http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_Direct_Injection - GDI goes back to 1925, and this "high pressure transonic combustion" is just some buzzwordy gobbledygook used to try and hide the fact that it's just GDI plus some snakeoil claims (nearly any claims of major improvements from fuel preprocessing are snakeoil and have been for decades...) if you actually read the description of what they claim to be doing.
Yeah. After reading this, all it sounds like is Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) plus a bit of snake oil.
And the question is, in that non-hybrid sportscar that scored that awesome gas mileage, what were the conditions? Were they optimal conditions (cruising for an extended period of time at an unrealistic speed? I've been able to clock 31 MPG with my car in the summer by keeping it below 60 for an extended highway drive, I could probably hit 33-34 by dropping to 50, but my typical average is in the mid 20s in summer and low 20s in winter due to different tires and winter fuel reformulation.), or was it a test compliant with EPA mileage testing guidelines (which became much stricter in the early 2000s, which is why in general you saw a lot of cars' EPA ratings drop.)
Not likely to happen. We've already got legislation going the exact opposite way of what you predict, trying to ban incandescents.
The problem is that the favored technology (CFLs) contains mercury, so there is valid opposition to fighting such legislation. Plus fluorescents are bad news for epileptics... A friend of mine suffered a minor stroke and has since been prone to seizures. He is unable to spend more than a few minutes in any place with fluorescent lighting, and since nearly everywhere has such lighting, he is now on disability. Banning incandescents would make that problem even worse.
LEDs have potential, but right now they are a LOT more expensive than CFLs, and they are not as efficient as CFLs.
No they don't. Some dumbass SPECULATES that it "probably" has over 100 million lines of code, with absolutely no information with which to back up his claim.
Also, this large amount of code doesn't run in a single CPU - it consists of multiple microprocessors, most of which probably have less than 128k of program memory. Many have only 2k-8k. (See, for example, Atmel's automotive microcontroller product lines.)
"Even low-end cars now have 30 to 50 ECUs embedded in the body, doors, dash, roof, trunk, seats and just about anywhere else the car’s designers can think to put them. That means that most new cars are executing tens of million of lines of software code"...
OK, so, taking some relatively conservative numbers (50 ECUs, 10M SLOC), that's claiming that they are fitting an average of 200K SLOC per ECU.
Really, how are you fitting 200K SLOC into 128 kilobytes or less of program memory?
In reality, you have a bunch of independently testable modules each running a very simple program, and then the total SLOC count for the car probably goes up 10x-100x when you throw in a satellite navigation/entertainment system. That system is pretty highly decoupled from the rest of the vehicle, and at most has a few speed/steering angle inputs to support dead reckoning with no outputs to critical control systems.
Being implemented in real-world hardware is not in and of itself a flaw, as long as you design your implementation under the assumption that it will be subjected to attacks like this.
Attacks like this are NOT new. See, for example, the guidelines for FIPS 140-2 Level 4.
Still, "seeking between multiple locations" vs. "not seeking" will negatively impact total throughput.
So, for example, even if the additional load is only 10% of the hard drive's maximum throughput, the impact to the main user is going to be significantly more than a 10% hit.
Unfortunately, when you're dealing with disk I/O, you can have processes that use little CPU but severely degrade disk performance by beating on the disk.
Even if it's at low priority, any seeks at all to a part of the drive that normally wouldn't be accessed will hurt performance.
It's not a case of "90% of the disk throughput for app A and 10% for B" - the moment you introduce B, the total performance drops significantly due to seeking coming into play.
Right. Which is why there are guidelines for implementing crypto algorithms so as to avoid sidechannel attacks.
Occasionally someone finds a new sidechannel attack (such as one that relied on the Pentium 4's hyperthreading implementation), but most of the "basic" ones are well known and can be designed against. (See, for example, FIPS 140-2 level 4, which requires protection against glitching attacks such as this.)
Also, this is an attack against software running on the host CPU (OpenSSL in the paper) - most likely, 95%+ of OpenSSL implementations on datacenter servers are storing the key on the hard drive, not in a TPM.
No one attacked the algorithm itself here. They attacked one specific implementation of the RSA algorithm.
Side channel attacks are nothing new. There are plenty of crytographic algorithms that have no known flaws which have had implementations broken via side channel attacks, due to flaws in the implementation, not the algorithm.
GAH. Somehow I typed this all up but forgot to hit submit...
My experience is that in addition to few routers/APs doing simultaneous dual-band, many don't allow you to do different modes on the two bands. 802.11n degrades severely in the presence of legacy devices, and it's a spectrum hog. So N in the 2.4 GHz band is a bad idea - my experience is that every 2.4 GHz N solution I've worked with has performed worse than a good 802.11g router with an external antenna. 802.11n works pretty well in the 5 GHz band - very few legacy devices and plenty of spectrum.
Nearly all dual-band routers/APs also now use internal antennas. Routers/APs with internal antennas suck. Period. It is far easier to find singleband routers that support external antennas (and singleband antennas) than dualband routers that support external antennas.
My own apartment setup is: 802.11g router with sector antenna running DD-WRT 802.11n router configured as an AP in the 5 GHz band, running "n-only" mode Each network has a slightly different SSID so I can explicitly choose which network to use.
I would reccommend something like: 1) A 2.4 GHz network of G-only units with external antennas like the Ubiqiti Bullet2 or Bullet2-HP 2) A 5 GHz network of N-only units with external antennas
Very few people have equipment capable of 802.11a but not 5 GHz N, and forcing N-only on the 5 GHz network will improve performance. If you really want support for "legacy A" users, install a third network on a different set of channels.
I don't like the dual-band routers much - they always seem to do a crap job serving both bands, even in the rare cases that the router supports it.
$300 each for those Netgear APs sounds ridiculous when you can get carrier-grade equipment (such as Ubiqiti Rocket series units) for far less. Instead of getting dual-band stuff, just set up independent 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz networks.
If you are using a different SIM for the "other country" provider, where do you typically start looking to shop?
If you are using your own SIM, if you were in a position like myself (US resident considering travel/vacation in Europe) - How would you go about getting a short-term SIM/finding one in your given country?
Every time I've looked into SIMs in other countries, the solutions I've found have been extremely expensive and despite Europe not doing the contract thing like we do, clearly not oriented towards the "used for 1-4 weeks" situation. Most of the short-term SIMs seem to be voice only too.
Any ham who is caught interfering with fire or police frequencies is going to lose their license and go to jail. Yes, every group is going to have a few "bad apples", so please show an example of interference that was sanctioned by the ARRL, FCC, or other reputable organization. If I recall correctly, Cornell's ARC received a commendation from the local police/fire departments for the service they provided after some severe icestorms that knocked out the cell network AND some of the police repeaters in the mid-1990s. W2CXM and CUPD have shared rooftop space for antennas for quite some time in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Sadly, innovation coming from amateur radio has indeed slowed down, but not stopped. This is mostly due to archaic FCC rules on spread spectrum communications - hams are severely limited by old FCC regs in the ability to do SS work, even on uncrowded microwave bands, while everyone in the commercial industry is using SS techniques. There still is development work being done by hams though, especially in terms of software defined radios.
Saturn was always a part of GM, however upon inception they were an "experiment" and effectively an independent unit.
IMO a successful experiment, I was seriously considering buying a Saturn two years ago until I discovered that their independence was long gone and pretty much their entire vehicle lineup were rebadged Opels. Not especially "bad" but with none of the "good" stuff (like composite body panels) that set them apart in the past.
I bought a Subaru instead, which has managed to retain quite a few "unique" traits even after 20% ownership by GM and now Toyota.
Yeah, there's a common association with "plastic=cheap", however, properly designed plastics can often be the superior choice compared to other materials.
For example, devices with cases made of ABS plastic have a tendency to just bounce when dropped. If the same object had a metal case, it would dent on impact. Of course, cheaper plastics will just shatter.
In this case, keep in mind that typically, solar cells are made of glass. A solar cell made from plastic is going to be FAR more impact resistant.
Another example of "plastic more durable than glass" is polycarbonate lenses for vision correction. These are basically shatterproof, and if you get hit in the lens with a hockey puck, you'll get bruises/cuts on your face around the edge of the lens but your eye will be perfectly safe. I'd probably be missing an eye if I had been wearing "traditional" glass lenses my sophomore year of college thanks to the fact that Harvard students can't grasp simple concepts such as "puck goes in the net, not the opposing team pepband's trombone section".
That's not quite true if I recall the story correctly. (A village in New Zealand IIRC, I don't have the link with me now.)
The tower was active for a while, but for reasons unrelated to the complaints, the company shut it down for a few weeks. Residents continued complaining of health effects even after the 6 week mark. (They were not notified of the shutdown until a meeting with company reps around then.)
Yeah, sector antennas tend to have an even NARROWER vertical beamwidth than dipoles, in addition to adding moderate horizontal directionality (usually 90 or 120 degrees horizontal beamwidth instead of 360 degree coverage.)
Um, no. Licensed business users are allowed pretty high power levels too.
Also, there are clearly defined amateur radio bands. If a ham goes outside the bands they are licensed for (easy to figure out who due to amateur radio identification requirements), they're subject to losing their license if it proves to be continuous behavior.
I can't figure out whether you're utterly clueless or a total troll.
It does not make sense that a cell phone tower's panel antenna would be blasting straight into an adjacent apartment as the article poster describes. This is counterproductive to achieving good coverage from that antenna.
The article poster says "roughly" on the same plane, how is "roughly" defined? Those panel antennas can have some pretty significant directionality in the vertical plane, such that even if "roughly" means "one or two stories difference", the antennas are probably shooting OVER this apartment and not INTO it. Especially since, as I said before, it makes no sense for these antennas to be shooting into it.
No touch panel. The clock plays Pong against itself, will "throw" a point for one side when one of the clock digits needs to increment, resulting in the game score equaling the time.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_Direct_Injection - GDI goes back to 1925, and this "high pressure transonic combustion" is just some buzzwordy gobbledygook used to try and hide the fact that it's just GDI plus some snakeoil claims (nearly any claims of major improvements from fuel preprocessing are snakeoil and have been for decades...) if you actually read the description of what they claim to be doing.
Yeah. After reading this, all it sounds like is Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) plus a bit of snake oil.
And the question is, in that non-hybrid sportscar that scored that awesome gas mileage, what were the conditions? Were they optimal conditions (cruising for an extended period of time at an unrealistic speed? I've been able to clock 31 MPG with my car in the summer by keeping it below 60 for an extended highway drive, I could probably hit 33-34 by dropping to 50, but my typical average is in the mid 20s in summer and low 20s in winter due to different tires and winter fuel reformulation.), or was it a test compliant with EPA mileage testing guidelines (which became much stricter in the early 2000s, which is why in general you saw a lot of cars' EPA ratings drop.)
Not likely to happen. We've already got legislation going the exact opposite way of what you predict, trying to ban incandescents.
The problem is that the favored technology (CFLs) contains mercury, so there is valid opposition to fighting such legislation. Plus fluorescents are bad news for epileptics... A friend of mine suffered a minor stroke and has since been prone to seizures. He is unable to spend more than a few minutes in any place with fluorescent lighting, and since nearly everywhere has such lighting, he is now on disability. Banning incandescents would make that problem even worse.
LEDs have potential, but right now they are a LOT more expensive than CFLs, and they are not as efficient as CFLs.
Probably Sewer Class...
No they don't. Some dumbass SPECULATES that it "probably" has over 100 million lines of code, with absolutely no information with which to back up his claim.
Also, this large amount of code doesn't run in a single CPU - it consists of multiple microprocessors, most of which probably have less than 128k of program memory. Many have only 2k-8k. (See, for example, Atmel's automotive microcontroller product lines.)
"Even low-end cars now have 30 to 50 ECUs embedded in the body, doors, dash, roof, trunk, seats and just about anywhere else the car’s designers can think to put them. That means that most new cars are executing tens of million of lines of software code"...
OK, so, taking some relatively conservative numbers (50 ECUs, 10M SLOC), that's claiming that they are fitting an average of 200K SLOC per ECU.
Really, how are you fitting 200K SLOC into 128 kilobytes or less of program memory?
In reality, you have a bunch of independently testable modules each running a very simple program, and then the total SLOC count for the car probably goes up 10x-100x when you throw in a satellite navigation/entertainment system. That system is pretty highly decoupled from the rest of the vehicle, and at most has a few speed/steering angle inputs to support dead reckoning with no outputs to critical control systems.
Being implemented in real-world hardware is not in and of itself a flaw, as long as you design your implementation under the assumption that it will be subjected to attacks like this.
Attacks like this are NOT new. See, for example, the guidelines for FIPS 140-2 Level 4.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips140-2/fips1402.pdf
Still, "seeking between multiple locations" vs. "not seeking" will negatively impact total throughput.
So, for example, even if the additional load is only 10% of the hard drive's maximum throughput, the impact to the main user is going to be significantly more than a 10% hit.
Unfortunately, when you're dealing with disk I/O, you can have processes that use little CPU but severely degrade disk performance by beating on the disk.
Even if it's at low priority, any seeks at all to a part of the drive that normally wouldn't be accessed will hurt performance.
It's not a case of "90% of the disk throughput for app A and 10% for B" - the moment you introduce B, the total performance drops significantly due to seeking coming into play.
Right. Which is why there are guidelines for implementing crypto algorithms so as to avoid sidechannel attacks.
Occasionally someone finds a new sidechannel attack (such as one that relied on the Pentium 4's hyperthreading implementation), but most of the "basic" ones are well known and can be designed against. (See, for example, FIPS 140-2 level 4, which requires protection against glitching attacks such as this.)
Also, this is an attack against software running on the host CPU (OpenSSL in the paper) - most likely, 95%+ of OpenSSL implementations on datacenter servers are storing the key on the hard drive, not in a TPM.
A similar sidechannel attack might be usable to extract such information though.
To be more specific:
No one attacked the algorithm itself here. They attacked one specific implementation of the RSA algorithm.
Side channel attacks are nothing new. There are plenty of crytographic algorithms that have no known flaws which have had implementations broken via side channel attacks, due to flaws in the implementation, not the algorithm.
GAH. Somehow I typed this all up but forgot to hit submit...
My experience is that in addition to few routers/APs doing simultaneous dual-band, many don't allow you to do different modes on the two bands.
802.11n degrades severely in the presence of legacy devices, and it's a spectrum hog. So N in the 2.4 GHz band is a bad idea - my experience is that every 2.4 GHz N solution I've worked with has performed worse than a good 802.11g router with an external antenna.
802.11n works pretty well in the 5 GHz band - very few legacy devices and plenty of spectrum.
Nearly all dual-band routers/APs also now use internal antennas. Routers/APs with internal antennas suck. Period. It is far easier to find singleband routers that support external antennas (and singleband antennas) than dualband routers that support external antennas.
My own apartment setup is:
802.11g router with sector antenna running DD-WRT
802.11n router configured as an AP in the 5 GHz band, running "n-only" mode
Each network has a slightly different SSID so I can explicitly choose which network to use.
I would reccommend something like:
1) A 2.4 GHz network of G-only units with external antennas like the Ubiqiti Bullet2 or Bullet2-HP
2) A 5 GHz network of N-only units with external antennas
Very few people have equipment capable of 802.11a but not 5 GHz N, and forcing N-only on the 5 GHz network will improve performance. If you really want support for "legacy A" users, install a third network on a different set of channels.
I don't like the dual-band routers much - they always seem to do a crap job serving both bands, even in the rare cases that the router supports it.
$300 each for those Netgear APs sounds ridiculous when you can get carrier-grade equipment (such as Ubiqiti Rocket series units) for far less. Instead of getting dual-band stuff, just set up independent 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz networks.
Elaborating on the previous user's question:
If you are using a different SIM for the "other country" provider, where do you typically start looking to shop?
If you are using your own SIM, if you were in a position like myself (US resident considering travel/vacation in Europe) - How would you go about getting a short-term SIM/finding one in your given country?
Every time I've looked into SIMs in other countries, the solutions I've found have been extremely expensive and despite Europe not doing the contract thing like we do, clearly not oriented towards the "used for 1-4 weeks" situation. Most of the short-term SIMs seem to be voice only too.
The way I've always described the effect of violent video games:
Digital punching bag. At least for me and some of my friends, the stress release of violent video games made us LESS violent in school.
Any ham who is caught interfering with fire or police frequencies is going to lose their license and go to jail. Yes, every group is going to have a few "bad apples", so please show an example of interference that was sanctioned by the ARRL, FCC, or other reputable organization. If I recall correctly, Cornell's ARC received a commendation from the local police/fire departments for the service they provided after some severe icestorms that knocked out the cell network AND some of the police repeaters in the mid-1990s. W2CXM and CUPD have shared rooftop space for antennas for quite some time in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Sadly, innovation coming from amateur radio has indeed slowed down, but not stopped. This is mostly due to archaic FCC rules on spread spectrum communications - hams are severely limited by old FCC regs in the ability to do SS work, even on uncrowded microwave bands, while everyone in the commercial industry is using SS techniques. There still is development work being done by hams though, especially in terms of software defined radios.
Saturn was always a part of GM, however upon inception they were an "experiment" and effectively an independent unit.
IMO a successful experiment, I was seriously considering buying a Saturn two years ago until I discovered that their independence was long gone and pretty much their entire vehicle lineup were rebadged Opels. Not especially "bad" but with none of the "good" stuff (like composite body panels) that set them apart in the past.
I bought a Subaru instead, which has managed to retain quite a few "unique" traits even after 20% ownership by GM and now Toyota.
Yeah, there's a common association with "plastic=cheap", however, properly designed plastics can often be the superior choice compared to other materials.
For example, devices with cases made of ABS plastic have a tendency to just bounce when dropped. If the same object had a metal case, it would dent on impact. Of course, cheaper plastics will just shatter.
In this case, keep in mind that typically, solar cells are made of glass. A solar cell made from plastic is going to be FAR more impact resistant.
Another example of "plastic more durable than glass" is polycarbonate lenses for vision correction. These are basically shatterproof, and if you get hit in the lens with a hockey puck, you'll get bruises/cuts on your face around the edge of the lens but your eye will be perfectly safe. I'd probably be missing an eye if I had been wearing "traditional" glass lenses my sophomore year of college thanks to the fact that Harvard students can't grasp simple concepts such as "puck goes in the net, not the opposing team pepband's trombone section".
You have no clue. Typical basestation power output is 30-45W average power total. Somewhat higher in rural areas.
In Manhattan, the power is going to be far less than this.
That's not quite true if I recall the story correctly. (A village in New Zealand IIRC, I don't have the link with me now.)
The tower was active for a while, but for reasons unrelated to the complaints, the company shut it down for a few weeks. Residents continued complaining of health effects even after the 6 week mark. (They were not notified of the shutdown until a meeting with company reps around then.)
Yeah, sector antennas tend to have an even NARROWER vertical beamwidth than dipoles, in addition to adding moderate horizontal directionality (usually 90 or 120 degrees horizontal beamwidth instead of 360 degree coverage.)
Um, no. Licensed business users are allowed pretty high power levels too.
Also, there are clearly defined amateur radio bands. If a ham goes outside the bands they are licensed for (easy to figure out who due to amateur radio identification requirements), they're subject to losing their license if it proves to be continuous behavior.
I can't figure out whether you're utterly clueless or a total troll.
It does not make sense that a cell phone tower's panel antenna would be blasting straight into an adjacent apartment as the article poster describes. This is counterproductive to achieving good coverage from that antenna.
The article poster says "roughly" on the same plane, how is "roughly" defined? Those panel antennas can have some pretty significant directionality in the vertical plane, such that even if "roughly" means "one or two stories difference", the antennas are probably shooting OVER this apartment and not INTO it. Especially since, as I said before, it makes no sense for these antennas to be shooting into it.
No touch panel. The clock plays Pong against itself, will "throw" a point for one side when one of the clock digits needs to increment, resulting in the game score equaling the time.