LOL. You think the poor would be getting this treatment? It will be for the super rich only.
Even if the cure was found to be a mixture of everyday household ingredients, stores would suddenly not carry these items anymore.
Don't fret, you'll still die.
Hmm, let's see; where's the money for the owners of this process? 100 super-rich people at $10 million each, or 300 million people at $10,000 each? Shouldn't be too hard to get financing for this, since the bank can be reasonably sure you'll live long enough to pay off the loan.
My wine shipments require a signature for delivery. How will a drone do that? When a high-value item is expected and I'm not going to be home, I can leave a note for the driver to drop the package at a neighbor's house. How will a drone do that?
That's probably not important at all. I am willing to bet your next paycheck that the word "drone" will be mentioned parenthetically in the requirements, if it's mentioned at all. The FAA Rulemaking Committee's summary cited in TFA refers to them by the TLA, "UAS" (unmanned aircraft system).
In the companies I have worked for, there have been lots of Program Managers, who manage what you're referring to as "programmes". We have zero Programme Managers.
So what you're saying, is that Azerbaijan was a former soviet republic; seriously? Let's move on from the cold war and call it what it is: part of Europe.
Part of Europe? Oh, yeah -- the part of Europe that is called the Russia and Caucasus region of Asia, though some might consider it part of the Middle East region of Asia.
And if the rest of the Slashdotters are honest, they would agree that, with laptops at least, most people don't bother with plugging them into a terrestrial ethernet connection; but use WiFi instead.
Strange definition of "honest" you have there. I use a MacBook Pro at work, and the only times I use wireless are on those rare occasions when I need to use it at a meeting. Most (but not all) of my similarly-equipped colleagues do the same. I don't really mind the Ethernet dongle, though.
Windows 10 requires SecureBoot, so you can't dual-boot Linux Mint with it.
Since Microsoft made me choose between them, I updated to Linux.
Wrong. Win 10 does not require Secure Boot. I have Mint 17.2 dual-booting with Windows 10 on a Dell Inspiron. You just have to turn off Secure Boot and install grub in the EFI partition.
When a person is accustomed to 138 in the shade, his ideas about cold weather are not valuable....In India, "cold weather" is merely a conventional phrase and has come into use through the necessity of having some way to distinguish between weather which will melt a brass door-knob and weather which will only make it mushy.
What about Aaron Swartz? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
What about Michael Brown? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
It's easy for you to say that these remarkable men should just "do the time", but the reality is a very different matter.
OK, that's the first time I've seen anyone group Michael Brown with people like Aaron Schwartz or Edward Snowden. What was it, again, that you consider "remarkable" about him?. Anyway, according to Baretta, willingness to do the time expresses willingness to do the time.
The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.
You don't. The issue isn't civilian vs. military or government. The issue is that regardless of an individual's security clearance level, access is based on being "read in" to the program in question AND upon having an established need-to-know. I have personally worked on a number of classified programs, but I only had access to information that was pertinent to doing my job.
Heh. The first thing I thought of when I read the headline was a snippet from Asimov's "Foundation":
When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications – in short, all the goo and dribble – he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."
"Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."
If the government had a need for such things, then the tech almost certainly already exists in some form, as the idea has itself existed for decades in fictional representations. And we're not talking about Star Trek futuristic technologies here, either; it wouldn't be terribly difficult to literally pack small amounts of plastic explosives alongside (or even inside) the microchips in those critical technologies that you mentioned. So why did the PARC researchers need to investigate this topic in the first place? Unless they're just trying to build a better mouse trap...
If that was your major point, you're right -- I missed it. Pretty sure it was the references to Mission Impossible and Professor Gadget that led me astray.
Suppliers in the anti-tamper arena are always trying to build a better mouse trap. This is one of those areas where developers are always trying to stay one step ahead of the "enemy". Government V&V authorities are notoriously biased against approaches and implementations that have been used in the past, especially for protection of technology improvement in things like complex radar and data processing systems. Obtaining approval for an anti-tamper design and implementation is a years-long proposition, and the more similarities a design has to prior art, the more difficult it is to get approval. And yeah, putting explosive charges inside chips has been around for long enough to be considered old hat. I suspect PARC didn't reveal very much at all in their description of what they've been up to; in fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if most of it was misdirection. As I said before, it's a highly sensitive area, and anything more in-depth than a top-level, hazy description would actually render the product unusable for security reasons.
... chips with integrated plastic explosives? As in, standard Mission Impossible/Inspector Gadget type stuff. If there was actually a market for such devices in the real world, wouldn't it have already been fulfilled by now?
There actually is a market for such devices in the real world. Anti-tamper implementations are required by DoD for the protection of "Critical Technologies" and "Critical Program Information" in order to prevent (well, really to make it as hard/expensive/time-consuming as practicable) an adversary from reverse-engineer a weapons system so it can be copied or countered. Implementations are invariably classified Secret.
Anti-tamper approaches that involve hardware can range from placing crucial software code in FPGAs to physically destroying crucial components through explosions or large jolts of electricity. "What we will do is destroy the microcircuit before they get to the algorithms" says Tarantine of White Electronic Designs.
"It can be a physical destruct with protective coating; it can be a serpentine mesh where they actually break the current going to the mesh; it could be a diode that triggers on X-ray, so X-raying the device causes an event to happen. I can have a diode that will count the radiation and once it reaches a certain level may use a pyrotechnic event to blow the chip up." (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2010/04/anti-tamper-technologies-seek-to-keep-critical-military-systems-data-in-the-right-hands.html)
That and whatever version of Android it ships with is the one you're always going to have on it. At least that's what Samsung taught me when I bought a Galaxy Tab.
I'm a little surprised at this. I've had two Android updates since purchasing mine; currently at 5.0.1. Granted, I waited a while, but the updates straggled in eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. You think the poor would be getting this treatment? It will be for the super rich only.
Even if the cure was found to be a mixture of everyday household ingredients, stores would suddenly not carry these items anymore.
Don't fret, you'll still die.
Hmm, let's see; where's the money for the owners of this process? 100 super-rich people at $10 million each, or 300 million people at $10,000 each? Shouldn't be too hard to get financing for this, since the bank can be reasonably sure you'll live long enough to pay off the loan.
Just dropped by to point out that an MTBF of 2.5 million hours does not mean that the drive will operate for 2.5 million hours before it fails.
Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.
atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
So says dictionary.com.
The hidden message? It's right there - between "spot " and ". It's"
??? row boats do not produce coal gas
True. But human respiration produces CO2.
My wine shipments require a signature for delivery. How will a drone do that? When a high-value item is expected and I'm not going to be home, I can leave a note for the driver to drop the package at a neighbor's house. How will a drone do that?
The important point is: what's a drone?
That's probably not important at all. I am willing to bet your next paycheck that the word "drone" will be mentioned parenthetically in the requirements, if it's mentioned at all. The FAA Rulemaking Committee's summary cited in TFA refers to them by the TLA, "UAS" (unmanned aircraft system).
In the companies I have worked for, there have been lots of Program Managers, who manage what you're referring to as "programmes". We have zero Programme Managers.
So what you're saying, is that Azerbaijan was a former soviet republic; seriously? Let's move on from the cold war and call it what it is: part of Europe.
Part of Europe? Oh, yeah -- the part of Europe that is called the Russia and Caucasus region of Asia, though some might consider it part of the Middle East region of Asia.
Uh huh. Or maybe you're just a myopic jerk who doesn't realize that your use case is not everyone's use case.
And if the rest of the Slashdotters are honest, they would agree that, with laptops at least, most people don't bother with plugging them into a terrestrial ethernet connection; but use WiFi instead.
Strange definition of "honest" you have there. I use a MacBook Pro at work, and the only times I use wireless are on those rare occasions when I need to use it at a meeting. Most (but not all) of my similarly-equipped colleagues do the same. I don't really mind the Ethernet dongle, though.
Windows 10 requires SecureBoot, so you can't dual-boot Linux Mint with it. Since Microsoft made me choose between them, I updated to Linux.
Wrong. Win 10 does not require Secure Boot. I have Mint 17.2 dual-booting with Windows 10 on a Dell Inspiron. You just have to turn off Secure Boot and install grub in the EFI partition.
When a person is accustomed to 138 in the shade, his ideas about cold weather are not valuable....In India, "cold weather" is merely a conventional phrase and has come into use through the necessity of having some way to distinguish between weather which will melt a brass door-knob and weather which will only make it mushy.
Mark Twain, Following The Equator
Crap. My mod points expired a few hours ago.
What about Aaron Swartz? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
What about Michael Brown? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
It's easy for you to say that these remarkable men should just "do the time", but the reality is a very different matter.
OK, that's the first time I've seen anyone group Michael Brown with people like Aaron Schwartz or Edward Snowden. What was it, again, that you consider "remarkable" about him?. Anyway, according to Baretta, willingness to do the time expresses willingness to do the time.
The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.
You don't. The issue isn't civilian vs. military or government. The issue is that regardless of an individual's security clearance level, access is based on being "read in" to the program in question AND upon having an established need-to-know. I have personally worked on a number of classified programs, but I only had access to information that was pertinent to doing my job.
You have a disease that kills nearly 70,000 Americans every year, and you're complaining that you have to go to the doctor every once in a while?
Heh. The first thing I thought of when I read the headline was a snippet from Asimov's "Foundation":
When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications – in short, all the goo and dribble – he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."
"Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."
None of the recent fatalities involved cars driving wrecklessly.
I've driven wrecklessly for many years. That's because I try not to drive recklessly.
He's not the dumb one here.
If the government had a need for such things, then the tech almost certainly already exists in some form, as the idea has itself existed for decades in fictional representations. And we're not talking about Star Trek futuristic technologies here, either; it wouldn't be terribly difficult to literally pack small amounts of plastic explosives alongside (or even inside) the microchips in those critical technologies that you mentioned. So why did the PARC researchers need to investigate this topic in the first place? Unless they're just trying to build a better mouse trap...
If that was your major point, you're right -- I missed it. Pretty sure it was the references to Mission Impossible and Professor Gadget that led me astray.
Suppliers in the anti-tamper arena are always trying to build a better mouse trap. This is one of those areas where developers are always trying to stay one step ahead of the "enemy". Government V&V authorities are notoriously biased against approaches and implementations that have been used in the past, especially for protection of technology improvement in things like complex radar and data processing systems. Obtaining approval for an anti-tamper design and implementation is a years-long proposition, and the more similarities a design has to prior art, the more difficult it is to get approval. And yeah, putting explosive charges inside chips has been around for long enough to be considered old hat. I suspect PARC didn't reveal very much at all in their description of what they've been up to; in fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if most of it was misdirection. As I said before, it's a highly sensitive area, and anything more in-depth than a top-level, hazy description would actually render the product unusable for security reasons.
... chips with integrated plastic explosives? As in, standard Mission Impossible/Inspector Gadget type stuff. If there was actually a market for such devices in the real world, wouldn't it have already been fulfilled by now?
There actually is a market for such devices in the real world. Anti-tamper implementations are required by DoD for the protection of "Critical Technologies" and "Critical Program Information" in order to prevent (well, really to make it as hard/expensive/time-consuming as practicable) an adversary from reverse-engineer a weapons system so it can be copied or countered. Implementations are invariably classified Secret.
Anti-tamper approaches that involve hardware can range from placing crucial software code in FPGAs to physically destroying crucial components through explosions or large jolts of electricity. "What we will do is destroy the microcircuit before they get to the algorithms" says Tarantine of White Electronic Designs.
"It can be a physical destruct with protective coating; it can be a serpentine mesh where they actually break the current going to the mesh; it could be a diode that triggers on X-ray, so X-raying the device causes an event to happen. I can have a diode that will count the radiation and once it reaches a certain level may use a pyrotechnic event to blow the chip up." (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2010/04/anti-tamper-technologies-seek-to-keep-critical-military-systems-data-in-the-right-hands.html)
That and whatever version of Android it ships with is the one you're always going to have on it. At least that's what Samsung taught me when I bought a Galaxy Tab.
I'm a little surprised at this. I've had two Android updates since purchasing mine; currently at 5.0.1. Granted, I waited a while, but the updates straggled in eventually.
Anonymous Coward notwithstanding, that one went so far over your head that you really can't be blamed for not hearing the woosh.
no politician wants to be responsible for increasing government spending.
I see you're not familiar with the California state legislature.