in-house applications that they can't sell to other companies because they're such garbage, and I'll bet 90% of that crap doesn't work on Macs.

Buying a bunch of Macs is probably one IT group's way of getting out from under another IT group's crap.

Comment Re:Budget and Timelines (Score 1) 311

That's not really the point. The point is that over time, those plants will get taken offline and replaced by newer designs, and we'll be safer when that happens. If you're going to bring a new plant online, ideally, you'd like it to be based on the newest, safest designs, rather than something that met NRC regulations before Chernobyl.

Comment Re:Creating Structural Monopoly (Score 1) 168

The requirements are well documented by third-party teardown, and dozens of companies make chargers that include the necessary pull-up resistors. So as the GP said, Apple is doing nothing to prevent third-party chargers, and apart from the existence of the cable authentication, is doing nothing to prevent third-party cables, either.

The problem is that there seems to be a strong correlation between willingness to pretend that your products are genuine Apple products and willingness to cut corners in the design that result in dangerous products. Legitimate third-party chargers from known brands generally work very well. Fake chargers that try to look like Apple products are a different story. It is legitimately hard to squeeze the necessary electronics into such a small package, much less to do so safely. As a result, Apple knock-offs tend to be significantly less safe than chargers made by people who aren't trying to pass their products off as Apple hardware.

And the knock-off fake Apple cables tend to be low-quality junk that fails after a couple of weeks of light use, unlike more legitimate third-party cables (e.g. Amazon Basics), which tend to be at least as reliable as Apple's cables, if not more so.

Comment Re:Wow... (Score 2) 168

It's not FUD. From all accounts, these things fail with alarming regularity. When you have insufficient distance between high-voltage and low-voltage traces, when you get some extra moisture in the air that condenses in the wrong place, it can easily trigger an electrical arc that delivers 110VAC to your 5V line. In addition to roasting any device that's attached to it, such an extreme over-voltage event will give you a nasty shock if you're holding the device at the time even under the best of circumstances, and that is enough voltage to kill you under the worst of circumstances.

Comment Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. (Score 2) 94

Assuming it isn't a solid rocket, it must contain an oxidizer tank in addition to the fuel tank or else it wouldn't be a very effective rocket. When the fuel combines with the oxidizer, it produces an exothermic reaction.

... unless, of course, somebody forgot to fill the oxidizer tank, in which case that's probably why there's a giant probe-shaped crater on the surface of Mars now.

Comment Open Source AI (Score 1) 184

How do you differentiate between a "good AI" with bad decisions and a "bad AI" making good decisions?

The same way you would do this with humans: you would need to read their mind to understand the motivation behind the decision. This is probably a lot easier for an AI (so long as it is Open Source!) than for a human.

Slashdot Top Deals

All constants are variables.