Most ambulance services charge big bucks for transport. It's a big moneymaker for towns. Yes, your taxes pay for them but if you use them, you get to pay again.
I agree that many people will misunderstand the limitations of the metric (managers are a good example). However, it may help push good programming practice.
Unfortunately, some of the Chinese manufacturers don't invest in pollution control equipment. The Silicon Valley Toxics coalition rates one Chinese manufacturer best in the world for pollution control and some others are rated lowest. It's an easily solvable problem but, as we know, sometimes manufacturers like to cut corners. (I read today that some Chinese companies are exporting tanned hides of cats and dogs and labeling them as cow leather... makes you think that PETA may have a point.)
It seems to me that it identifies code which uses unsafe programming practices (such as compilers without security settings set) and code which uses unsafe libraries. The code itself might be OK but the environment might be dangerous. For instance, they mentioned that the Windows version of MS Office uses the latest version of the compiler with security settings and is therefore scored highly but the OSX version uses an old "unsafe" compiler and scores poorly. I agree that the methodology has its limits but don't think it's "worthless". If you have a program which scores low on their scale, it's probably best to avoid it if possible. If you have a program which scores high then it's probably more secure (but not guaranteed secure). This metric has some value. There is no guarantee of bulletproof code but there are good programming practices which can lead to better code. I agree that the only current way to really be certain about code is to look at it manually but it seems that they are starting to put together an AI engine which over time could become more capable.
I submitted this story since it looked like an interesting approach to a thorny problem of measuring and reporting on software security. I was hoping that someone would comment on this approach to grading software for potential vulnerabilities.
At 50 comments now, nobody has posted a comment which addresses the topic of the article. Instead, we have a lot of people who are apparently jealous that someone is getting paid for providing a service. Other people have taken the opportunity to trash talk various operating systems, languages, hardware and software. Most benign (but still irrelevant) are war stories how some courageous, smart iconoclast overcame co-worker and institutional stupidity to save the day. And, of course, personal attacks. I guess this is a sign of the times. We have no discussion of substance, just flame wars. Make Slashdot great again! I really must find something (anything) better to do with my time.
Yes, it is complicated and there is much FUD. There is also a lot of good research. Here is a good article which tries to correct some of the misinformation: http://thinkprogress.org/clima... In particular for this conversation, there is a discussion and nice graphic of the cost of the latest and greatest nuclear plant (Hinckley C) from EDF, the Chinese, etc. which shows that it is projected to have 126% greater cost than current base load. It also discusses the falling cost of battery storage and the role of wind.
Your profits will be eaten up by bribing politicians to buy your drone and dump the primary contractor (who has already bribed the politicians). The military-industrial-political complex is very tightly knit. It's hard to break into and requires years of "groundwork". But once you have all the politicians in place, it's gravy.
I've often thought it would be useful to send my location to someone (by SMS, email, etc.). This feature only seems to work with 911 services. Does anyone know of an app which can send your location? (It would be nice if it was also integrated with maps.)
I've used a Logitech K760 for years. It's Bluetooth and has a small solar cell array across the top so it's always charged. Never have to worry about changing batteries. Has been 100% reliable used with various computers I've had over the years (currently Chromebook and MacBook Air). (Also, since it didn't make the list of vulnerable proprietary keyboards and it's Bluetooth, it should be more secure.) Wireless really is better
My 6 year old MacBook is a pig. I got tired of looking at the spinning rainbow and bought a Chromebook. It's fast, responsive and does most everything I need. I can see that a phone with an ARM processor would make a good laptop.
We've gotten a bit off track here. I originally responded to a post which proposed making H2 from electricity, storing it and then converting that back to electricity. I pointed out that this is very inefficient (you only recoup about 30%). This is a very poor method to store electricity. I also pointed out that there is no need for long term battery electricity storage since short term fluctuations in wind, solar, hydro tend to even out. Recently published models of electric production from renewables have show that it is possible to support the grid entirely with renewables. http://www.worldbank.org/en/ne... http://www.nrel.gov/electricit...
CH4 production and use for heating is a different subject.
There is no need for long term energy storage. Wind, solar and hydro have daily variations but reliable generation when averaged over even very short time spans. There is no need to store this energy for more than a few days. If you have a source of H2 (such as this article posits), you can tap that as needed (similar to CH4) if you can work out a way to get if from the middle of the ocean. However, the thermodynamic inefficiencies of converting electricity to H2 and back to electricity (30%) makes it uneconomical (as well as unnecessary). H2 is a very poor energy storage medium (thermodynamically).
Good sir (I assume you are a male, pardon if not). I was merely responding to the prior post which was extolling the virtues of storing electrical energy as H2. I pointed out a few problems with the scheme and why it is a bad electricity storage medium. I'm not sure what set you off on the tangent of Elon Musk but it seems that you have a pathological hatred of the man. Batteries do have their limits but are much better than H2 storage of electricity which is grossly inefficient. It's really hard to store any energy for long periods of time. Trees are probably the best storage of energy for winter heat. Fortunately, renewable sources of electricity (wind, solar and hydro) only need small amounts of short term storage since they are renewed daily with predictable fluctuations.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.thecountrycaller.co...
Nice Haiku.
Most ambulance services charge big bucks for transport. It's a big moneymaker for towns.
Yes, your taxes pay for them but if you use them, you get to pay again.
I agree that many people will misunderstand the limitations of the metric (managers are a good example).
However, it may help push good programming practice.
Unfortunately, some of the Chinese manufacturers don't invest in pollution control equipment.
The Silicon Valley Toxics coalition rates one Chinese manufacturer best in the world for pollution control and some others are rated lowest. It's an easily solvable problem but, as we know, sometimes manufacturers like to cut corners.
(I read today that some Chinese companies are exporting tanned hides of cats and dogs and labeling them as cow leather... makes you think that PETA may have a point.)
It seems to me that it identifies code which uses unsafe programming practices (such as compilers without security settings set) and code which uses unsafe libraries. The code itself might be OK but the environment might be dangerous.
For instance, they mentioned that the Windows version of MS Office uses the latest version of the compiler with security settings and is therefore scored highly but the OSX version uses an old "unsafe" compiler and scores poorly.
I agree that the methodology has its limits but don't think it's "worthless". If you have a program which scores low on their scale, it's probably best to avoid it if possible. If you have a program which scores high then it's probably more secure (but not guaranteed secure). This metric has some value.
There is no guarantee of bulletproof code but there are good programming practices which can lead to better code.
I agree that the only current way to really be certain about code is to look at it manually but it seems that they are starting to put together an AI engine which over time could become more capable.
I submitted this story since it looked like an interesting approach to a thorny problem of measuring and reporting on software security.
I was hoping that someone would comment on this approach to grading software for potential vulnerabilities.
At 50 comments now, nobody has posted a comment which addresses the topic of the article.
Instead, we have a lot of people who are apparently jealous that someone is getting paid for providing a service.
Other people have taken the opportunity to trash talk various operating systems, languages, hardware and software.
Most benign (but still irrelevant) are war stories how some courageous, smart iconoclast overcame co-worker and institutional stupidity to save the day.
And, of course, personal attacks.
I guess this is a sign of the times. We have no discussion of substance, just flame wars.
Make Slashdot great again!
I really must find something (anything) better to do with my time.
Your card is probably a debit card (which does require a PIN).
This discussion is about credit cards which in the US do not require PINs.
Yes, it is complicated and there is much FUD. There is also a lot of good research.
Here is a good article which tries to correct some of the misinformation:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
In particular for this conversation, there is a discussion and nice graphic of the cost of the latest and greatest nuclear plant (Hinckley C) from EDF, the Chinese, etc. which shows that it is projected to have 126% greater cost than current base load.
It also discusses the falling cost of battery storage and the role of wind.
Solar is half the cost of nuclear (per kWh) and getting cheaper.
Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive.
The animals can live around the Solar panels just fine. No people to disturb them. Nuclear plant not so much...
What do you call a massive solar spill?
A great day.
Your profits will be eaten up by bribing politicians to buy your drone and dump the primary contractor (who has already bribed the politicians).
The military-industrial-political complex is very tightly knit. It's hard to break into and requires years of "groundwork". But once you have all the politicians in place, it's gravy.
It's well known that reality has a very liberal bias.
Can this Make Russia Great Again?
I've often thought it would be useful to send my location to someone (by SMS, email, etc.).
This feature only seems to work with 911 services.
Does anyone know of an app which can send your location? (It would be nice if it was also integrated with maps.)
I've used a Logitech K760 for years. It's Bluetooth and has a small solar cell array across the top so it's always charged. Never have to worry about changing batteries. Has been 100% reliable used with various computers I've had over the years (currently Chromebook and MacBook Air). (Also, since it didn't make the list of vulnerable proprietary keyboards and it's Bluetooth, it should be more secure.)
Wireless really is better
So... looks like Putin convinced you to help elect Trump (his preferred candidate).
How does it feel to be a tool of Putin?
posting to undo moderation
Mine is an Air with a SSD.
Each release of OSX has made it worse. Really unusable.
The Chromebook is refreshingly fast.
Do you have a problem dumping phones in the crapper? How do you do this? Most people put their butt over the crapper, not their head.
My 6 year old MacBook is a pig. I got tired of looking at the spinning rainbow and bought a Chromebook. It's fast, responsive and does most everything I need. I can see that a phone with an ARM processor would make a good laptop.
We've gotten a bit off track here.
I originally responded to a post which proposed making H2 from electricity, storing it and then converting that back to electricity. I pointed out that this is very inefficient (you only recoup about 30%). This is a very poor method to store electricity. I also pointed out that there is no need for long term battery electricity storage since short term fluctuations in wind, solar, hydro tend to even out. Recently published models of electric production from renewables have show that it is possible to support the grid entirely with renewables.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/ne...
http://www.nrel.gov/electricit...
CH4 production and use for heating is a different subject.
There is no need for long term energy storage.
Wind, solar and hydro have daily variations but reliable generation when averaged over even very short time spans. There is no need to store this energy for more than a few days.
If you have a source of H2 (such as this article posits), you can tap that as needed (similar to CH4) if you can work out a way to get if from the middle of the ocean. However, the thermodynamic inefficiencies of converting electricity to H2 and back to electricity (30%) makes it uneconomical (as well as unnecessary). H2 is a very poor energy storage medium (thermodynamically).
Good sir (I assume you are a male, pardon if not).
I was merely responding to the prior post which was extolling the virtues of storing electrical energy as H2. I pointed out a few problems with the scheme and why it is a bad electricity storage medium.
I'm not sure what set you off on the tangent of Elon Musk but it seems that you have a pathological hatred of the man.
Batteries do have their limits but are much better than H2 storage of electricity which is grossly inefficient.
It's really hard to store any energy for long periods of time. Trees are probably the best storage of energy for winter heat.
Fortunately, renewable sources of electricity (wind, solar and hydro) only need small amounts of short term storage since they are renewed daily with predictable fluctuations.