I obviously understand the difference between nuclear and conventional explosives, but why couldn't we use an equivalent amount of C4 to stop the leak? Isn't it about "resetting" the area, or are we talking about the insane heat generated, which will convert the sand to glass? I find that a pretty risky proposition.
Yes, I'm afraid I just don't understand. Citation needed.
I believe that's the general idea: the heat and pressure from the nuke will glass the bedrock into which the well was drilled, and fuse it shut. Of course, BP would have to sink a new one for another couple million dollars, but at least the leak would be cut. And if they're not careful, a couple of new leaks open up in the hydrate and flood the area with methane, making for a global catastrophe not just local.
That aside, there's still a shitload of methane hydrate down there, and it might be in the planet's (and all ships' in the bay area) if BP didn't subject it to the shock of a nuke.
Did they try nuking a well before? I know they used dynamite back in Kuwait, but surely not nukes were used for this purpose, no?
Besides, nuking a well in the Mexico bay, less than a 100 kms off the coast of the US, is not going to provoke any sort of negative PR and response...
Not to mention the load of methane hydrate sitting there on the bay floor, just waiting for a shock, like, you know, a nuke going off, to release a metric @55load of methane and turn the entire area into a nautical hell-hole, plus catapult the greenhouse effect a couple of years forward in the space of a few minutes.
IMHO...there are three problems noted in the paper: A challenge-response mechanism that is easily brute-forced, CAN nodes which fail to properly implement the challenge-response security mechanism, and CAN nodes which fail to do proper sanity checking before accepting commands via the debugging protocol. None of these issues are made worse by installing a traffic-light receiver.
None of the problems, but the risk is still there: the receiver needs to talk to the ECU to start/stop the engine, meaning it must be on the CAN-bus. This provides an entry point for data other than the ODB-II connector under the steering wheel. It only takes a single vulnerability in the receiver to have it turned into a gateway through which malicious data can be injected into the bus, at which point, attacks like those mentioned in the paper become possible.
What this patent fails to account for is that starting up the car results in increased fuel consumption for the short period while the engine attains running speed. Short period, though, but multiply it by the number of signals in an average city, and it might just come out that this actually increases sum consumption.
Also, I'd like to draw your attention to a post detailing just what can happen if we introduce networking into cars. And this is even made easier by the forced standards needed for this project to work...
I suggest you start reading hackaday. Granted, much of the stuff there will be way out of your league, but you'll pick up some things, and there's a tutorial section too, and maybe you can find some interesting sites or projects. Also, download a circuit simulator, to spare yourself blown-out bits, and get a breadboard, if you really want to get into it.
Wireless will also probably take a microcontroller, so start looking into C programming too.
Good Luck!
Half-agreed: we do need to keep an eye on our planet too, but we need to step outside too. Comment above says "We went out there, in the past We stagnated." I say if we don't go out there again with the intent to stay, we _will_ stagnate and disappear.
Jawn, what do you say to this: using Helium-3 found on the Moon in considerably greater abundance than on Earth, we could possibly develop a workable fusion power plant to alleviate the energy crisis looming on the doorstep?
I've seen that before - it's a complete load of rubbish. The extra dimensions in string theory are spatial dimensions. They are nothing to do with the many-worlds "parallel universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor any of the other explanations for higher dimensions that he makes up.
I'm not sure what's worse - that he has a book out selling this misinformation, or that so many people (judging by all the comments I see on forums, at least) seem to think this is an actual description of string theory, or indeed has any scientific basis at all.
So in other words, there aren't "an infinite number of universes located in the 7th dimension", and I see nothing particularly wrong with the GP post.
It depends on what you consider 'space'. You can't have more than three spatial dimensions(length, depth, width), but you can argue that for a higher-dimensional being(for the sake of arguments let's suppose it exists), existing in, says, tha sixth dimension, will preceive it's surroundings quite differently, as states of the universe, and it's alternate timelines.
The many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, is something completely different, you're right in saying that it's QM, and not ST. However, what prevents the two from being valid simultaneously?
String theory is a cosmological theory, explaining the structure of the universe and matter.
Quantum mechanics is another theory, which, however, has nothing to do with cosmology, it explains microscale and atomic scale phenomena, which string theory is simply not designed for.
They are completely unrelated to each other.
You're wrong, AND right (Quantum mechanics rules:) ). There are several versions of string theory, but only the latest requires 10 dimensions, the others require more, and they may contain tachyons, manifestations of their inherent instability. The first string theory, in fact, required 26(!!!) dimensions, AND contained tachyons, which meant that the universe was unstable, at any moment 'Tachyon Condensation' could occur, and then we'd be in for hell:)
The M-Theory, is something diffferent altogether, although I'm not an expert on that.
Not exactly. String theory requires 10 dimensions to work, but it's not like "there's only four 'uncoiled' at a time"; all 10 of these dimensions are 'active'.
However, because of the way these dimensions work, there can be an infinite number of universes, located in the 7th dimension.
For a really good educational video on how dimensions work in string theory, check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7JIjQLJYm8
Now it just needs an automated assembly facility, maybe a few set of manipulators, and other types of plastic to print the bars and belts. sure, it would still need the electronic components readied by its side to assemble the child, but one step closer.
I always thought the phoenician alphabet goes like aleph, beth, etc, which stands for ox and house...
Then the greeks adopted, but they said alpha for aleph, and beta for beth. And the contraction of the two gave us the word alphabet.
as for arabic and hebrew, those are... different:)
none of these symbols look even remotely like arab or hebrew glyphs...
I think the purpose of the gap is for the letter to fill the page. true, the dots sort of form a dipper over the second half of the first hex line, but other than that, I see no code in them.
however, I made some headway with the hex section, managing to decode it into assembly opcodes, but I'm stumped there. see my last comment!
okay, I got so far as deducing that the first line is corrupt, since the lock command is before mov, so it would generate an "undefined opcode exception" on assembling. so now I'm stumped...
as for the insb opcode, I can't even begin, since I don't know what assembler it's from, or what it does.
The HEX section looked curiously like excerpts of machine code I have seen a while ago, so I looked up a free assembler, named RosAsm, and had it decode the hex strings, line by line. this is the result:
I checked the dots in PSCS3 myself, and frankly, I don't see how there could be any code in them. However, I do agree that the symbols for E have their dots in the same location, with tolerance to human error. this makes them somewhat similar to the cypher used by freemason groups, although I can't see how that could help.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I'm afraid an explanation is needed.
I obviously understand the difference between nuclear and conventional explosives, but why couldn't we use an equivalent amount of C4 to stop the leak? Isn't it about "resetting" the area, or are we talking about the insane heat generated, which will convert the sand to glass? I find that a pretty risky proposition.
Yes, I'm afraid I just don't understand. Citation needed.
I believe that's the general idea: the heat and pressure from the nuke will glass the bedrock into which the well was drilled, and fuse it shut. Of course, BP would have to sink a new one for another couple million dollars, but at least the leak would be cut. And if they're not careful, a couple of new leaks open up in the hydrate and flood the area with methane, making for a global catastrophe not just local.
Hmmm, good to know.
That aside, there's still a shitload of methane hydrate down there, and it might be in the planet's (and all ships' in the bay area) if BP didn't subject it to the shock of a nuke.
It's the only way to be sure.
Did they try nuking a well before? I know they used dynamite back in Kuwait, but surely not nukes were used for this purpose, no?
Besides, nuking a well in the Mexico bay, less than a 100 kms off the coast of the US, is not going to provoke any sort of negative PR and response...
Not to mention the load of methane hydrate sitting there on the bay floor, just waiting for a shock, like, you know, a nuke going off, to release a metric @55load of methane and turn the entire area into a nautical hell-hole, plus catapult the greenhouse effect a couple of years forward in the space of a few minutes.
IMHO...there are three problems noted in the paper: A challenge-response mechanism that is easily brute-forced, CAN nodes which fail to properly implement the challenge-response security mechanism, and CAN nodes which fail to do proper sanity checking before accepting commands via the debugging protocol. None of these issues are made worse by installing a traffic-light receiver.
None of the problems, but the risk is still there: the receiver needs to talk to the ECU to start/stop the engine, meaning it must be on the CAN-bus. This provides an entry point for data other than the ODB-II connector under the steering wheel. It only takes a single vulnerability in the receiver to have it turned into a gateway through which malicious data can be injected into the bus, at which point, attacks like those mentioned in the paper become possible.
What this patent fails to account for is that starting up the car results in increased fuel consumption for the short period while the engine attains running speed. Short period, though, but multiply it by the number of signals in an average city, and it might just come out that this actually increases sum consumption.
Also, I'd like to draw your attention to a post detailing just what can happen if we introduce networking into cars. And this is even made easier by the forced standards needed for this project to work...
I suggest you start reading hackaday. Granted, much of the stuff there will be way out of your league, but you'll pick up some things, and there's a tutorial section too, and maybe you can find some interesting sites or projects. Also, download a circuit simulator, to spare yourself blown-out bits, and get a breadboard, if you really want to get into it. Wireless will also probably take a microcontroller, so start looking into C programming too. Good Luck!
Half-agreed: we do need to keep an eye on our planet too, but we need to step outside too. Comment above says "We went out there, in the past We stagnated." I say if we don't go out there again with the intent to stay, we _will_ stagnate and disappear.
Jawn, what do you say to this: using Helium-3 found on the Moon in considerably greater abundance than on Earth, we could possibly develop a workable fusion power plant to alleviate the energy crisis looming on the doorstep?
For a really good educational video on how dimensions work in string theory, check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7JIjQLJYm8
I've seen that before - it's a complete load of rubbish. The extra dimensions in string theory are spatial dimensions. They are nothing to do with the many-worlds "parallel universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor any of the other explanations for higher dimensions that he makes up.
I'm not sure what's worse - that he has a book out selling this misinformation, or that so many people (judging by all the comments I see on forums, at least) seem to think this is an actual description of string theory, or indeed has any scientific basis at all.
So in other words, there aren't "an infinite number of universes located in the 7th dimension", and I see nothing particularly wrong with the GP post.
It depends on what you consider 'space'. You can't have more than three spatial dimensions(length, depth, width), but you can argue that for a higher-dimensional being(for the sake of arguments let's suppose it exists), existing in, says, tha sixth dimension, will preceive it's surroundings quite differently, as states of the universe, and it's alternate timelines.
The many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, is something completely different, you're right in saying that it's QM, and not ST. However, what prevents the two from being valid simultaneously?
String theory is a cosmological theory, explaining the structure of the universe and matter.
Quantum mechanics is another theory, which, however, has nothing to do with cosmology, it explains microscale and atomic scale phenomena, which string theory is simply not designed for.
They are completely unrelated to each other.
You're wrong, AND right (Quantum mechanics rules:) ). There are several versions of string theory, but only the latest requires 10 dimensions, the others require more, and they may contain tachyons, manifestations of their inherent instability. The first string theory, in fact, required 26(!!!) dimensions, AND contained tachyons, which meant that the universe was unstable, at any moment 'Tachyon Condensation' could occur, and then we'd be in for hell:)
The M-Theory, is something diffferent altogether, although I'm not an expert on that.
Hope this helped clear things up a bit:)
Not exactly. String theory requires 10 dimensions to work, but it's not like "there's only four 'uncoiled' at a time"; all 10 of these dimensions are 'active'. However, because of the way these dimensions work, there can be an infinite number of universes, located in the 7th dimension. For a really good educational video on how dimensions work in string theory, check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7JIjQLJYm8
Now it just needs an automated assembly facility, maybe a few set of manipulators, and other types of plastic to print the bars and belts. sure, it would still need the electronic components readied by its side to assemble the child, but one step closer.
I always thought the phoenician alphabet goes like aleph, beth, etc, which stands for ox and house...
... different:)
Then the greeks adopted, but they said alpha for aleph, and beta for beth. And the contraction of the two gave us the word alphabet.
as for arabic and hebrew, those are
none of these symbols look even remotely like arab or hebrew glyphs...
I think the purpose of the gap is for the letter to fill the page. true, the dots sort of form a dipper over the second half of the first hex line, but other than that, I see no code in them.
however, I made some headway with the hex section, managing to decode it into assembly opcodes, but I'm stumped there. see my last comment!
okay, I got so far as deducing that the first line is corrupt, since the lock command is before mov, so it would generate an "undefined opcode exception" on assembling. so now I'm stumped...
as for the insb opcode, I can't even begin, since I don't know what assembler it's from, or what it does.
The HEX section looked curiously like excerpts of machine code I have seen a while ago, so I looked up a free assembler, named RosAsm, and had it decode the hex strings, line by line. this is the result:
f0 be 58 f2 fd 63 => Decoded => lock mov esi 063FDF258
6c 79 d2 e4 93 e6 => Decoded => insb
The first one yields strange, though, first locking, then moving a dataset, but the second is even stranger, I don't even know what it could mean.
Hope someone can use this to further cracking attempts.
Worth a try. You know Ockham's razor? "The simplest explanation is usually true.":)
I checked the dots in PSCS3 myself, and frankly, I don't see how there could be any code in them. However, I do agree that the symbols for E have their dots in the same location, with tolerance to human error. this makes them somewhat similar to the cypher used by freemason groups, although I can't see how that could help.
What if the middle paragraph is cyphered, and the three characters are the cypherkey?
Has anyone tried converting the hex values into decimal, then looking them up in an ASCII character table? maybe that yields something meaningful...