Industrial waste heat too. For example in my home town, waste heat from a trash incineration facility is combined with waste heat from chemical plant Akzo Nobel, and provides a number of homes & other buildings in the area with heating and hot water. Overview here:
I'm wondering if this is the sort of technology that can be defeated with chicken wire.
You mean against those pesky wire-cutter equipped drones? Probably not.
I'd think more along the lines of "a layer of defense" rather than "defeated". Preparing for an attack by something that has feature X? Include something in your defenses to defeat feature X.
Except perhaps the ehm... 1.2 billion people living there (projected to grow to ~4 billion over this century, or just under 40% of the world population). Or those countries that are affected when people from Africa migrate there. Like Europe & the Middle East. Or people affected by climate change when fossil fuel usage goes up across the continent.
So like it or not: what happens in Africa affects the rest of the world. Including you.
My personal hope is for AMD to release some low-power APU's that fit between mobile & 'classical' desktop applications. Say, AM4 socket parts with around ~30W TDP to go on affordable mini-ITX boards for SFF PC's, home theatre, all-in-ones and such. Not that I would mind even lower-power mobile parts, but those tend to be thin on the ground in terms of availability for diy builds (eg. separate APU + motherboard purchase). And there's quite some space these days between laptops & the bulky PC's of yesterday.
How many Gt of CO2 and S have we human released into the air, since the industry revolution?
As for CO2: according to Wikipedia, around 380 Gigatonnes of carbon in the 1901-2013 timespan. Or just under 1400 Gigatonnes of CO2. So this meteor strike would have put ~1/3 of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a single event, of what mankind has produced throughout its industrial age.
Note that the source referenced by Wikipedia only seems to have per-year totals (estimates, obviously). So I'm guessing that 380 GtC number was arrived at by adding up the annual figures.
It was only a few years ago people were saying that the best Go computers would never beat human players (..)
Quite possible that -for now- "better" is a relative term in Go context. If humans used a limited set of strategies (and grey cells), then an AI may explore parts of the problem space that most humans never touched. And perhaps discover winning strategies there.
But that only goes so far. A good analogy might be how bacteria compete & evolve in a resource-restricted environment. At the beginning, species A may take the upper hand because it multiplies faster than the competition. A bit later, species B may get the upper hand if it uses available food sources more efficient. Later on species C may evolve to thrive better than A or B as waste products change the (closed?) environment. And so on. Would species D, E or F be "better" than A, B or C? Only under specific conditions.
Over time, Go (and AI's playing it) may evolve to the point where it's a solved problem a la tic-tac-toe, and all areas of the problem space have been explored. But I doubt AlphaGo got us to that point. Merely a (big) stepping stone into new territory.
After a few cycles, the wages and standard of living in the original country should have reduced enough due to goods no longer being produced there that the company can relocate back to country 1 and start the whole thing over again.
That would imply standards of living drop after manufacturing moves on to cheaper countries. I think that will rarely be the case - if ever.
For starters, companies won't move on all at the same time. That leaves plenty of time to adjust & move low-skilled workers higher up the stack. Also while producing for other countries, workers will pick up some skills that are still useful after a company moves on. For example to produce for the home market (that didn't exist, or was poorly served before). Or go into design of products, vs. just manufacturing them.
Although I do share your sentiment about global corp's behavior, I see this more as a kind of development aid. Who profits to what degree may not be fairly divided, but in the long run / in the bigger scheme of things, everybody wins. Until @ some point, we have most countries up to a minimum "developed" standard (whatever meaning you attach), beside a few shitholes where a civil war or whatever is raging.
This docu is about Nestlé's bottled water operations in (mostly) poor countries. But with some parts about this subject as well - taking a public resource & selling that for profit.
At the core this was nothing but a redistribution of wealth out of the US with no real guarantees the cash would be used to actually preserve the environment.
The US is near the top in countries that:
a) Have the biggest impact on our environment (both climate-related & otherwise), and
b) Have the resources to do something about it.
So it's only reasonable that countries like the US, China & European countries should take the lead to reduce mankind's influence on climate.
Paris was negotiated among a large number of countries. Pulling out after the fact just shows the US as an untrustworthy partner. Especially since Paris was more about setting goals than binding agreements.
If he was American, he would have put a bullet through the hard drive.
Pen testing physical security, eh?
Guess he just wanted to see how the drive would perform under heavy load. That, or try a heavy duty tool to remove his Windows 10 spyw^H^H^H install (or was it systemd? Who knows).
AAA titles would continue to sell just fine regardless, if it is what users want & prices are reasonable.
The DRM 'features' in today's consoles allow original owner (Sony here) to act as gatekeeper and control when, where, by whom, and what gets released for the platform. In theory, enabling a 'one size for all' where titles released for the platform will Just Work (tm) and thus create the plug & play experience you expect from a console. But ultimately of course (where it conflicts with end-users' interests), to maximize company's bottom line rather than home users' value of the console. Homebrew options break that model and allow the software ecosystem to drift out of original owner's hands. That is why eg. Sony will fight tooth & nail to prevent that.
Your PS4 will become worthless (in terms of getting access to new games) if the platform is hacked.
Even if that were true, it would still serve users to have a full-on hack & homebrew scene: when Sony stops releasing new titles. So in the long run, it's always beneficial to users when a console gets hacked / jailbroken or whatever. Just a matter of what's the optimal timing for which hack(s) to get out.
Air gapping critical infrastructure should be a federal law, because anything connected can eventually be hacked given enough time and resources.
At this point it should be obvious that more & more critical infrastructure will be hooked up to networks, including the internet. Even if experts consider that dumb.
Conclusion: good advice won't help, what's needed is casualties. When a cyberattack takes out large parts of the power grid, or causes a chemical plant to blow up, and people actually DIE as a result, THEN maybe air-gapping will be looked at in a different light. Until then, prepare for cyberattacks to have worse & worse real life effects.
The problem with climate science, as always, is explaining the significance to the general voter
Voters will understand just fine when once-a-century flooding of their streets become yearly events. Or any such event worsened by our changing climate.
Of course by the time that happens, it'll be too late to avoid some of the worst effects. Meaning that "plan ahead for likely disasters" should be part of any sensible climate change strategy. Regardless of political developments or 'greening' efforts already underway.
Not that sustainability efforts don't matter. In fact, they should be stepped up. As for the politics & public education, we could use a 'Hans Rosling of climate research'. Any candidates out there?
I hear the future is going to be bad. Better setup a scheme to steal money from the people who earn it, just in case.
Who exactly do you mean with "the people who earn it"? The owner of a company that employs robots in their manufacturing? That company's shareholders? Its CEO's, CFO's etc that decide where to direct resources?
If so: what exactly did they do to produce useful output? Build those robots? No, some external manufacturer did that. Program & and repair them? No, some hired-in technicians do that. Put in the raw materials those robots work on? No, external supplier of said materials did that. Check end products as they ship? No, factory worker or also automated. And/or end user of said product does the checking...:-) Shipping itself then? No, external distributor does that.
The people that 'run the show' aren't doing the work themselves, only tell others how they want it done. If you look at most products from raw material to end user, few people even touch it anymore. But for the people who do, who profits the most from that? No, not farmer or producer of the raw materials. Or the truck driver. Nor the factory worker. It's middlemen at the top & their associates (who already have a lot of capital to begin with) that take the bulk of the proceeds.
This happens because our economic & political systems are set up to keep it that way. Which imho is the real problem that could use a fix. But I feel I'm not the only one there... As wealth inequality grows, that fix will come. If not in a peaceful manner, then in a violent manner. Or anything in between.
Bottom line: automation isn't a threat, it's a good thing. It makes that we can have the same things using less people-effort. But the fruits of that automation should somehow be more equally distributed across people.
And perhaps we should re-evaluate our methods to determine how useful / valuable people are to society as a whole. In my personal opinion: capitalism had a good run, but ain't quite it. There's no reason for a CEO to make 100x the salary of a factory worker. Given the current state of technology, there's ZERO reason for anyone on this planet to starve on the street.
Heh, the reef is worth about US$4.5 Billion a year in tourist income to Australia, not to mention it's value as a restocking nursery for surrounding commercial fisheries.
Tough for the Aussies then. 'Cause you can be sure the parties ultimately responsible for the damage, will NOT be the ones picking up the bill (see: externalities).
The problem is that manufacturers don't secure the IoT devices they produce, and that's who your ire should be directed at. However, this punishes the users who purchased those devices, usually out of ignorance.
As those users should be.
The reason that insecure (or otherwise unreliable) devices are the norm these days, is that a) hardware & software vendors get away with it. And b) most users don't care. Or at least not seem to care enough to change things.
If a device can be bricked simply by hooking it up to a network, but buyer is too lazy or ignorant to check before buying, then buyer deserves what he gets. If buyer does his/her homework (and finds device is vulnerable), but buys the product anyway, then buyer deserves what he gets.
That leaves the case where buyer did his homework, product "looks good", but gets bricked anyway. That should be a warranty issue, shifting the burden onto vendors. As it should be.
So if things like this BrickerBot help to invalidate the "vendor gets away with insecure crap" equation, then please: carry on with the good work!
Makes perfect sense to me. It may just be a matter of economics:
In the past, cities tended to grow at strategic locations, or where it is relatively easy (read: cheap) to support a city. Like near a choke point between land masses. Or a river delta (easy transport up river). Or in the middle of an area with fertile agricultural land.
In a technological advanced society, it should be possible to recycle most raw materials (including water). Most food could be grown in 10-story greenhouses where crops don't even need soil. This only takes space, and energy. So 'cheap' may then gravitate to non-agricultural land where energy is abundant. A desert could be one of such places. Floating cities on the open ocean another option.
Of course this may depend on how much more the world's population grows. Maybe that will stabilize at a number where there isn't much need to build new cities from scratch.
Delivering a massive first strike would only give the NK regime an excuse to say to its people "see, we told you this would happen", and then retaliate in equal measure. Which would only leave losers on both sides.
NK should not be given that excuse. Shoot down their missiles if any of them come too close to population centres outside NK. Sink a sub if it comes too close to US (or other friendly nation) shoreline. Covert sabotage operations, fine. A good dose of cyberwar, why not. Stationing extra troops near border areas as a show of preparedness. But DO NOT be the one to push the start button for a full-on war. Especially if nukes might be involved.
Ultimately it's up to NK people to deal with their own regime. And that regime will come to an end - like everything else. It's only a matter of time.
Tesla's not the only company targeting electric drivetrains for transport vehicles; Nikola revealed its One vehicle last year, too, though that's a hybrid that also uses compressed natural gas in addition to its electric battery.
Hehe.. I'm sure Nikola & Tesla will get along nicely...
Without even reading the article, a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation says that ~300 GHz corresponds to ~1 mm. wavelength (for EM radiation in vacuum or near that in air).
That's in the far infrared range of the spectrum. Read: optical, line-of-sight surely. Well duh... optical signals can be modulated at high speed, we know that, used every day to pump data through glass fibers or change channels on your TV. Why is this news?
What's inside the plastic wrapping is going to kill you quicker than whatever the wrapping is made of.
Fair point. But when I first read about this topic, and looked up what these chemicals are & what they're used for, 1st thought was: "What the F#$K are these chemicals doing near our food in the first place? And even more, in food packaging?". I simply don't understand.
It seems compounds like this could be an ingredient in cleaning agents. Okay, as a producer you may have issues with washing the reminder of cleaning agents such that traces remain & get in the food processed. But if that's a known problem, why not use more 'food-friendly' cleaning agents where it isn't a big issue if traces remain?
Okay, it could be used in kitchen utensils. Or non-stick surfaces. But even then, in daily use these things don't break down fast enough to leave more than minute traces in what they come in contact with. That, or the cooking / baking process is screwed up so bad you'd tell from the end product in other ways.
But as a component in food packaging? For fast food? The kind of cups & trays that are typically discarded within hours from purchase anyway? That makes no sense. It should be soooo easy to find packaging materials where the element F doesn't even occur in any shape, form, or significant quantities. For this application, why risk using organofluorine compounds at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Another terrible thing is that when you change phones you lose your chat history.
I'd call that a feature!
What's so important about past chats anyway? Chat away about whatever, move on. Another day, another round. Photos etc can be saved as desired.
Industrial waste heat too. For example in my home town, waste heat from a trash incineration facility is combined with waste heat from chemical plant Akzo Nobel, and provides a number of homes & other buildings in the area with heating and hot water. Overview here:
Warmtenet Hengelo
There exist many similar projects in my country & elsewhere.
I'm wondering if this is the sort of technology that can be defeated with chicken wire.
You mean against those pesky wire-cutter equipped drones? Probably not.
I'd think more along the lines of "a layer of defense" rather than "defeated". Preparing for an attack by something that has feature X? Include something in your defenses to defeat feature X.
Nobody gives a fuck about Africa.
Except perhaps the ehm... 1.2 billion people living there (projected to grow to ~4 billion over this century, or just under 40% of the world population). Or those countries that are affected when people from Africa migrate there. Like Europe & the Middle East. Or people affected by climate change when fossil fuel usage goes up across the continent.
So like it or not: what happens in Africa affects the rest of the world. Including you.
Looks great for desktop and server use. Does AMD have a good mobile offering at the moment?
Yes, the recently released Raven Ridge aka Ryzen Mobile.
My personal hope is for AMD to release some low-power APU's that fit between mobile & 'classical' desktop applications. Say, AM4 socket parts with around ~30W TDP to go on affordable mini-ITX boards for SFF PC's, home theatre, all-in-ones and such. Not that I would mind even lower-power mobile parts, but those tend to be thin on the ground in terms of availability for diy builds (eg. separate APU + motherboard purchase). And there's quite some space these days between laptops & the bulky PC's of yesterday.
How many Gt of CO2 and S have we human released into the air, since the industry revolution?
As for CO2: according to Wikipedia, around 380 Gigatonnes of carbon in the 1901-2013 timespan. Or just under 1400 Gigatonnes of CO2. So this meteor strike would have put ~1/3 of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a single event, of what mankind has produced throughout its industrial age.
Note that the source referenced by Wikipedia only seems to have per-year totals (estimates, obviously). So I'm guessing that 380 GtC number was arrived at by adding up the annual figures.
It was only a few years ago people were saying that the best Go computers would never beat human players (..)
Quite possible that -for now- "better" is a relative term in Go context. If humans used a limited set of strategies (and grey cells), then an AI may explore parts of the problem space that most humans never touched. And perhaps discover winning strategies there.
But that only goes so far. A good analogy might be how bacteria compete & evolve in a resource-restricted environment. At the beginning, species A may take the upper hand because it multiplies faster than the competition. A bit later, species B may get the upper hand if it uses available food sources more efficient. Later on species C may evolve to thrive better than A or B as waste products change the (closed?) environment. And so on. Would species D, E or F be "better" than A, B or C? Only under specific conditions.
Over time, Go (and AI's playing it) may evolve to the point where it's a solved problem a la tic-tac-toe, and all areas of the problem space have been explored. But I doubt AlphaGo got us to that point. Merely a (big) stepping stone into new territory.
After a few cycles, the wages and standard of living in the original country should have reduced enough due to goods no longer being produced there that the company can relocate back to country 1 and start the whole thing over again.
That would imply standards of living drop after manufacturing moves on to cheaper countries. I think that will rarely be the case - if ever.
For starters, companies won't move on all at the same time. That leaves plenty of time to adjust & move low-skilled workers higher up the stack. Also while producing for other countries, workers will pick up some skills that are still useful after a company moves on. For example to produce for the home market (that didn't exist, or was poorly served before). Or go into design of products, vs. just manufacturing them.
Although I do share your sentiment about global corp's behavior, I see this more as a kind of development aid. Who profits to what degree may not be fairly divided, but in the long run / in the bigger scheme of things, everybody wins. Until @ some point, we have most countries up to a minimum "developed" standard (whatever meaning you attach), beside a few shitholes where a civil war or whatever is raging.
Bottled Life - Nestlé's Business with Water (English with some German commentary, YT auto-translate of subtitles may help)
This docu is about Nestlé's bottled water operations in (mostly) poor countries. But with some parts about this subject as well - taking a public resource & selling that for profit.
At the core this was nothing but a redistribution of wealth out of the US with no real guarantees the cash would be used to actually preserve the environment.
The US is near the top in countries that:
a) Have the biggest impact on our environment (both climate-related & otherwise), and
b) Have the resources to do something about it.
So it's only reasonable that countries like the US, China & European countries should take the lead to reduce mankind's influence on climate.
Paris was negotiated among a large number of countries. Pulling out after the fact just shows the US as an untrustworthy partner. Especially since Paris was more about setting goals than binding agreements.
If he was American, he would have put a bullet through the hard drive.
Pen testing physical security, eh?
Guess he just wanted to see how the drive would perform under heavy load. That, or try a heavy duty tool to remove his Windows 10 spyw^H^H^H install (or was it systemd? Who knows).
More CPU diversity articles, please!
Yeah, so sad that FreeBSD got there first. ;-)
AAA titles would continue to sell just fine regardless, if it is what users want & prices are reasonable.
The DRM 'features' in today's consoles allow original owner (Sony here) to act as gatekeeper and control when, where, by whom, and what gets released for the platform. In theory, enabling a 'one size for all' where titles released for the platform will Just Work (tm) and thus create the plug & play experience you expect from a console. But ultimately of course (where it conflicts with end-users' interests), to maximize company's bottom line rather than home users' value of the console. Homebrew options break that model and allow the software ecosystem to drift out of original owner's hands. That is why eg. Sony will fight tooth & nail to prevent that.
Your PS4 will become worthless (in terms of getting access to new games) if the platform is hacked.
Even if that were true, it would still serve users to have a full-on hack & homebrew scene: when Sony stops releasing new titles. So in the long run, it's always beneficial to users when a console gets hacked / jailbroken or whatever. Just a matter of what's the optimal timing for which hack(s) to get out.
Air gapping critical infrastructure should be a federal law, because anything connected can eventually be hacked given enough time and resources.
At this point it should be obvious that more & more critical infrastructure will be hooked up to networks, including the internet. Even if experts consider that dumb.
Conclusion: good advice won't help, what's needed is casualties. When a cyberattack takes out large parts of the power grid, or causes a chemical plant to blow up, and people actually DIE as a result, THEN maybe air-gapping will be looked at in a different light. Until then, prepare for cyberattacks to have worse & worse real life effects.
The problem with climate science, as always, is explaining the significance to the general voter
Voters will understand just fine when once-a-century flooding of their streets become yearly events. Or any such event worsened by our changing climate.
Of course by the time that happens, it'll be too late to avoid some of the worst effects. Meaning that "plan ahead for likely disasters" should be part of any sensible climate change strategy. Regardless of political developments or 'greening' efforts already underway.
Not that sustainability efforts don't matter. In fact, they should be stepped up. As for the politics & public education, we could use a 'Hans Rosling of climate research'. Any candidates out there?
I hear the future is going to be bad. Better setup a scheme to steal money from the people who earn it, just in case.
Who exactly do you mean with "the people who earn it"? The owner of a company that employs robots in their manufacturing? That company's shareholders? Its CEO's, CFO's etc that decide where to direct resources?
If so: what exactly did they do to produce useful output? Build those robots? No, some external manufacturer did that. Program & and repair them? No, some hired-in technicians do that. Put in the raw materials those robots work on? No, external supplier of said materials did that. Check end products as they ship? No, factory worker or also automated. And/or end user of said product does the checking... :-) Shipping itself then? No, external distributor does that.
The people that 'run the show' aren't doing the work themselves, only tell others how they want it done. If you look at most products from raw material to end user, few people even touch it anymore. But for the people who do, who profits the most from that? No, not farmer or producer of the raw materials. Or the truck driver. Nor the factory worker. It's middlemen at the top & their associates (who already have a lot of capital to begin with) that take the bulk of the proceeds.
This happens because our economic & political systems are set up to keep it that way. Which imho is the real problem that could use a fix. But I feel I'm not the only one there... As wealth inequality grows, that fix will come. If not in a peaceful manner, then in a violent manner. Or anything in between.
Bottom line: automation isn't a threat, it's a good thing. It makes that we can have the same things using less people-effort. But the fruits of that automation should somehow be more equally distributed across people.
And perhaps we should re-evaluate our methods to determine how useful / valuable people are to society as a whole. In my personal opinion: capitalism had a good run, but ain't quite it. There's no reason for a CEO to make 100x the salary of a factory worker. Given the current state of technology, there's ZERO reason for anyone on this planet to starve on the street.
Heh, the reef is worth about US$4.5 Billion a year in tourist income to Australia, not to mention it's value as a restocking nursery for surrounding commercial fisheries.
Tough for the Aussies then. 'Cause you can be sure the parties ultimately responsible for the damage, will NOT be the ones picking up the bill (see: externalities).
The problem is that manufacturers don't secure the IoT devices they produce, and that's who your ire should be directed at. However, this punishes the users who purchased those devices, usually out of ignorance.
As those users should be.
The reason that insecure (or otherwise unreliable) devices are the norm these days, is that a) hardware & software vendors get away with it. And b) most users don't care. Or at least not seem to care enough to change things.
If a device can be bricked simply by hooking it up to a network, but buyer is too lazy or ignorant to check before buying, then buyer deserves what he gets. If buyer does his/her homework (and finds device is vulnerable), but buys the product anyway, then buyer deserves what he gets.
That leaves the case where buyer did his homework, product "looks good", but gets bricked anyway. That should be a warranty issue, shifting the burden onto vendors. As it should be.
So if things like this BrickerBot help to invalidate the "vendor gets away with insecure crap" equation, then please: carry on with the good work!
Makes perfect sense to me. It may just be a matter of economics:
In the past, cities tended to grow at strategic locations, or where it is relatively easy (read: cheap) to support a city. Like near a choke point between land masses. Or a river delta (easy transport up river). Or in the middle of an area with fertile agricultural land.
In a technological advanced society, it should be possible to recycle most raw materials (including water). Most food could be grown in 10-story greenhouses where crops don't even need soil. This only takes space, and energy. So 'cheap' may then gravitate to non-agricultural land where energy is abundant. A desert could be one of such places. Floating cities on the open ocean another option.
Of course this may depend on how much more the world's population grows. Maybe that will stabilize at a number where there isn't much need to build new cities from scratch.
Delivering a massive first strike would only give the NK regime an excuse to say to its people "see, we told you this would happen", and then retaliate in equal measure. Which would only leave losers on both sides.
NK should not be given that excuse. Shoot down their missiles if any of them come too close to population centres outside NK. Sink a sub if it comes too close to US (or other friendly nation) shoreline. Covert sabotage operations, fine. A good dose of cyberwar, why not. Stationing extra troops near border areas as a show of preparedness. But DO NOT be the one to push the start button for a full-on war. Especially if nukes might be involved.
Ultimately it's up to NK people to deal with their own regime. And that regime will come to an end - like everything else. It's only a matter of time.
There's a point at which someone wins that race, and is rewarded with spectacular effects... /sarcasm
Beside the unlucky vapers who don't have a clue what they're doing but -indeed- chose the cheapest gear they could find (especially batteries).
From the article:
Tesla's not the only company targeting electric drivetrains for transport vehicles; Nikola revealed its One vehicle last year, too, though that's a hybrid that also uses compressed natural gas in addition to its electric battery.
Hehe.. I'm sure Nikola & Tesla will get along nicely...
Without even reading the article, a quick back-of-the-envelop calculation says that ~300 GHz corresponds to ~1 mm. wavelength (for EM radiation in vacuum or near that in air).
That's in the far infrared range of the spectrum. Read: optical, line-of-sight surely. Well duh... optical signals can be modulated at high speed, we know that, used every day to pump data through glass fibers or change channels on your TV. Why is this news?
What's inside the plastic wrapping is going to kill you quicker than whatever the wrapping is made of.
Fair point. But when I first read about this topic, and looked up what these chemicals are & what they're used for, 1st thought was: "What the F#$K are these chemicals doing near our food in the first place? And even more, in food packaging?". I simply don't understand.
It seems compounds like this could be an ingredient in cleaning agents. Okay, as a producer you may have issues with washing the reminder of cleaning agents such that traces remain & get in the food processed. But if that's a known problem, why not use more 'food-friendly' cleaning agents where it isn't a big issue if traces remain?
Okay, it could be used in kitchen utensils. Or non-stick surfaces. But even then, in daily use these things don't break down fast enough to leave more than minute traces in what they come in contact with. That, or the cooking / baking process is screwed up so bad you'd tell from the end product in other ways.
But as a component in food packaging? For fast food? The kind of cups & trays that are typically discarded within hours from purchase anyway? That makes no sense. It should be soooo easy to find packaging materials where the element F doesn't even occur in any shape, form, or significant quantities. For this application, why risk using organofluorine compounds at all?