Using software from your main adversary is profoundly bad security. The same is true when Russia uses US software.
Antivirus software is second only to the operating system in terms of privilege and therefore makes an ideal attack vector. I bet most AV software is more than capable of maliciously stealing files, keystrokes, or planting a trojan if they were so directed.
I don't consider Russia an adversary;
Then you are stupid.
I don't mind people being stupid-- people are stupid sometimes; it happens. I do mind people being deliberately stupid because being stupid is the only way that they can defend their ideology.
If your idiotic ideology telling you "Washington is our enemy" and that means Russia is fine, you might consider changing your ideology to one that allows you to actually see the real world.
The only proof I have seen is talk about a security vulnerability discovered by Israeli intelligence in Kaspersky, which they reported to the US government.
Uh, the "discovery" by Israeli intelligence that you're dismissing was not merely "a security vulnerability," but was watching Russians exploiting that security vulnerability and rifling through files.
It's ironic Lucm, that Republicans and Democrats agree that Trump is a moron, and yet you still cannot accept that you made a mistake in voting for him.
>...Perhaps its time to simply admit the mistake in voting for Trump.
I'm not sure what "you" refers to here.
In general, the people voting for Trump didn't like him (Really! Look at the numbers). They voted for Trump because they thought that it was more important to vote for a person with the expressed ideological position agreeing with them than it was to vote for somebody that they liked or thought was smart or competent.
To a very very good approximation, they didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Clinton.
Yeah, I know-- don't bother saying it: you're not going to read any of these because "that's all fake news because the mainstream media lies". Yeah. When you dismiss everything that confronts your entrenched position, yes of course you will never change your mind.
The problem is that the denier community is so out of touch that they post their crap on articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
Annoying people is is not helping your cause, Mr. Coward.
That's the problem: once you appease them you're stuck with them. They smell weakness. They realize the power they have over you. They will demand more and more, never being satisfied.
Yeah-- give them the ability to turn one feature off, and people might start to demand that they be able to turn other features off. Turn off autoplay on videos! Turn off automatic notification of things you don't give a damn about! Why, some people might even want to turn off autocorrect!
The headline is rather stretching. They are not "establishing new guidelines".
The discussion is about a few statements buried deep inside the pamphlet, "Protective Action Questions & Answers for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies", which is not a "guideline" or any kind of regulation setting radiation standards:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod...
The statement is on page 18, in the section "55. What are millirem (mrem) and millisieverts (mSv)?"
"According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000
mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation
below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk."
.. followed by repeating the same statement in the same words on the next page, in section 57. Will people who have been exposed to the
radiation get cancer?
"There is clear evidence that high doses of radiation can raise your risk of cancer.
Although cancer has been associated with high doses of radiation received over short
periods of time, the cancers usually do not appear for many years, even decades.
According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000
mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation
below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.
And then repeating it in exactly the same words in the next page over again:
60. Are people at risk for radiation poisoning or
sickness?
Radiation sickness is an illness from short-term exposure to a large amount of radiation.
In the United States, dose is measured in units called millirem (mrem). The international
unit is the millisievert (mSv).
According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000
mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation
below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.
Safety recommendations are designed to keep your dose as low as possible.
It takes a large dose of radiation—more than 75 rem (75,000 mrem or 750 mSv)—in a
short amount of time (usually minutes to hours) to cause immediate health effects, such
as acute radiation sickness.
But these are not guidelines, and not even proposed guidelines. The numbers seem to be consistent with health effects stated in other sources, e.g., http://www.radiationanswers.or... or http://www.radiationanswers.or... :
* 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect immediate observable health effects, although your chances of getting cancer might be very slightly increased.
* 100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.
This has been debated for a long time. It's a question of whether the data from higher exposures can be correctly extrapolated to lower doses using the Linear No Threshold model.
What is a 'Bubble'
A bubble is an economic cycle characterized by rapid escalation of asset prices followed by a contraction. It is created by a surge in asset prices unwarranted by the fundamentals of the asset M and driven by exuberant market behavior.
More to the point, when AIs learn to write code better than human coders, the humans are no longer coders, they will instead be writing specifications for the code that the AI will write: essentially they will be managers for the AI.
The point of there having been higher CO2 concentration in the past is that there was no "runaway feedback" (which is one of the many spurious, specious, doomy claims of the Klimate Kultists).
I haven't heard that claim. I certainly haven't heard it from actual scientists, who are quite aware of paleoclimate-- in fact, modeling the ice ages was one of the original things that led to understanding the effect of carbon dioxide on climate in the first place.
There are some positive feedback effects, but none that really get into the "runaway feedback" range.
Now mod this post down and commence the personal attacks!
I'd mod you down as "-1, specious straw-man claim with no citation" if there were such a mod category.
Oh, I'll agree with that. Carbon dioxide was nowhere near levels that would be dangerous for humans. It had a higher global temperature by a few degrees, but not dangerous to humans.
Again: only true if you ignore the one that blew up on the pad
You mean "the one that was blown up on the pad by improper handling"?
Blown up on the bad by a failed helium tank strut. If there was improper handling somewhere, so far nobody has identified that as the problem.
But I'm not sure what your point is. All accidents have causes, which I suppose ultimately comes down to somebody doing something improper. It's still a failure.
That's like blaming cars for crashes caused by amateur drivers.
Or blaming SpaceX for explosions caused by amateur rocket engineers?
They learn from their failure. It's a very effective way to learn, and I approve of the fact that they do learn, and keep on going. Nevertheless, it's a failure.
Actually, to find carbon dioxide levels higher than today you have to look back to the Miocene epoch, about 5.2 million years ago. There were not humans around then. During the following epoch, the Pliocene, carbon dioxide (and temperature) dropped, with the ice age cycle starting with an abrupt drop at the beginning the Pleistocene.
If you want to see really high CO2, though, you want to go back to the Mesozoic era.
The biggest problem is that CO2 doesn't seem to be the big problem. In the past the earth had much higher CO2 values, and more plant life.
Yes, and no. In the past, the Earth had much higher CO2 levels, and also much higher average temperatures and no ice caps. So, if you don't mind losing the parts of the current land area that are near the ocean, yes, we could have higher CO2 and higher temperatures.
The "more plant life" you mention is speculative. Paleobotany doesn't give us a good measure of total plant biomass.
Because of the low levels of CO2 today, we have and increasingly large areas on earth, were nothing grows anymore...
No. Places where nothing grows are due to lack of water, not lack of CO2. Plants do need CO2, of course, but in very few places is it the main limitation to growth.
They should invest more time in solving things like those plastic soup problems in the oceans, instead of wasting their time on the agenda of a group of corrupt global warming advocates...
Ah, whataboutism! When one problem is brought up, say "what about XX?" to change the subject!
No reason we can't address more than one different problem.
Some history: The young innovative rocket company SpaceX had made claims that it had designed the most reliable booster ever built, one that would have a 99.9% reliability right from the very first flight... and then blew up their first three launches.
Were there actually any such claims made about the Falcon 1? The Falcon 9, on the other hand, was actually quite lucky when it comes to its first dozen flights or so - it hasn't been really common for new launchers to be so trouble-free in the past. Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 had issues in their first launch. Ariane 5 had even four issues in its first seventeen launches, where Falcon 9 has one on its fourth flight that was covered for by redundancy. And look where Ariane 5 is now, after it has matured.
Yes. That was a direct quote from Elon Musk: 99.9% reliability from the very first flight, because he "designed reliability in from the start."
The statement of yours to which I was responding stated that "SX" had only one failure and one partial failure. I assume "SX" was an acronym for "SpaceX." I can't see any way to interpret "SX" as being short for "F9".
If you are going to make up acronyms, be clear. It would not have taken more than few seconds to type "SpaceX" when you mean SpaceX, and "Falcon 9" if you mean Falcon 9.
"SX has 1 F9 that exploded during launch, and put 1 payload into too low of orbit. So, 1.5 as I said
Again: only true if you ignore the one that blew up on the pad, which would make it 2.5, not 1.5.
"ULA charges 4x what SX does. A single launch from ULA costs more than what 3 payloads AND launches that SX puts up.
Yes, that's precisely what I said: if you want reliability you will pay for it: moving up from 95 percent to pushing 100% costs a lot.
So from a cost efficiency POV, ULA is a joke.
Yes, slashdot readers not in the aerospace business might think so. However, not having failures is important to many missions. There are a lot of missions for which it does make sense to pay for that added 5% increase in success record.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, dismiss everything that doesn't accord with your worldview.
Using software from your main adversary is profoundly bad security. The same is true when Russia uses US software.
Antivirus software is second only to the operating system in terms of privilege and therefore makes an ideal attack vector. I bet most AV software is more than capable of maliciously stealing files, keystrokes, or planting a trojan if they were so directed.
I don't consider Russia an adversary;
Then you are stupid.
I don't mind people being stupid-- people are stupid sometimes; it happens. I do mind people being deliberately stupid because being stupid is the only way that they can defend their ideology.
If your idiotic ideology telling you "Washington is our enemy" and that means Russia is fine, you might consider changing your ideology to one that allows you to actually see the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/11/israel-hack-uncovered-russian-spies-use-kaspersky-lab-2015-report-us-software-federal-government
The only proof I have seen is talk about a security vulnerability discovered by Israeli intelligence in Kaspersky, which they reported to the US government.
Uh, the "discovery" by Israeli intelligence that you're dismissing was not merely "a security vulnerability," but was watching Russians exploiting that security vulnerability and rifling through files.
This was not theoretical.
It's ironic Lucm, that Republicans and Democrats agree that Trump is a moron, and yet you still cannot accept that you made a mistake in voting for him.
>...Perhaps its time to simply admit the mistake in voting for Trump.
I'm not sure what "you" refers to here.
In general, the people voting for Trump didn't like him (Really! Look at the numbers). They voted for Trump because they thought that it was more important to vote for a person with the expressed ideological position agreeing with them than it was to vote for somebody that they liked or thought was smart or competent.
To a very very good approximation, they didn't vote for Trump; they voted against Clinton.
Citation needed.
http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war
https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/james-clapper-absolutely-russia-interfered/2017/05/30/id/793102/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448931/vladimir-putin-russian-election-interference-american-incompetence-weakness-helped-it
I'd lay off the magic mushrooms.
Yeah, I know-- don't bother saying it: you're not going to read any of these because "that's all fake news because the mainstream media lies". Yeah. When you dismiss everything that confronts your entrenched position, yes of course you will never change your mind.
Annoying people is is not helping your cause, Mr. Coward.
Yet another ad for Google products?
That's the problem: once you appease them you're stuck with them. They smell weakness. They realize the power they have over you. They will demand more and more, never being satisfied.
Yeah-- give them the ability to turn one feature off, and people might start to demand that they be able to turn other features off. Turn off autoplay on videos! Turn off automatic notification of things you don't give a damn about! Why, some people might even want to turn off autocorrect!
That's it exactly. It's not that the feature is bad, it's that Google DIDN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO TURN IT OFF.
The discussion is about a few statements buried deep inside the pamphlet, "Protective Action Questions & Answers for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies", which is not a "guideline" or any kind of regulation setting radiation standards: https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod...
The statement is on page 18, in the section "55. What are millirem (mrem) and millisieverts (mSv)?"
"According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk."
.. followed by repeating the same statement in the same words on the next page, in section 57. Will people who have been exposed to the radiation get cancer?
"There is clear evidence that high doses of radiation can raise your risk of cancer. Although cancer has been associated with high doses of radiation received over short periods of time, the cancers usually do not appear for many years, even decades.
According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.
And then repeating it in exactly the same words in the next page over again: 60. Are people at risk for radiation poisoning or sickness?
Radiation sickness is an illness from short-term exposure to a large amount of radiation. In the United States, dose is measured in units called millirem (mrem). The international unit is the millisievert (mSv). According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.
Safety recommendations are designed to keep your dose as low as possible.
It takes a large dose of radiation—more than 75 rem (75,000 mrem or 750 mSv)—in a short amount of time (usually minutes to hours) to cause immediate health effects, such as acute radiation sickness.
But these are not guidelines, and not even proposed guidelines. The numbers seem to be consistent with health effects stated in other sources, e.g., http://www.radiationanswers.or... or http://www.radiationanswers.or... :
* 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect immediate observable health effects, although your chances of getting cancer might be very slightly increased.
* 100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.
This has been debated for a long time. It's a question of whether the data from higher exposures can be correctly extrapolated to lower doses using the Linear No Threshold model.
Good catch, that link pointed to the earlier failure.
Here's a link to the failure on the pad http://spacenews.com/spacex-narrows-down-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion which was attributed to a helium tank failure http://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-spacex-explosion-20170102-story.html, or http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a23652/spacex-falcon-explosion-cause-helium-loading/.
Sorry I inadverently linked to a different failure that was linked to a different helium tank failure.
Can we combine all these articles under just one title "Your Security is Flawed. You're Not Secure"?
No. Because it actually does make a difference what is insecure, and how.
"...using inadequate language..."
I never realized it before now, but I have exactly that problem, inadequate language to deal with my boss
IMHO, they deserved what they got.
What is a 'Bubble'
A bubble is an economic cycle characterized by rapid escalation of asset prices followed by a contraction. It is created by a surge in asset prices unwarranted by the fundamentals of the asset M and driven by exuberant market behavior.
More to the point, when AIs learn to write code better than human coders, the humans are no longer coders, they will instead be writing specifications for the code that the AI will write: essentially they will be managers for the AI.
The point of there having been higher CO2 concentration in the past is that there was no "runaway feedback" (which is one of the many spurious, specious, doomy claims of the Klimate Kultists).
I haven't heard that claim. I certainly haven't heard it from actual scientists, who are quite aware of paleoclimate-- in fact, modeling the ice ages was one of the original things that led to understanding the effect of carbon dioxide on climate in the first place.
There are some positive feedback effects, but none that really get into the "runaway feedback" range.
Now mod this post down and commence the personal attacks!
I'd mod you down as "-1, specious straw-man claim with no citation" if there were such a mod category.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Oh, I'll agree with that. Carbon dioxide was nowhere near levels that would be dangerous for humans. It had a higher global temperature by a few degrees, but not dangerous to humans.
Oh, wait, is that an obsolete meme? I must be a luddite.
Again: only true if you ignore the one that blew up on the pad
You mean "the one that was blown up on the pad by improper handling"?
Blown up on the bad by a failed helium tank strut. If there was improper handling somewhere, so far nobody has identified that as the problem.
But I'm not sure what your point is. All accidents have causes, which I suppose ultimately comes down to somebody doing something improper. It's still a failure.
That's like blaming cars for crashes caused by amateur drivers.
Or blaming SpaceX for explosions caused by amateur rocket engineers?
They learn from their failure. It's a very effective way to learn, and I approve of the fact that they do learn, and keep on going. Nevertheless, it's a failure.
If you want to see really high CO2, though, you want to go back to the Mesozoic era.
The biggest problem is that CO2 doesn't seem to be the big problem. In the past the earth had much higher CO2 values, and more plant life.
Yes, and no. In the past, the Earth had much higher CO2 levels, and also much higher average temperatures and no ice caps. So, if you don't mind losing the parts of the current land area that are near the ocean, yes, we could have higher CO2 and higher temperatures.
The "more plant life" you mention is speculative. Paleobotany doesn't give us a good measure of total plant biomass.
Because of the low levels of CO2 today, we have and increasingly large areas on earth, were nothing grows anymore...
No. Places where nothing grows are due to lack of water, not lack of CO2. Plants do need CO2, of course, but in very few places is it the main limitation to growth.
They should invest more time in solving things like those plastic soup problems in the oceans, instead of wasting their time on the agenda of a group of corrupt global warming advocates...
Ah, whataboutism! When one problem is brought up, say "what about XX?" to change the subject!
No reason we can't address more than one different problem.
Some history: The young innovative rocket company SpaceX had made claims that it had designed the most reliable booster ever built, one that would have a 99.9% reliability right from the very first flight... and then blew up their first three launches.
Were there actually any such claims made about the Falcon 1? The Falcon 9, on the other hand, was actually quite lucky when it comes to its first dozen flights or so - it hasn't been really common for new launchers to be so trouble-free in the past. Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 had issues in their first launch. Ariane 5 had even four issues in its first seventeen launches, where Falcon 9 has one on its fourth flight that was covered for by redundancy. And look where Ariane 5 is now, after it has matured.
Yes. That was a direct quote from Elon Musk: 99.9% reliability from the very first flight, because he "designed reliability in from the start."
Those 3 were F1s, not F9s.
The statement of yours to which I was responding stated that "SX" had only one failure and one partial failure. I assume "SX" was an acronym for "SpaceX." I can't see any way to interpret "SX" as being short for "F9".
If you are going to make up acronyms, be clear. It would not have taken more than few seconds to type "SpaceX" when you mean SpaceX, and "Falcon 9" if you mean Falcon 9.
"SX has 1 F9 that exploded during launch, and put 1 payload into too low of orbit. So, 1.5 as I said
Again: only true if you ignore the one that blew up on the pad, which would make it 2.5, not 1.5.
"ULA charges 4x what SX does. A single launch from ULA costs more than what 3 payloads AND launches that SX puts up.
Yes, that's precisely what I said: if you want reliability you will pay for it: moving up from 95 percent to pushing 100% costs a lot.
So from a cost efficiency POV, ULA is a joke.
Yes, slashdot readers not in the aerospace business might think so. However, not having failures is important to many missions. There are a lot of missions for which it does make sense to pay for that added 5% increase in success record.