The problem is that a human somewhere has to set up the automation. Even with the best designed automation, a human is involved somewhere. I'd like a human (or a computer that is at least as intelligent as a human) on site to mediate that risk. That means a flight crew aboard all commercial jets. I'm willing to accept the higher cost associated with that, in return for not putting absolute faith in a thing designed by the hand and eye of Man.
The more automation we put into aircraft, the more pilots are trained to use it. Consider instrument flight - a condition where the pilot is actively ignoring his or her limited senses and trusting data provided by sensing devices installed on the aircraft. Never mind what the pilot sees when looking out the window or feels from his sense of balance, when the instruments indicate they're passing a marker (outer, middle, inner), they make specific inputs to the aircraft's flight controls. When the instruments say the aircraft is climbing/diving/rolling/yawing, the pilot manipulates the controls to adjust for it, even if he/she feels like the aircraft is in straight and level flight.
The better automation gets, the more pilots are trained to accept the automation despite their subjective feelings about flying the aircraft - especially when the automated action disagrees with their understanding of the situation. The automation is extensively tested and proven if used correctly, but even that is becoming more difficult as automated systems become increasingly complex. Simply run a Google search on "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT) for numerous examples of both 1) pilots ignoring automation because they believe it is wrong, and 2) pilots incorrectly managing their automated systems.
So they were merely confirming how bad bad could get by proving that technology that relies on OpenSSL is vulnerable. Okay, thanks. I suppose there are a lot of people who might try denying that - I've already heard people muttering that the firms which are vulnerable to this exploit should have a workaround in place. This demonstration could well serve as an example of just how difficult that could be, as well as how wide-reaching the problem is.
None of those require the other two. None of those should be exclusive of the other two. Unfortunately, none of those are required to post on Slashdot - just a keyboard and an internet connection. I still want this sign:
"--- You must be this intelligent to ride the internet. Shorter riders must be accompanied by a parent or guardian."
Nobody reevaluated the design of the entire pair of buildings. In this instance, even the review of the changes was flawed. If it hadn't been - if the change itself hadn't been fatally flawed - I wonder if they wouldn't have compromised the design of the entire (now unified) structure by moving stresses from their original positions?
They treated the walkways as a 'black box' condition. It didn't matter to the buildings being connected if it was done using one support rod or two, from the standpoint of the two buildings there was no difference. Thus, only the walkways themselves were affected by the change, and that's the only element they reviewed at length. Obviously, even that review failed terribly, overlooking something which seems in retrospect to be obvious.
I'm sure you (and most other/. readers) already appreciate the flaw in this sort of logic. I'm not saying that every change needs to put the review process back at square one, but rather that changes need to be reviewed in more than the narrow context of the single element being changed. It wouldn't have helped here (and I'm neither an architect nor a construction engineer), but it just might have. "Hey - all of your stresses from those two walkways are coming in on this one rod - is my building going to take it?" followed by "Damn, you're right. Our walkways will both be loading up that one rod. Lemme think about that..."
I think that's what they call it when there is no evidence of a mechanical failure and cannot prove that there was an error on the part of the flight crew. The assumption is generally pilot error of some kind. (assumption)
I've heard news reporting before on this subject. The way it goes is this: the architect submits his designs, which are subject to review. Once the green light's given, construction begins. Now, engineers on the project notice a way that they can cut costs or construction time, or somebody requests a modification to the original design (perhaps to add a restroom or breakroom, perhaps to add or remove a wall or subdivide a floor differently). The new design is not subject to the same kind of rigorous evaluation the original had to go through - and why should it? The changes are evaluated in some detail, but a less detailed examination is given to effects these changes may have on the overall design. Often, the change is something which has been done before on other similar projects, or is done to take advantage of a new technique or material which wasn't widely available during the initial design review. Sometimes these changes are a direct result to the contractor's real-world experience with similar projects. Add to this the possibility that contractors on the job - who have some amount of expertise in this area - may decide on the use of 'equivalent' materials and techniques; using a new adhesive or other material which has superior properties or costs less but is not identical to the original item.
I wish I could find an appropriate citation - the example I recall was a bridge which needed to be torn apart and repaired because of the use of a different type of bolt securing the framework. The replacement had similar tensile and shearing strength, but several years later the bolts started failing at a much higher than expected rate, requiring the bridge to be retrofitted with the original fastener. It turned out that the new bolt (while actually stronger in some respects than originally required) was subject to vibration stresses. The review permitting the substitution focused on the strength of the bolt required for the application, but the data showing that the bolt was subject to metal fatigue if subjected to extended vibration wasn't available or considered at that time.
Changes such as these are actually not too rare; I suspect that in most cases, the substitutions work exactly as expected, but when we're discussing infrastructure elements of this scope a single failure is not merely troublesome but often catastrophic.
Snapshot from Progressive Insurance. Start by giving them a break in return for some seemingly innocuous monitoring; sooner or later, they'll either start requiring it or they'll start expanding the data they're allowed to collect and sell. What, you thought they were doing all this wonderful stuff just to save you money?
Remember folks - first hit of the crack pipe's free . . .
You're just butt-hurt because your pet websiteonly has 533 FB "likes" and now you're taking it out on Slashdot, Ars Technica, Windows IT Pro forums and anybody else you feel has "wronged" you by not bowing before you and crying out "we're not worthy"!
Most people I know (admittedly, an extremely minuscule subset of humanity or even FB users) instantly had a knee-jerk reaction of "ewww". Upon further thought, their considered reaction has universally been "hell, no"!
Yeah, I tried it. Never convinced anybody I know except my wife to try it with me (well - convinced my son, but only because he needed to borrow my truck on a short term, regular basis - and only after I pointed out that he only needed to turn it on when he was using my truck and could turn it off for all other purposes).
Even trying it with that limited set of co-users, it only took a few days to realize how bad an idea this was for us and even for me in particular - and I am admittedly something of a fan of technology for technology's sake. I've since taught my wife to look up my location with our cellular security solution (AVG) and ensured that the reverse works. Since then, I don't think either of us has ever used even that functionality.
Once that's done, we can proceed to the next step - actually doing useful medical research to provide cures and treatments. So far, we have high hopes for stem cells. It would sure be nice if we could actually make the current theories and experimental research into something more than just the search for pure academic knowledge (*gives the religious fundamentalists a dirty look for slowing us down for so long*)
Okay, so I read it. What are they going to do to ensure that the system is not damaged during the event which results in it floating away? The proposal certainly decreases the risk of such damage - but in the event that any reactor is both damaged and unmoored by the earthquake, the impact of the disaster is now essentially global in scope.
When it comes to nuclear power, we can't afford to think in terms of probability. We have to think in terms of possibility. There will always be unacceptable consequences to the catastrophic failure of a nuclear power generating facility, so we're faced with a balancing act. I believe the added dangers outweigh the added benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
System Crash.
The problem is that a human somewhere has to set up the automation. Even with the best designed automation, a human is involved somewhere. I'd like a human (or a computer that is at least as intelligent as a human) on site to mediate that risk. That means a flight crew aboard all commercial jets. I'm willing to accept the higher cost associated with that, in return for not putting absolute faith in a thing designed by the hand and eye of Man.
And when the M-5 unit fails? I can't run a starship with twenty crew.
The better automation gets, the more pilots are trained to accept the automation despite their subjective feelings about flying the aircraft - especially when the automated action disagrees with their understanding of the situation. The automation is extensively tested and proven if used correctly, but even that is becoming more difficult as automated systems become increasingly complex. Simply run a Google search on "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT) for numerous examples of both 1) pilots ignoring automation because they believe it is wrong, and 2) pilots incorrectly managing their automated systems.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
So they were merely confirming how bad bad could get by proving that technology that relies on OpenSSL is vulnerable. Okay, thanks. I suppose there are a lot of people who might try denying that - I've already heard people muttering that the firms which are vulnerable to this exploit should have a workaround in place. This demonstration could well serve as an example of just how difficult that could be, as well as how wide-reaching the problem is.
Intentionally vulnerable - so this wasn't a bug in the NGINX server, it was a feature, right?
"--- You must be this intelligent to ride the internet. Shorter riders must be accompanied by a parent or guardian."
They treated the walkways as a 'black box' condition. It didn't matter to the buildings being connected if it was done using one support rod or two, from the standpoint of the two buildings there was no difference. Thus, only the walkways themselves were affected by the change, and that's the only element they reviewed at length. Obviously, even that review failed terribly, overlooking something which seems in retrospect to be obvious.
I'm sure you (and most other /. readers) already appreciate the flaw in this sort of logic. I'm not saying that every change needs to put the review process back at square one, but rather that changes need to be reviewed in more than the narrow context of the single element being changed. It wouldn't have helped here (and I'm neither an architect nor a construction engineer), but it just might have. "Hey - all of your stresses from those two walkways are coming in on this one rod - is my building going to take it?" followed by "Damn, you're right. Our walkways will both be loading up that one rod. Lemme think about that..."
I think that's what they call it when there is no evidence of a mechanical failure and cannot prove that there was an error on the part of the flight crew. The assumption is generally pilot error of some kind. (assumption)
Or the internet? Oh, wait - Al Gore invented that.
I wish I could find an appropriate citation - the example I recall was a bridge which needed to be torn apart and repaired because of the use of a different type of bolt securing the framework. The replacement had similar tensile and shearing strength, but several years later the bolts started failing at a much higher than expected rate, requiring the bridge to be retrofitted with the original fastener. It turned out that the new bolt (while actually stronger in some respects than originally required) was subject to vibration stresses. The review permitting the substitution focused on the strength of the bolt required for the application, but the data showing that the bolt was subject to metal fatigue if subjected to extended vibration wasn't available or considered at that time.
Changes such as these are actually not too rare; I suspect that in most cases, the substitutions work exactly as expected, but when we're discussing infrastructure elements of this scope a single failure is not merely troublesome but often catastrophic.
Remember folks - first hit of the crack pipe's free . . .
You just keep bringing it on yourself.
If you feel you've been wronged, how about demonstrating how you've been wronged instead of demonstrating that you deserve what you've gotten?
Most people I know (admittedly, an extremely minuscule subset of humanity or even FB users) instantly had a knee-jerk reaction of "ewww". Upon further thought, their considered reaction has universally been "hell, no"!
...or is it "ba-a-h"? I always get those two confused.
What percentage of Facebook users do you suppose fall into that category?
Even trying it with that limited set of co-users, it only took a few days to realize how bad an idea this was for us and even for me in particular - and I am admittedly something of a fan of technology for technology's sake. I've since taught my wife to look up my location with our cellular security solution (AVG) and ensured that the reverse works. Since then, I don't think either of us has ever used even that functionality.
ROFLMAO.
Once that's done, we can proceed to the next step - actually doing useful medical research to provide cures and treatments. So far, we have high hopes for stem cells. It would sure be nice if we could actually make the current theories and experimental research into something more than just the search for pure academic knowledge (*gives the religious fundamentalists a dirty look for slowing us down for so long*)
Damnit, you're right. Oh well.
When it comes to nuclear power, we can't afford to think in terms of probability. We have to think in terms of possibility. There will always be unacceptable consequences to the catastrophic failure of a nuclear power generating facility, so we're faced with a balancing act. I believe the added dangers outweigh the added benefits.
Just spitballing here. Feel free to flame away and tell me all the reasons why this can't ever be made to work. IANANE.