And, if you had been sold an $18 billion login system that was absolutely guaranteed to be unbreakable to anyone who wasn't directly issued the original login and password, then...
I'd eventually be asking for my $18 billion back.
Security professionals (and Slashdot readers) should be very familiar with two truisms: it can always be broken and it can always be copied. If you claim otherwise, you are selling something.
I know locksmith friends who can stare at a key and read the pinning combination off of it (and if they read enough of them, can deduce the master combination). For the rest of us, a key will make a great imprint on a wet bar of soap. And a locked door (just like a safe) can only ever be counted on to delay someone for a certain amount of time, never to keep them out entirely - whether they can turn the lock or not.
If you're willing to rule out malicious sabotage on the part of Foxconn
People always say not to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance. After reading all of the communication between Ryan and Foxconn, I'd just like to add another popular saying: You can't fix stupid.
They are a hugely popular supplier of mobo components like usb or network ports.
At least their I/O ports are just metal and plastic (with an occasional LED or two). They either work or they don't. Anything with active components, on the other hand, needs to be designed and built by people with a clue.
where does your 240 come from ? isn't it 120 in the US ?
Residential power in the US is typically delivered through three wires - hot, hot, and neutral. There are 240V available between the two hot lines. The neutral line is at ground potential (it is coupled to ground at your main breaker panel) and so there is half that voltage, 120V, available between either hot and neutral. 240V circuits (the double circuit breakers in your breaker panel) are typically used in the US to power large loads - baseboard heaters, water heaters, stoves, air conditioners, hot tubs, etc. 120V circuits (the single breakers) are used for everything else. It's often referred to as "Split-phase electric power".
They'd much rather throw that power into the ground and let it go to waste than have to spend ANY money to buy it back unless they can store it and sell it back to you for more than they paid for it.
I suspect that by the time these decisions will have to be made (some time between 2030 and never), we'll be harnessing every practical source of energy we can get our hands on, and we as a society will have severe misgivings about throwing any of it away.
Imagine a whole neighborhood of solar enthusiasts on a bright clear spring day (i.e. cool enough to not need a/c) pumping several thousand Amps backwards through the lines. The substations were not designed for this and could conceivably trip a breaker at best, catch fire and spew PCB's at worst.
I think this is a long ways off, and I'd imagine that if this starts happening, they'd start installing more/bigger transmission infrastructure, rather than a voluntary-shutoff communications infrastructure. They may even increase their connection fees to do so. The power company wouldn't want all that power to go to waste.
And there is no way the utility will let you net meter more than your service amps (often in the range of 200) which comes out to a 24kw array.
Err, 240*200 = 48kW.
The install in the article was 1/4 of the way there which is not a huge margin of safety.
First off, if the solar constant changes by a factor of 4, this guy's wiring is going to be the least of your trouble. Second, NEC ampacity standards are for tolerable voltage drop, not wire overheating. A 200A-rated line will actually carry a lot more than 200A. Third, many of the newer electrical panels have a main breaker that everything goes through. They are thermal, so they don't care which direction the electricity is going through them. If not, the inverter will usually have an output breaker of its own. Fourth, the house itself is consuming a good fraction of the power it's generating.
So this guy is using DC solar panels, converting it to AC with an inverter, and then using it primarily to power...a computer lab, which just convert it back to DC. There must be at least 50% loss in this.
There are plenty of always-inverting UPSs that are upwards of 90% efficient (pretty much anything over a few kVA capacity). They are AC->DC->AC convertors, so they perform the same steps in a different order.
wouldn't it make sense to avoid the inversion step, and just use a voltage stepdown transformer, keeping everything DC?
Exactly what do you think such a voltage stepdown transformer does?
I'd be interested to see a progression timeline of the light vs. heat ratio from the various methods we've used.
Here you go. To convert lumens per watt to an efficiency ratio, divide by 680 (1 watt of pure green light - the kind the eye is most sensitive to - is 680 lumens).
Note three things:
Incandescents are nowhere near the 10% efficiency mentioned in the article summary. Maybe 5-6% for the better halogen/xenon bulbs.
Not mentioned on this chart is CRI. Lighting sources below roughly 70 CRI are often considered undesirable for residential indoor light.
The decision is relevant in the 9th Cir. only, but the reasoning appears substantially correct. The rule that copying in to RAM is copying under the terms of the Copyright Act is not unique to this case: it is in fact cited under previous authority.
I think that this decision is a good reason to modify the scope of copyright law to cover distribution of copies to others, rather than just copying. Many (including myself) were under the impression that copying without any distribution was covered under fair use.
Take a look at the S&P 500 over the past couple months, then zoom out and compare it to 2001. Yes, friend, right here is the abyss. Not later - right now. 1250 is where it stopped a few months ago. 1250ish is where we are now. After that it's 800 and we're back to the low point of the dot-com crash, and after that there's only the floor. It goes all the way down.
1974 brought the S&P down to 1962 values - off 25% in less than a year too - and it was back up 25% in 18 months.
The fun part is that at any point in time, no one really knows where the top and bottom of the market will actually be. Sure, you can cry wolf, and once in a while you might actually be right, but to come out ahead in such a situation you not only need to know that it's inevitable but know when. For example, many saw the dot-com bubble popping years before it did - but those who sold right then missed out on a lot of market gain.
I think it's far more likely that our inability/unwillingness to pay off our national debt will cause further devaluation of the dollar (or increased inflation, however you want to look at it) over a long period of time - decades perhaps. I don't think anyone will call it hyperinflation, but it will be a period of relative economic stagnation. This devaluation will discourage foreign investors from using dollars or buying US bonds, which will eventually forcefully curb federal spending.
It won't be a good time to sock away dollars under the bed, but it will be a good time to have a fixed-rate mortgage.
And since the only way to change it is in Congress and not the Executive branch, and they know this, you know they're doing it intentionally for publicity.
Since each individual state elects its own electorial college delegates, they can change how they do that at the state level. Many states have an initiative system that allows citizens to put new laws directly on the ballot (after getting a certain number of signatures). My state, Washington, recently passed Initiative 872 which changed the purpose of our primary elections to determining the top two candidates for the general election instead of determining the most popular candidate from each party. It was challenged by both major parties and declared constitutional by the US Supreme Court this year. The parties are still fighting it but the state is going ahead with it this year anyway.
Similarly, there was an initiative to get Washington State to use Instant Runoff Voting - I don't think the statewide initiative has yet to get enough signatures to make the ballot, although they claim they won a local measure in Pierce County and that county will use IRV.
Also, there is a movement called National Popular Vote to have a plurality of states agree to elect their delegates via the popular vote - if a plurality of states do, then the electoral college is effectively circumvented without any federal action.
You can't make the donkey or elephant drink, but you can sure tie them up and walk them off the plank.
Wow, this would be so cool. At this resolution, I expect you could crop the tiniest square out and be able to enlarge the hell out of it with it looking pixelated.
Sure. Unless it's blurry. 50MP at 4x3 aspect ratio is at least 8165 horizontal pixels. Most digital cameras have a similar angle of view as a 35mm camera - which Wikipedia lists as 39.6 degrees. Can you keep your camera from moving more than 8 arc-seconds (half a pixel width) during the exposure period?
Forget just getting a good tripod. Get a remote, too, so you're not even bumping it to press the shutter button.
Also, divvying up those photons 50 million ways means each CCD pixel gets less, so unless you're using the sort of lenses that the medium format camera in the article would have, you'd have to use longer exposures (and/or cool down the CCD to well below freezing to reduce thermal noise, which is what many astronomy geeks do).
If steel weighs 3 times as much but is only twice as strong, doesn't that then mean that you can get 33% more strength for a given weight by using aluminium?
Yes it does, which is why aluminum is favored over steel (also, since the strength of a beam is proportional to the square of its height, the thicker, less dense aluminum skin won't "give" as much).
All I was trying to point out was that the strength-to-weight ratio is roughly 1.5x (very dependent on what particular alloy and heat treatment you are comparing), not 5x or 10x or whatever ratio pops into your head when you think "very very heavy", and while it's not the best material, it works just fine.
And yes, the irony of calling iron "heavy" in an article about uranium is not lost on me.
BTW, does using a proxy or anonymizer count as impersonating another person or using a false identity? Is it a felony?
IANAL. But as far as I know, going by a name other than the one your parents or some immigration officer gave you is perfectly legal. If your name is Sam and you decide you want people to call you Mark, that's your legal right. That probably includes signing up for a MySpace account.
Now, if you're doing that for the intent of committing fraud, well, congratulations, you're committing fraud. Luckily, the legal standard for fraud is higher than "lying to somebody".
Even the Burans automated landing (and indeed the Shuttles) require input from the ground to do.
Which, in the context of this discussion, is OK. The point is, it can be done.
I think maybe from time to time its a good idea to get information from someone that actually uses the system.
I don't have a problem with that, as long as you use your experience to bring facts to the conversation. If you only use it to pull rank, expect to be called on it.
Guess what ILS stands for - Instrumented Landing System. Guess what your article covers - Instrument Landing Systems. Guess what I use semi-regularly - Instrument Landing Systems.
It's hard to tell what point you're trying to make with all that condescension dripping from your mouth, but if you think Autoland is just ILS, then you should re-read the article (and maybe go watch Mythbusters, or read about the Buran). It's multiple redundant computers that use ILS signals as well as radio altimeters to land the plane automatically. The pilot does not have to be in control to intercept the ILS signal.
Not anymore, especially if the code/design of the "kill switch" is protected under copyright law. DMCA makes you a criminal if you tamper with it.
IANAL.
First, 17 USC 1201 is concerned with "access to a work" - if there is no copying of works, and no relaxed control of access to a work (snipping wires tightens control of access to a work), it'd be tough to use this. Second, there's a loophole in (I)(1)(A) - if there's any information in the work that personally identifies you (such as, say, the ID of the system that they are trying to remotely kill) it's fair game.
No, a pilot has to be in control to successfully intercept the ILS signal, the autopilot currently cannot do that on its own - thus there is no way to bring an aircraft down from cruise to land without help from the flight deck.
First off, we're not talking about the avionics and controls currently in airliners right now, we're talking about what might be retrofitted into them. Second, look up "Autoland". The technology is already in use at some airports and dates back a ways.
Several packets arrive.
Some make it through to the physical line, up to the agreed limit.
The rest are dropped - and as so many packets are lost, many RSTs occur, meaning you get about 10-25% less throughput.
A RST means the end of the TCP connection. That won't happen unless multiple packets in a row go unanswered. TCP will adapt to sending at the allowed rate, just like it adapts to the size of any network link.
Several packets arrive.
The router determines which to send first.
The router drops some and sends back ICMP congestion messages so that the sending speed is reduced.
Over a number of packets, the flow rate maxes out the connection.
Sending ICMP Source Quench messages is typical behavior (routers can send one any time they drop a packet) and are certainly preferable (esp. regarding latency) to the sender just blindly waiting to retransmit, although they don't return any information about what speed is acceptable. TCP works without them, and a lot of misguided firewall admins block ICMP entirely. Either way, packets for a TCP stream will, in the long run, make it through up to the agreed limit.
I was always taught that rate-limiting *causes* congestion on networks.
It certainly can. A naive QoS setup can easily hurt more than it helps. However, rate-limiting is an essential part of a QoS toolkit.
A properly configured network uses QoS to determine priorities
While some of the medicine in the cabinet isn't so bitter, it's also of limited effect.
A router or bridge may use QoS to reorder packets in its output queue, choosing to send this packet out before that one. It can only do so if those packets are actually waiting in that router or bridge's output queue. It may also choose to rate-limit certain packets even if there is nothing waiting in the output queue (this can force a queue to be maintained on your own router instead of one downstream). It can ECN-mark packets (not widely supported), drop them altogether, or it can forge packets in ways that may reduce further incoming traffic.
and with the modern equivalents of FECN/BECN, you can end up with a fast, useful, uncongested network with the same traffic flows.
Only if you have the bandwidth needed in the first place. For example, Wikipedia's ECN article says:
Use of ECN has been found to be detrimental to performance on highly congested networks when using AQM (Active Queue Management) algorithms that never drop packets. Modern AQM implementations avoid this pitfall by dropping rather than marking packets at very high load.
QoS is not magical. Just as renicing a process to -20 won't make it run any faster, QoS does not squeeze more packets down a line. It's for saying "foo is junk and it can wait, let bar and baz skip to the front of the line."
Slashdot Mirror
I'd eventually be asking for my $18 billion back.
Security professionals (and Slashdot readers) should be very familiar with two truisms: it can always be broken and it can always be copied. If you claim otherwise, you are selling something.
I know locksmith friends who can stare at a key and read the pinning combination off of it (and if they read enough of them, can deduce the master combination). For the rest of us, a key will make a great imprint on a wet bar of soap. And a locked door (just like a safe) can only ever be counted on to delay someone for a certain amount of time, never to keep them out entirely - whether they can turn the lock or not.
People always say not to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance. After reading all of the communication between Ryan and Foxconn, I'd just like to add another popular saying: You can't fix stupid.
At least their I/O ports are just metal and plastic (with an occasional LED or two). They either work or they don't. Anything with active components, on the other hand, needs to be designed and built by people with a clue.
BTW, google searching for "foxconn" yields the text "Motherboard manufacturer, certified by ATi." - which to ATi, means: Purchasing products with the "Graphics By ATI - Certified logo" means that ATI has certified and tested for product quality, reliability and stability, tested to ensure a good customer experience. . With ATi owned by AMD, and AMD firmly committed to Linux, Foxconn may find themselves in a bit of a bind here.
Residential power in the US is typically delivered through three wires - hot, hot, and neutral. There are 240V available between the two hot lines. The neutral line is at ground potential (it is coupled to ground at your main breaker panel) and so there is half that voltage, 120V, available between either hot and neutral. 240V circuits (the double circuit breakers in your breaker panel) are typically used in the US to power large loads - baseboard heaters, water heaters, stoves, air conditioners, hot tubs, etc. 120V circuits (the single breakers) are used for everything else. It's often referred to as "Split-phase electric power".
I suspect that by the time these decisions will have to be made (some time between 2030 and never), we'll be harnessing every practical source of energy we can get our hands on, and we as a society will have severe misgivings about throwing any of it away.
I shouldn't have generalized like that. But for a service entrance can't you follow 310.15(B)(6)?
Oops.
I think this is a long ways off, and I'd imagine that if this starts happening, they'd start installing more/bigger transmission infrastructure, rather than a voluntary-shutoff communications infrastructure. They may even increase their connection fees to do so. The power company wouldn't want all that power to go to waste.
Err, 240*200 = 48kW.
First off, if the solar constant changes by a factor of 4, this guy's wiring is going to be the least of your trouble. Second, NEC ampacity standards are for tolerable voltage drop, not wire overheating. A 200A-rated line will actually carry a lot more than 200A. Third, many of the newer electrical panels have a main breaker that everything goes through. They are thermal, so they don't care which direction the electricity is going through them. If not, the inverter will usually have an output breaker of its own. Fourth, the house itself is consuming a good fraction of the power it's generating.
There are plenty of always-inverting UPSs that are upwards of 90% efficient (pretty much anything over a few kVA capacity). They are AC->DC->AC convertors, so they perform the same steps in a different order.
Exactly what do you think such a voltage stepdown transformer does?
Here you go. To convert lumens per watt to an efficiency ratio, divide by 680 (1 watt of pure green light - the kind the eye is most sensitive to - is 680 lumens).
Note three things:
Iron is very common in ink such as the classical iron gall and black tattoo ink.
I think that this decision is a good reason to modify the scope of copyright law to cover distribution of copies to others, rather than just copying. Many (including myself) were under the impression that copying without any distribution was covered under fair use.
Here's two: Soekris, Mikrotik/Routerboard.
Stocks are cyclical.
1974 brought the S&P down to 1962 values - off 25% in less than a year too - and it was back up 25% in 18 months.
The fun part is that at any point in time, no one really knows where the top and bottom of the market will actually be. Sure, you can cry wolf, and once in a while you might actually be right, but to come out ahead in such a situation you not only need to know that it's inevitable but know when. For example, many saw the dot-com bubble popping years before it did - but those who sold right then missed out on a lot of market gain.
I think it's far more likely that our inability /unwillingness to pay off our national debt will cause further devaluation of the dollar (or increased inflation, however you want to look at it) over a long period of time - decades perhaps. I don't think anyone will call it hyperinflation, but it will be a period of relative economic stagnation. This devaluation will discourage foreign investors from using dollars or buying US bonds, which will eventually forcefully curb federal spending.
It won't be a good time to sock away dollars under the bed, but it will be a good time to have a fixed-rate mortgage.
Since each individual state elects its own electorial college delegates, they can change how they do that at the state level. Many states have an initiative system that allows citizens to put new laws directly on the ballot (after getting a certain number of signatures). My state, Washington, recently passed Initiative 872 which changed the purpose of our primary elections to determining the top two candidates for the general election instead of determining the most popular candidate from each party. It was challenged by both major parties and declared constitutional by the US Supreme Court this year. The parties are still fighting it but the state is going ahead with it this year anyway.
Similarly, there was an initiative to get Washington State to use Instant Runoff Voting - I don't think the statewide initiative has yet to get enough signatures to make the ballot, although they claim they won a local measure in Pierce County and that county will use IRV.
Also, there is a movement called National Popular Vote to have a plurality of states agree to elect their delegates via the popular vote - if a plurality of states do, then the electoral college is effectively circumvented without any federal action.
You can't make the donkey or elephant drink, but you can sure tie them up and walk them off the plank.
Sure. Unless it's blurry. 50MP at 4x3 aspect ratio is at least 8165 horizontal pixels. Most digital cameras have a similar angle of view as a 35mm camera - which Wikipedia lists as 39.6 degrees. Can you keep your camera from moving more than 8 arc-seconds (half a pixel width) during the exposure period?
Forget just getting a good tripod. Get a remote, too, so you're not even bumping it to press the shutter button.
Also, divvying up those photons 50 million ways means each CCD pixel gets less, so unless you're using the sort of lenses that the medium format camera in the article would have, you'd have to use longer exposures (and/or cool down the CCD to well below freezing to reduce thermal noise, which is what many astronomy geeks do).
Yes it does, which is why aluminum is favored over steel (also, since the strength of a beam is proportional to the square of its height, the thicker, less dense aluminum skin won't "give" as much).
All I was trying to point out was that the strength-to-weight ratio is roughly 1.5x (very dependent on what particular alloy and heat treatment you are comparing), not 5x or 10x or whatever ratio pops into your head when you think "very very heavy", and while it's not the best material, it works just fine.
And yes, the irony of calling iron "heavy" in an article about uranium is not lost on me.
IANAL. But as far as I know, going by a name other than the one your parents or some immigration officer gave you is perfectly legal. If your name is Sam and you decide you want people to call you Mark, that's your legal right. That probably includes signing up for a MySpace account.
Now, if you're doing that for the intent of committing fraud, well, congratulations, you're committing fraud. Luckily, the legal standard for fraud is higher than "lying to somebody".
Carbonized iron (steel) is about three times the weight of aluminum but also nearly twice as strong, so you need less of it.
Here's what the plane would look like.
(The USSR didn't have much aluminum - or any way to import it - in WW2.)
Which, in the context of this discussion, is OK. The point is, it can be done.
I don't have a problem with that, as long as you use your experience to bring facts to the conversation. If you only use it to pull rank, expect to be called on it.
It's hard to tell what point you're trying to make with all that condescension dripping from your mouth, but if you think Autoland is just ILS, then you should re-read the article (and maybe go watch Mythbusters, or read about the Buran). It's multiple redundant computers that use ILS signals as well as radio altimeters to land the plane automatically. The pilot does not have to be in control to intercept the ILS signal.
IANAL.
First, 17 USC 1201 is concerned with "access to a work" - if there is no copying of works, and no relaxed control of access to a work (snipping wires tightens control of access to a work), it'd be tough to use this. Second, there's a loophole in (I)(1)(A) - if there's any information in the work that personally identifies you (such as, say, the ID of the system that they are trying to remotely kill) it's fair game.
First off, we're not talking about the avionics and controls currently in airliners right now, we're talking about what might be retrofitted into them. Second, look up "Autoland". The technology is already in use at some airports and dates back a ways.
A RST means the end of the TCP connection. That won't happen unless multiple packets in a row go unanswered. TCP will adapt to sending at the allowed rate, just like it adapts to the size of any network link.
Sending ICMP Source Quench messages is typical behavior (routers can send one any time they drop a packet) and are certainly preferable (esp. regarding latency) to the sender just blindly waiting to retransmit, although they don't return any information about what speed is acceptable. TCP works without them, and a lot of misguided firewall admins block ICMP entirely. Either way, packets for a TCP stream will, in the long run, make it through up to the agreed limit.
It certainly can. A naive QoS setup can easily hurt more than it helps. However, rate-limiting is an essential part of a QoS toolkit.
While some of the medicine in the cabinet isn't so bitter, it's also of limited effect. A router or bridge may use QoS to reorder packets in its output queue, choosing to send this packet out before that one. It can only do so if those packets are actually waiting in that router or bridge's output queue. It may also choose to rate-limit certain packets even if there is nothing waiting in the output queue (this can force a queue to be maintained on your own router instead of one downstream). It can ECN-mark packets (not widely supported), drop them altogether, or it can forge packets in ways that may reduce further incoming traffic.
Only if you have the bandwidth needed in the first place. For example, Wikipedia's ECN article says: Use of ECN has been found to be detrimental to performance on highly congested networks when using AQM (Active Queue Management) algorithms that never drop packets. Modern AQM implementations avoid this pitfall by dropping rather than marking packets at very high load.
QoS is not magical. Just as renicing a process to -20 won't make it run any faster, QoS does not squeeze more packets down a line. It's for saying "foo is junk and it can wait, let bar and baz skip to the front of the line."