Yes.. because everyone of those NTP servers that made up the 400Gb/s attack were running Windows...
Idiot.
Then who is generating the forged packets, Einstein? Its not some guy hammering at NTP servers directly from his home PC or hosting account; You still need a very big network presence to generate the calibre of attacks seen lately, even with amplification.
The default mode of Linux use on servers is inside virtual machines (i.e. managed by a hypervisor). Same for Windows.
On the desktop we have Qubes OS and its ability to sequester hardware devices to VMs using IOMMU / VT-d, so the drivers for those devices are effectively contained.
Monolithic kernels have failed at security, so they've been demoted to largely non-security roles, held apart from the core OS like the driver modules of a microkernel.
1. Computer has glued-in battery, can decide when it turns on or off with no obvious signs (other than generating heat, but full power isn't needed to spy)
2. WWAN/cellular built into motherboard, doesn't need a paid account to spy on you
Fun fact: Fedora boots about twice slower than the Ubuntu, despite systemd's promise of faster boot times vs. Ubuntu's reliance on the slower sysvinit scripts. In the end, I'd still take sysvinit.
Actually, that comparison with Fedora doesn't do it justice: Ubuntu 13.10 boots twice as fast as Windows 7 on my laptop. Its *exceedingly* fast in that respect.
OTOH, there is the school of thought that holds body language, vocal cues and physical deeds at the basis of human communication; and that without learning language in this context there would be little or no motivation to do anything with the symbols.
Are you claiming there is no pathway for corporate lobbyists (who write most of the new regulations in this country BTW) to address EPA regulations in light of new industrial processes? That beggars belief. Just look at the way Washington has bent over backwards to promote the new 'clean coal' agenda, only to have private generators walk away from it at the 11th hour. It was a stalling tactic.
retrowerks didn't say he worked for the EPA... do you know this person?
Its completely understandable that you want to see the information. So do I. But scientific inquiry is already considered to be a contentious and 'open' sphere. The question is whether 'open' is being twisted into an absurd extreme, to the point where climate deniers are constantly looking over climate researchers' shoulders, for instance. That wasn't tenable in 2009 with so-called 'climategate', nor will it ever be.
Remember the deniers' insistence on "proof"? There is nothing that can be proven in science the way these hecklers want it. We don't have spare Earths to use as laboratories.
thus your "colleages" in the regulatory system whom you look down at from your perch of "innovation".
"Reverence for the environment" is an extension of the reverence for nature. There's nothing unscientific about that, and it marks you as an antagonist. It sounds to me like you are using a strawman ('knee-jerk environmentalists') to undermine ecology (which is a science, BTW, though no one could have guessed from your rant).
You want 'outdated' (says who?) regulations re-written because you know that corporate lobbyists are the ones who hold sway in legislatures these days.
No. It means the emails of climate researchers and referenced private medical records have to be put in the public domain. Also, I recall from the climate "controversy" that a good deal of temperature data is owned by private institutions. It might even lead to the requirement that environmental studies can be published behind a paywall.
IOW, precaution would be outlawed by the bill. You can't "prove" a climate catastrophe could occur because a scientist didn't wreck the actual climate in an experiment.
This is actually an old denier canard, now trying to become a law.
This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.
Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.
Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.
So what? Let's stipulate that if everything doesn't go right, we might render a state uninhabitable. Our investors are still protected because the agents doing the actual work are asset-less shells that will declare bankruptcy if necessary and take liability in any criminal prosecution. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not like our investors can't afford to move after we trash the place. As a non-bleeding heart industrialist, what's the downside for me, personally?
Like the Koches, you can 'blind' the courts to that sort of malevolence. But concerned citizens who are sceptical of unrestrained capitalism won't be fooled for long.
So I suppose the answer to your question is: Geolocation.
This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.
Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.
Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.
Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.
As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.
The real differences here are:
1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.
2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.
Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).
TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.
3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.
Information on the way Japan’s nuclear power plants are guarded by police and security officers will be designated as a state secret by a government-sponsored confidentiality bill, said Masako Mori, minister in charge of the legislation.
“If we make public the security plans of police, such information could reach terrorists,” Mori said Friday in a meeting of a Lower House special committee on national security that kicked off full deliberations on the bill.
The legislation designates such information as a state secret under the category of terrorism prevention.
The state secrets crackdown in Japan was enacted to prevent further embarrassing information about the Fukushima reactors from getting to the public. Which means there is no accountability mechanism left for nuclear power in Japan.
Do not be surprised if the US government tries to head in the same direction for the same reason.
Vortexes of garbage emerge because... why? Because the world doesn't have enough cheap energy??
Who are the ones putting the garbage there in the first place? The ones with cheap energy or the ones without?
I predict such problems would get worse with limitless fusion energy. We haven't really 'grown up' as a culture yet, which is all too apparent when you have people commenting about a new power-generation technology that is supposed take over the world yet are clearly unable to imagine the effects in psychological and ecological terms.
The people that I know, today, would bury every last patch of the natural world under a mountain of "don't care. thx. bye" and "havin a good time" if they were given that kind of power.
What makes you think fusion would exacerbate *any* ecological crises? It's input is deuterium (from normal water), and some lithium and its output is helium and some solid, short-halflife reactor parts. It doesn't burn anything. It cannot melt like almost all fission reactors because there is no daughter radionuclides.
Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.
As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.
The real differences here are:
1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.
2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.
Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).
TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.
3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.
1) Cloud and wind patterns vary greatly by locality. The grid is not bound by that limitation. And no one said that storage didn't play a role (although nuclear advocates like to hide the fact that nuclear was becoming dependant on hydro storage).
And whose subsidies are you more concerned about? Try not to push double-standards.
2) Your BS, not mine. "All the corruption and cronyism that comes with" wind and solar. Hah ha...
3) Oh, yeah, I forgot that environmentalists control the world and that's the reason nuclear energy has stopped in its tracks. Couldn't be that its a fundamentally corrupt business model or anything. But thanks for telling us you would like even less regulation of the nuclear industry; that's just precious.
Human bodies are not net CO2 producers: An uneaten foodstuff will return its carbon to the atmosphere in the short-term on its own... even if another type of animal didn't eat it instead.
We are net producers by 'virtue' of our agriculture and CO2 industries; the irony being that the way we raise plants produces more CO2 than it consumes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.. because everyone of those NTP servers that made up the 400Gb/s attack were running Windows...
Idiot.
Then who is generating the forged packets, Einstein? Its not some guy hammering at NTP servers directly from his home PC or hosting account; You still need a very big network presence to generate the calibre of attacks seen lately, even with amplification.
Notice the sidebar to the Krebs article: "The value of a hacked PC".
I say unplug Windows from the Internet. The world has had enough of this already.
The default mode of Linux use on servers is inside virtual machines (i.e. managed by a hypervisor). Same for Windows.
On the desktop we have Qubes OS and its ability to sequester hardware devices to VMs using IOMMU / VT-d, so the drivers for those devices are effectively contained.
Monolithic kernels have failed at security, so they've been demoted to largely non-security roles, held apart from the core OS like the driver modules of a microkernel.
Meet my little friend... the tinfoil bag.
AC
Wash off the frenchfry grease before using it with your electronics. :)
1. Computer has glued-in battery, can decide when it turns on or off with no obvious signs (other than generating heat, but full power isn't needed to spy)
2. WWAN/cellular built into motherboard, doesn't need a paid account to spy on you
Brilliant!
OK, I'm assuming here that the app is unsigned. Its interesting that reporters at security news sites don't seem to care.
Fun fact: Fedora boots about twice slower than the Ubuntu, despite systemd's promise of faster boot times vs. Ubuntu's reliance on the slower sysvinit scripts. In the end, I'd still take sysvinit.
Actually, that comparison with Fedora doesn't do it justice: Ubuntu 13.10 boots twice as fast as Windows 7 on my laptop. Its *exceedingly* fast in that respect.
OTOH, there is the school of thought that holds body language, vocal cues and physical deeds at the basis of human communication; and that without learning language in this context there would be little or no motivation to do anything with the symbols.
Are you claiming there is no pathway for corporate lobbyists (who write most of the new regulations in this country BTW) to address EPA regulations in light of new industrial processes? That beggars belief. Just look at the way Washington has bent over backwards to promote the new 'clean coal' agenda, only to have private generators walk away from it at the 11th hour. It was a stalling tactic.
retrowerks didn't say he worked for the EPA... do you know this person?
There is no place in science for anyone who does not revere the natural world, because that is the classroom where science had its genesis.
What? How would a reverence for nature have anything to do with science whatsoever?
Just Wow... That one is suitable for framing!
Its completely understandable that you want to see the information. So do I. But scientific inquiry is already considered to be a contentious and 'open' sphere. The question is whether 'open' is being twisted into an absurd extreme, to the point where climate deniers are constantly looking over climate researchers' shoulders, for instance. That wasn't tenable in 2009 with so-called 'climategate', nor will it ever be.
Remember the deniers' insistence on "proof"? There is nothing that can be proven in science the way these hecklers want it. We don't have spare Earths to use as laboratories.
thus your "colleages" in the regulatory system whom you look down at from your perch of "innovation".
"Reverence for the environment" is an extension of the reverence for nature. There's nothing unscientific about that, and it marks you as an antagonist. It sounds to me like you are using a strawman ('knee-jerk environmentalists') to undermine ecology (which is a science, BTW, though no one could have guessed from your rant).
You want 'outdated' (says who?) regulations re-written because you know that corporate lobbyists are the ones who hold sway in legislatures these days.
No. It means the emails of climate researchers and referenced private medical records have to be put in the public domain. Also, I recall from the climate "controversy" that a good deal of temperature data is owned by private institutions. It might even lead to the requirement that environmental studies can be published behind a paywall.
IOW, precaution would be outlawed by the bill. You can't "prove" a climate catastrophe could occur because a scientist didn't wreck the actual climate in an experiment.
This is actually an old denier canard, now trying to become a law.
This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.
Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.
Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.
So what? Let's stipulate that if everything doesn't go right, we might render a state uninhabitable. Our investors are still protected because the agents doing the actual work are asset-less shells that will declare bankruptcy if necessary and take liability in any criminal prosecution. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not like our investors can't afford to move after we trash the place. As a non-bleeding heart industrialist, what's the downside for me, personally?
Like the Koches, you can 'blind' the courts to that sort of malevolence. But concerned citizens who are sceptical of unrestrained capitalism won't be fooled for long.
So I suppose the answer to your question is: Geolocation.
This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.
Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.
Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.
POLICE STATE
Its interesting to see the /. modrage that ensues when one challenges the dominant technophile power lust on this site.
Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.
As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.
The real differences here are:
1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.
2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.
Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).
TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.
3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.
I almost forgot this report:
Nuclear plant security to be designated as state secret
Information on the way Japan’s nuclear power plants are guarded by police and security officers will be designated as a state secret by a government-sponsored confidentiality bill, said Masako Mori, minister in charge of the legislation.
“If we make public the security plans of police, such information could reach terrorists,” Mori said Friday in a meeting of a Lower House special committee on national security that kicked off full deliberations on the bill.
The legislation designates such information as a state secret under the category of terrorism prevention.
The state secrets crackdown in Japan was enacted to prevent further embarrassing information about the Fukushima reactors from getting to the public. Which means there is no accountability mechanism left for nuclear power in Japan.
Do not be surprised if the US government tries to head in the same direction for the same reason.
Look at your underlying assumptions:
Vortexes of garbage emerge because... why? Because the world doesn't have enough cheap energy??
Who are the ones putting the garbage there in the first place? The ones with cheap energy or the ones without?
I predict such problems would get worse with limitless fusion energy. We haven't really 'grown up' as a culture yet, which is all too apparent when you have people commenting about a new power-generation technology that is supposed take over the world yet are clearly unable to imagine the effects in psychological and ecological terms.
The people that I know, today, would bury every last patch of the natural world under a mountain of "don't care. thx. bye" and "havin a good time" if they were given that kind of power.
What makes you think fusion would exacerbate *any* ecological crises? It's input is deuterium (from normal water), and some lithium and its output is helium and some solid, short-halflife reactor parts. It doesn't burn anything. It cannot melt like almost all fission reactors because there is no daughter radionuclides.
So which ecological crises will it exacerbate?
Consumerism.
Nuclear cannot be varied, so it cannot meet demand by itself either. We were already building hydropower capacity to store the excess from the so-called "baseload" nuclear.
As nuclear subsides, that storage capacity will be used increasingly for wind and solar instead.
The real differences here are:
1) Solar and wind variations substantially match peak usage patterns. This is the main reason we're having this discussion at all, because these new generators are cutting into the most profitable parts of the day for established generators.
2) Nuclear is highly centralized and requires police-state protections to function in the face of an emergency. The downside of the Fukushima incident is that the Japanese government has enacted strict state secrecy to punish the kind of disobedience and truth-telling that probably saved much of Japan from a worse turn of events.
Note that even in the US, you can be arrested for taking pictures of a nuclear power plant from a public space (these days, more likely by a SWAT officer or other paramilitary goon).
TL;DR - An expansion of nuclear energy is likely to spread militarism.
3) Funding... How do you get backers for new nuclear power plants when massive cost overruns are the rule rather than the exception? As with the need for secrecy and militarism, nuclear has a problem with corruption in its finances, too.
1) Cloud and wind patterns vary greatly by locality. The grid is not bound by that limitation. And no one said that storage didn't play a role (although nuclear advocates like to hide the fact that nuclear was becoming dependant on hydro storage).
And whose subsidies are you more concerned about? Try not to push double-standards.
2) Your BS, not mine. "All the corruption and cronyism that comes with" wind and solar. Hah ha...
3) Oh, yeah, I forgot that environmentalists control the world and that's the reason nuclear energy has stopped in its tracks. Couldn't be that its a fundamentally corrupt business model or anything. But thanks for telling us you would like even less regulation of the nuclear industry; that's just precious.
Human bodies are not net CO2 producers: An uneaten foodstuff will return its carbon to the atmosphere in the short-term on its own... even if another type of animal didn't eat it instead.
We are net producers by 'virtue' of our agriculture and CO2 industries; the irony being that the way we raise plants produces more CO2 than it consumes.
And what makes you think fusion wouldn't exacerbate every other (non-greenhouse-gas) ecological crisis that we face?
We've just gone through a period where too many humans thought concepts of efficiency and limits were outmoded.