Struts is an application framework, which means it is an application dependency. That means that every Struts-using application within Equifax would have needed to be upgraded, to be tested at least on the new version. That is the job of more than one person!
It is possible that Equifax's application servers (Tomcat, JBoss, etc) were configured with Struts being provided at the container level, but even that would be a full upgrade of multiple application servers within the company - a platforms team responsibility. However I suspect Struts would have been incorporated into the application itself at build time (as a dependency library).
I do not know how many applications Equifax's systems are made up of, but certainly the company I work for has dozens or hundreds to build up a trading platform (or two or three!). I imagine it is similar at Equifax.
I also cannot imagine a security team of 225 people having just one person be responsible to notifying and reminding of critical library vulnerabilities and updates for the entire business.
This smells of "VW Single Rogue Engineer" to me. Clearly bullshit.
The judge was probably told 'hacker!!!', the police didn't know better. The business needs to apologise profusely (although if they refuse to fix their systems, they'll soon run out of money from people abusing it, or people avoiding them).
All the kid did was the equivalent of changing the price on a paper order form before sending it to the business. He did not access any of their systems. It is not his fault that their systems blindly accept the price he changed.
Intent is key in these things, and as reporting the issue can clearly show no malicious intent, there should be no case. But hey, crappy country, anything involving police, angry embarrassed business, who knows...
You may never bother to recycle old panels. You'll sell them cheaply to third world countries as they'll still be 80% efficient after 30 years, or you'll keep on using them if you don't have space concerns (consider that a new panel in 30 years time may be half the price in real terms, and generate 20-50% more power, so giving the old panels away may be a reasonable thing to do, the new panels will still be too expensive for some areas of the world).
It's only winter in one hemisphere at a time, and the worst effects of it are only felt at certain latitudes.
If only there was a system, some form of national or international power transmission grid, to transfer power around from where it is being generated to where it is needed.
Why would you need weeks? Unless in Alaska where you couldn't regenerate enough power during the daytime to cover uses overnight during winter.
The typical worst case: you'd want to be able to generate enough power during a short winter's day to power everything and recharge the batteries fully, so the batteries only need to cater for a long winter night.
Solar should not be the only power source. Wind will have a major role, as a 24hr means to providing a baseline energy supply.
Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their Energy Return Ratios (ERR) are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use.
And 30 years is considered a low-ball figure by most people, although efficiency will be lower than at the start of life it will still be around 80%, so you could assume 50 years or even 100 years (why replace 80% efficiency panels when you can keep them and colocate new panels?) which makes them excellent.
Obviously that is his point, that an electric induction hob is far closer to gas hob performance than traditional electric hob (which are absolutely awful).
I would assume that backup hydroelectric plants would still be available.
And wind power would be generating even at night.
And at least for the foreseeable future there will be nuclear plants - may as well use the ones that have been built until the end of life. It just doesn't make sense to build new ones. Hopefully by the time they're out of date, the solar, wind and battery energy provisioning will be 150% of what's needed.
It'll probably (9/10 times anyway) detect that idiot move in 1/10th the time of a human. The car is smothered with sensors. Sure, it might brake and let the car do its stupid move, but accident avoided (at least for you).
Luckily it'll record the video of the incident if it is still unavoidable, and the blame will be easy to apportion afterwards.
What would be good is if the car has intersection red light runner detection with avoidant acceleration/rapid brake feature so the idiot doesn't hit you.
Well communications issues are easily solved, but the company needs to put a solution in place. They're far more efficient than wandering around looking for the person you want.
As regards productivity, you don't do it enough for it to become second nature. Two or three times a week and you will find you get more done.
The main downside is the hot desking on the days you go into work, especially if everybody decides to come in that day.
Obviously WfH works best for people who in the main work individually. Programmers, brilliant.
Those people working 2 jobs for a piss-poor minimum wage don't have the time or the money to go out to restaurants themselves. They'll spend all their money on surviving, and getting the necessities from the cheaper, mass-market supermarket where all the money disappears into a corporate blackhole.
Solve this problem by ensuring they get paid enough to free up some time, and to be able to afford to go out occasionally, then they will go to a restaurant (or other outlet), and you have a working economy, where money gets spent in the local area.
People on minimum wage typically spend all the money they make. Raising minimum wage sensibly (not massively) doesn't change that, so it keeps the economy working, and allows businesses to adapt when it does rise. Bump it massively, and businesses fail to adapt, or adopt automation before they really needed to.
Minimum Wage is ensuring that people who do work get paid at least a fair wage for that work so that if they work a reasonable number of hours a week, they can afford to feed, house, clothe, etc, themselves. Very few minimum wages are actually set at a level to achieve that TBH.
WIthout minimum wages, there is a tendency for employers to pay the people doing the work less, and to award the bosses higher bonuses. And there was a race to the bottom in competitive businesses. Being able to sell your goods for less isn't very useful when a large amount of the potential market cannot afford it.
The person who does a great job should be paid more, otherwise the business deserves to lose them to the competition. Yes, people who are less productive for whatever reason may find it harder to get work. A sensible government will put support in place for this situation. Automation has been replacing crappy jobs for centuries. Mass automation in the near future will drive solutions such as basic income. If someone cannot do the job in a minimum wage role, it is usually very quick to discover, due to the nature of the work.
Minimum wage defines the worth of a task, and gives dignity to roles that may be low-skilled and still hard work. For example, cleaning offices. Without minimum wages, employers lowballed rates for this type of work.
If your business cannot afford to pay its employees a decent wage for the work they do, in the area the business is located, then that business is simply not viable.
[quote]The Shard is 309.6 metres, or 1,016 feet, high and is Western Europe's tallest building. It is 95 storeys tall, with level 72 the highest habitable floor. The building is served by 36 lifts, some of which are double-decker. Lifts in The Shard travel at speeds of up to 6 metres a second. [/quote]
Those lifts will be stacked, so there may be 18 at ground floor, but many will terminate third/halfway up, and then others will be on top in the same shaft, e.g., http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/wtc... because of maximum elevator height due to the ropes. So in this example, 12 lifts per floor perhaps, likely in two cores of six for redundancy and safety.
This new system would likely end up being two cores of four (two accessible), but for the full height of the building. Some savings in floor space, but nothing drastic.
Indeed, and if this elevator can replace 8+ elevator shafts with 4 (Up, Down, Loading 1, Loading 2, for example), that's a massive gain for the building in terms of floor space. You don't even need Up/Down to be accessible due to the transverse travel feature, so you can redesign your elevator shaft layout.
I guess initial installs will be more conservative, but as the technology is proven and applied to taller buildings, you will see these improvements I'm sure.
It's not like stairwells are great solutions either, once the fire/smoke gets into them you will asphyxiate before you get down all the floors. However in decent buildings with dual-cores (and stairwells) there should always be a hallway between the stairwells.
That's why modern towerblocks are designed to isolate fires, so the safe thing to do is stay inside your place. Obviously, deregulation of building standards means that this doesn't happen, or they clad buildings in flammable material, thus bypassing safety features. After Grenfell, the next fire will result in a stampede regardless.
As long as you can power lifts, and the lift shaft is isolated from the fire, then I'd suggest that the lift should be used for evacuation. And a lift like this is ideal, as you can have many in operation at once.
Hopefully soon we will have drone rescue craft that can go up to high windows to save people externally.
Certainly you would also have redundant paths on any building tall enough to warrant using this system. For example, three up, three down, and something like 24 lifts in operation on those six shafts at peak times.
Maybe even overtaking paths, if the path-changing mechanism is fast and smooth. It would enable a building to offer a 'rapid elevator' function without needing a dedicated lift shaft.
Basically, it's a vertical passenger transportation highway, which is what these buildings have needed for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the lift scheduling and routing algorithms share a lot in common with modern railway signalling systems.
Via automation, and basic income, maybe, although it's likely that automation will have to be taxed to afford basic income...
The idea is that there will need to be oversight of automation, and some things will not be automated - getting those geriatric old people dressed, gardening, programming.
That's why the 1% are grabbing so much now. To set themselves up for the future. But they are aware that if you put too any people into poverty they have a tendency to eventually rise up. Hence basic income will have to be introduced at some point to keep the masses down. It won't be a great future to live on that. Maybe cooperatively living will improve things at this level, but many will just consume media.
Non-government office work is likely quite a lot higher than that, but that other time is mostly spent surfing whilst waiting for somebody else.
Government cutbacks mean that most public sector work is badly stretched.
Some people would prefer around 8hrs*4, others around 6hrs*5. The longer the commute, the nicer the former option, but in reality many jobs have a limit of effective work per day anyway. A mix - 8 hours twice a week in the office, and three times flexible hours at home to make it up to 30 hours a week would be a nice start for a first step to a lower-hours future for those lucky enough to be eligible.
If you have downtime (waiting for the CI system, etc) at work to do something like this, then do something that does not use work resources (in most cases, a computer, but in other industries could extend to industrial/manufacturing equipment, etc).
Specifically, design. On your own paper (or tablet, etc), using your own pens. There will always be problems to think through in any personal project.
So when your generation is getting older, and more likely to vote, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to get rid of SS? Not a chance in hell.
Most people on this site should be aiming to own a house by the time they retire, which can be leveraged by moving somewhere cheaper (and nicer, but crap for work), if they need to.
$1m (in today's prices) for a 30 year retirement is $33k a year. With no housing cost. Never mind that it will appreciate at 2-4% in real terms, if you're lucky you can live off the interest in some years. Obviously the pot will decrease (and drastically so later on as you approach your grave and the interest is less each year and in real terms it's losing lots of value). The problem for many is getting to that $1m, even on a decent wage - some may get inheritances, but many won't. Most can't save $30k a year for the last 30 years of their career.
The screwed generation is that which is priced out of buying houses, has stupidly massive student loan debts, and a job market threatening to automate itself over the course of their lifetime.
Living frugally in many (not all, you need a vice, but let it be a cheap vice like a few beers a couple of times a week) areas is the best advice.
But buying a bigger house is a good investment, if you rent out the spare rooms, and especially if you use combined purchasing power for food, etc. These days you will get a good rental income for the space used up. This is a good option in your 20s before you have a partner and children.
Knowing the cheap and tasty meals is a must, but they're not difficult. Packed lunches for work (or late lunches on the reduced items in the supermarket) too.
Luckily cars these days are pretty reliable, as I'm pretty damn useless when it comes to that. But I still have an 8 year old car (a recent upgrade from a 15 year old car).
I have one subscription service for TV, Music, File Storage. Amazon Prime is pretty good if you can wait for movies. I game via Humble Bundle/GOG, on older hardware. The retro computer/console hobby is a bit of a luxury though.
Don't scrimp where it matters. Buy cheap buy twice. Or worse, buy cheap, can't earn money because it broke.
Slashdot Mirror
Struts is an application framework, which means it is an application dependency. That means that every Struts-using application within Equifax would have needed to be upgraded, to be tested at least on the new version. That is the job of more than one person!
It is possible that Equifax's application servers (Tomcat, JBoss, etc) were configured with Struts being provided at the container level, but even that would be a full upgrade of multiple application servers within the company - a platforms team responsibility. However I suspect Struts would have been incorporated into the application itself at build time (as a dependency library).
I do not know how many applications Equifax's systems are made up of, but certainly the company I work for has dozens or hundreds to build up a trading platform (or two or three!). I imagine it is similar at Equifax.
I also cannot imagine a security team of 225 people having just one person be responsible to notifying and reminding of critical library vulnerabilities and updates for the entire business.
This smells of "VW Single Rogue Engineer" to me. Clearly bullshit.
The judge was probably told 'hacker!!!', the police didn't know better. The business needs to apologise profusely (although if they refuse to fix their systems, they'll soon run out of money from people abusing it, or people avoiding them).
All the kid did was the equivalent of changing the price on a paper order form before sending it to the business.
He did not access any of their systems.
It is not his fault that their systems blindly accept the price he changed.
Intent is key in these things, and as reporting the issue can clearly show no malicious intent, there should be no case. But hey, crappy country, anything involving police, angry embarrassed business, who knows...
You may never bother to recycle old panels. You'll sell them cheaply to third world countries as they'll still be 80% efficient after 30 years, or you'll keep on using them if you don't have space concerns (consider that a new panel in 30 years time may be half the price in real terms, and generate 20-50% more power, so giving the old panels away may be a reasonable thing to do, the new panels will still be too expensive for some areas of the world).
More likely 1,000 solar arrays averaging 10 square miles each.
With 1,000 batteries averaging 60x60 yards.
Could even be 10,000 solar arrays and batteries.
It's only winter in one hemisphere at a time, and the worst effects of it are only felt at certain latitudes.
If only there was a system, some form of national or international power transmission grid, to transfer power around from where it is being generated to where it is needed.
Why would you need weeks? Unless in Alaska where you couldn't regenerate enough power during the daytime to cover uses overnight during winter.
The typical worst case: you'd want to be able to generate enough power during a short winter's day to power everything and recharge the batteries fully, so the batteries only need to cater for a long winter night.
Solar should not be the only power source. Wind will have a major role, as a 24hr means to providing a baseline energy supply.
6 months to 2 years in 2011 : http://www.clca.columbia.edu/2...
Thanks. TLDR for skimmers:
Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce
all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six
months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation
and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their
Energy Return Ratios (ERR) are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and
the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the
energy they use.
And 30 years is considered a low-ball figure by most people, although efficiency will be lower than at the start of life it will still be around 80%, so you could assume 50 years or even 100 years (why replace 80% efficiency panels when you can keep them and colocate new panels?) which makes them excellent.
Obviously that is his point, that an electric induction hob is far closer to gas hob performance than traditional electric hob (which are absolutely awful).
I would assume that backup hydroelectric plants would still be available.
And wind power would be generating even at night.
And at least for the foreseeable future there will be nuclear plants - may as well use the ones that have been built until the end of life. It just doesn't make sense to build new ones. Hopefully by the time they're out of date, the solar, wind and battery energy provisioning will be 150% of what's needed.
It'll probably (9/10 times anyway) detect that idiot move in 1/10th the time of a human. The car is smothered with sensors. Sure, it might brake and let the car do its stupid move, but accident avoided (at least for you).
Luckily it'll record the video of the incident if it is still unavoidable, and the blame will be easy to apportion afterwards.
What would be good is if the car has intersection red light runner detection with avoidant acceleration/rapid brake feature so the idiot doesn't hit you.
Work from the local pub instead then.
Well communications issues are easily solved, but the company needs to put a solution in place. They're far more efficient than wandering around looking for the person you want.
As regards productivity, you don't do it enough for it to become second nature. Two or three times a week and you will find you get more done.
The main downside is the hot desking on the days you go into work, especially if everybody decides to come in that day.
Obviously WfH works best for people who in the main work individually. Programmers, brilliant.
Let's call that issue a 'good to have problem' eh?
I would hope that this was catered for in the law, a transition period perhaps to lessen the effect.
Indeed.
Those people working 2 jobs for a piss-poor minimum wage don't have the time or the money to go out to restaurants themselves. They'll spend all their money on surviving, and getting the necessities from the cheaper, mass-market supermarket where all the money disappears into a corporate blackhole.
Solve this problem by ensuring they get paid enough to free up some time, and to be able to afford to go out occasionally, then they will go to a restaurant (or other outlet), and you have a working economy, where money gets spent in the local area.
People on minimum wage typically spend all the money they make. Raising minimum wage sensibly (not massively) doesn't change that, so it keeps the economy working, and allows businesses to adapt when it does rise. Bump it massively, and businesses fail to adapt, or adopt automation before they really needed to.
Minimum Wage is ensuring that people who do work get paid at least a fair wage for that work so that if they work a reasonable number of hours a week, they can afford to feed, house, clothe, etc, themselves. Very few minimum wages are actually set at a level to achieve that TBH.
WIthout minimum wages, there is a tendency for employers to pay the people doing the work less, and to award the bosses higher bonuses. And there was a race to the bottom in competitive businesses. Being able to sell your goods for less isn't very useful when a large amount of the potential market cannot afford it.
The person who does a great job should be paid more, otherwise the business deserves to lose them to the competition.
Yes, people who are less productive for whatever reason may find it harder to get work. A sensible government will put support in place for this situation.
Automation has been replacing crappy jobs for centuries. Mass automation in the near future will drive solutions such as basic income.
If someone cannot do the job in a minimum wage role, it is usually very quick to discover, due to the nature of the work.
Minimum wage defines the worth of a task, and gives dignity to roles that may be low-skilled and still hard work. For example, cleaning offices. Without minimum wages, employers lowballed rates for this type of work.
If your business cannot afford to pay its employees a decent wage for the work they do, in the area the business is located, then that business is simply not viable.
A real world example:
[quote]The Shard is 309.6 metres, or 1,016 feet, high and is Western Europe's tallest building.
It is 95 storeys tall, with level 72 the highest habitable floor.
The building is served by 36 lifts, some of which are double-decker.
Lifts in The Shard travel at speeds of up to 6 metres a second.
[/quote]
Those lifts will be stacked, so there may be 18 at ground floor, but many will terminate third/halfway up, and then others will be on top in the same shaft, e.g., http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/wtc... because of maximum elevator height due to the ropes. So in this example, 12 lifts per floor perhaps, likely in two cores of six for redundancy and safety.
This new system would likely end up being two cores of four (two accessible), but for the full height of the building. Some savings in floor space, but nothing drastic.
Indeed, and if this elevator can replace 8+ elevator shafts with 4 (Up, Down, Loading 1, Loading 2, for example), that's a massive gain for the building in terms of floor space. You don't even need Up/Down to be accessible due to the transverse travel feature, so you can redesign your elevator shaft layout.
I guess initial installs will be more conservative, but as the technology is proven and applied to taller buildings, you will see these improvements I'm sure.
It's not like stairwells are great solutions either, once the fire/smoke gets into them you will asphyxiate before you get down all the floors. However in decent buildings with dual-cores (and stairwells) there should always be a hallway between the stairwells.
That's why modern towerblocks are designed to isolate fires, so the safe thing to do is stay inside your place. Obviously, deregulation of building standards means that this doesn't happen, or they clad buildings in flammable material, thus bypassing safety features. After Grenfell, the next fire will result in a stampede regardless.
As long as you can power lifts, and the lift shaft is isolated from the fire, then I'd suggest that the lift should be used for evacuation. And a lift like this is ideal, as you can have many in operation at once.
Hopefully soon we will have drone rescue craft that can go up to high windows to save people externally.
Certainly you would also have redundant paths on any building tall enough to warrant using this system. For example, three up, three down, and something like 24 lifts in operation on those six shafts at peak times.
Maybe even overtaking paths, if the path-changing mechanism is fast and smooth. It would enable a building to offer a 'rapid elevator' function without needing a dedicated lift shaft.
Basically, it's a vertical passenger transportation highway, which is what these buildings have needed for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the lift scheduling and routing algorithms share a lot in common with modern railway signalling systems.
Via automation, and basic income, maybe, although it's likely that automation will have to be taxed to afford basic income...
The idea is that there will need to be oversight of automation, and some things will not be automated - getting those geriatric old people dressed, gardening, programming.
That's why the 1% are grabbing so much now. To set themselves up for the future. But they are aware that if you put too any people into poverty they have a tendency to eventually rise up. Hence basic income will have to be introduced at some point to keep the masses down. It won't be a great future to live on that. Maybe cooperatively living will improve things at this level, but many will just consume media.
Non-government office work is likely quite a lot higher than that, but that other time is mostly spent surfing whilst waiting for somebody else.
Government cutbacks mean that most public sector work is badly stretched.
Some people would prefer around 8hrs*4, others around 6hrs*5. The longer the commute, the nicer the former option, but in reality many jobs have a limit of effective work per day anyway. A mix - 8 hours twice a week in the office, and three times flexible hours at home to make it up to 30 hours a week would be a nice start for a first step to a lower-hours future for those lucky enough to be eligible.
If you have downtime (waiting for the CI system, etc) at work to do something like this, then do something that does not use work resources (in most cases, a computer, but in other industries could extend to industrial/manufacturing equipment, etc).
Specifically, design. On your own paper (or tablet, etc), using your own pens. There will always be problems to think through in any personal project.
So when your generation is getting older, and more likely to vote, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to get rid of SS? Not a chance in hell.
Most people on this site should be aiming to own a house by the time they retire, which can be leveraged by moving somewhere cheaper (and nicer, but crap for work), if they need to.
$1m (in today's prices) for a 30 year retirement is $33k a year. With no housing cost. Never mind that it will appreciate at 2-4% in real terms, if you're lucky you can live off the interest in some years. Obviously the pot will decrease (and drastically so later on as you approach your grave and the interest is less each year and in real terms it's losing lots of value). The problem for many is getting to that $1m, even on a decent wage - some may get inheritances, but many won't. Most can't save $30k a year for the last 30 years of their career.
The screwed generation is that which is priced out of buying houses, has stupidly massive student loan debts, and a job market threatening to automate itself over the course of their lifetime.
Living frugally in many (not all, you need a vice, but let it be a cheap vice like a few beers a couple of times a week) areas is the best advice.
But buying a bigger house is a good investment, if you rent out the spare rooms, and especially if you use combined purchasing power for food, etc. These days you will get a good rental income for the space used up. This is a good option in your 20s before you have a partner and children.
Knowing the cheap and tasty meals is a must, but they're not difficult. Packed lunches for work (or late lunches on the reduced items in the supermarket) too.
Luckily cars these days are pretty reliable, as I'm pretty damn useless when it comes to that. But I still have an 8 year old car (a recent upgrade from a 15 year old car).
I have one subscription service for TV, Music, File Storage. Amazon Prime is pretty good if you can wait for movies.
I game via Humble Bundle/GOG, on older hardware. The retro computer/console hobby is a bit of a luxury though.
Don't scrimp where it matters. Buy cheap buy twice. Or worse, buy cheap, can't earn money because it broke.