Sources tell Fox 9 News that normally, an airport would be shut down for a situation like the one described. The terminals would need to be evacuated so that everyone could be re-screened -- but that didn't exactly happen in the Twin Cities. Instead, a TSA spokesperson confirmed that 5 minutes after the breach, screening operations were suspended for about 7 minutes while TSA officials and airport police swept the C concourse. When the passengers involved landed, they were reverse-screened and questioned before being released without charges.
They didn't shut down the entire airport and declare a national emergency and crash the plane into the ground?
What? The TSA reacted sanely?
Those people are too smart to be working for the TSA. FIRE THEM!!!
That was kinda why I asked a question instead of assuming. You know that symbol called a question mark?
I said "Would this violate patents" not "This violates patents". Sheesh. I think we're probably even agreeing with each other, but you need to read a little more carefully.
Ooh, it gets better. They've published an official statement all but explicitly stating they're sabotaging other chips. (Note, I said all but. They don't say how they're detecting them or what their "proactive and global process" is.)
FTDI Chip is committed to taking appropriate measures to protect our customers from the adverse impacts caused by counterfeiting of FTDI Chip devices. Many of these devices resemble FTDI Chip markings which may lead the customer to believe they are genuine. FTDI Chip has established a proactive and global process aimed at detecting and deterring such counterfeit activity.
FTDI drivers may be used only in conjunction with products based on FTDI parts.
Well, if I use a product based on a clone of FTDI's chip, can't I claim that it's "based on" an FTDI part? Would this violate patents to sell an imported clone in the US, as the clones are actually a microcontroller which is interface-compatible--not a direct ripoff--according to TFA? Sounds like a slimy enough lawyer could do some weaseling there.
If you value your time and skills, don't work for free. Teach for free, but don't let people use you.
To put it differently: I will teach anyone anything I know how to do, for free, as long as it's clear that they want to learn. Sharing knowledge freely and desiring to learn are both valuable for society in the long term. But if you want me to do the work myself, you need to pay me.
No, in order to be a troll, I'd need to be aiming at eliciting negative responses AND not believe what I'm saying. Neither was my intent. You may not like my language, but it's certainly not a troll. I had a legitimate point to make, and I made it.
Stuff like this is one area where commercial companies are providing a lower quality of service. If you provide better service than the pirates, purchasing suddenly becomes a much more attractive option.
Myself, I either prefer to pay an artist directly, go see a show, or listen to Pandora or the radio. Purchasing DRM'd music isn't on my todo list.
If you want people to pay for stuff, you need to provide service that's better that being forced to eat rancid dog food, puke it up, and eat it again. DRM needs to die.
you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare
Hrm, VMware Workstation 5.5 is getting a bit long in the tooth, but...
VMware Workstation 5.5 Configuring a Dual-Boot Computer for Use with a Virtual Machine
Many users install VMware Workstation on a dual-boot or multiple-boot computer so they can run one or more of the existing operating systems in a virtual machine. If you are doing this, you may want to use the existing installation of an operating system rather than reinstall it in a virtual machine.
[...]
To support such installations, VMware Workstation makes it possible for you to use a physical IDE disk or partition, also known as a physical disk, inside a virtual machine.
Hi, sockpuppet with a grand total of THREE posts, two on this thread...
That's what creating a new thread is for. None of his replies addressed me whatsoever. Not a single thing referred to something I actually stated. Instead he replied directly to me, and claimed I said things I didn't, repeatedly, and can't quote them--because I didn't say ANY of them.
That brings to mind this quote, which seems to adequately describe much of the hoopla surrounding this topic. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-solar or other technologies, but each has its place. Nuclear is a superior baseload technology and can even be operated in load-following mode.)
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
Wow. More straw-man. Where did I say thorium reactors were just as good? Fact is, I didn't. And you're STILL lying your ass off. You're insisting I said things that I never did--and you can't quote them, because I didn't say them.
Will someone mod this idiot -1, Flamebait already? This isn't a case of disagreeing; he's flat out lying about what I said.
Where did I say they generated equivalent waste streams? Seriously, quote it. You've got a straw-man going. I was pointed out the problem where the GGP claimed fusion was 100% clean!
FFS learn to read already. All I said was "fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux". I don't know HOW you read anything else into that. Not once did I discuss waste from fission, except to say that launching it into space is a preposterous idea.
You're so full of it, it isn't even funny. You're imagining words where I didn't say any.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? It's full of total BS.
First, as the summary even pointed out, fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux. You didn't even read the summary, nor do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Second, LFTRs were designed to NOT meltdown. In fact, you need to heat the piping in order to have the salt not freeze. Again, your statement that all fission reactors melt down is proof of your ignorance. You're full of FUD.
Third, they tested them. They just walked away. And it shut down by itself. No special magic, no SCRAM. Then they walked away for 40 years. And it didn't melt down. Instead, it froze. Yes, there were problems discovered later, like the evolution of fluorine gas--but these are not even on the same scale of challenges as preventing an inherently meltdown-prone PBWR from going south for the winter. Also, you don't need to use water as your coolant. As we all know very well, water is dangerously prone to turning into a fuel-oxidizer mix and going off.
Also, what would make you think that solutions need to be expensive? Why is THAT your criteria for a safe design? See, PBWRs are bad because they're inherently unstable. I hope we never build another. However, I'm still pro-nuclear, and I think that a LFTR is the way to go for now, since the design is inherently walk-away safe. Yes, there are materials challenges. You need to use special piping doped with 1.1% niobium and so on. But these are things we've researched and can continue to refine. Solutions should be judged on technical merit, not simply on, "it's expensive, so it must be good!"
Also, why the hell would you suggest launching old nuclear reactor parts into space? Which orifice did you pull that out of?
You're so full of FUD that I can only wonder which energy conglomerate you're shilling for. Care to tell us?
Do you really think the same government that is asking for and/or collecting this data is going to prosecute the provider?
Wow, you just don't get it, do you? Yeah, the GP should've been more careful about criminal vs civil, but you're being cagey (like a lawyer: smells like lawyer, username looks like lawyer..). Company says one thing, provides another. The government isn't going to file criminal charges against them--the people who used the service are going to file a civil class-action suit.
It most certainly does help you. It gives you a better chance that someone who IS a software developer will discover the flaws in it and publish something to one of the security lists, which can eventually make its way to a media outlet like Slashdot. Also, it's much harder to hide a flaw like that for indefinite period of time (not that counter-examples don't exist, just that they're not nearly so pervasive) in a widely used open source product than a widely used closed source product.
I know that reading the article is verboten here, but they altered their privacy policy to allow tracking after they got wind of The Guardian preparing to publish this story.
Four days later, Whisper rewrote large sections of its terms of service and introduced an entirely new privacy policy.
Okay, NSA, we heard you.. we'll get right on that.
"Sorry, we shut down Project Minaret. We don't do that anymore."
Closed source? Check. Commercial? Check. Being hawked after the latest revelation that some other commercial and closed source app promising privacy was doing exactly the opposite? Check.
Slashdot Mirror
Sources tell Fox 9 News that normally, an airport would be shut down for a situation like the one described. The terminals would need to be evacuated so that everyone could be re-screened -- but that didn't exactly happen in the Twin Cities. Instead, a TSA spokesperson confirmed that 5 minutes after the breach, screening operations were suspended for about 7 minutes while TSA officials and airport police swept the C concourse. When the passengers involved landed, they were reverse-screened and questioned before being released without charges.
They didn't shut down the entire airport and declare a national emergency and crash the plane into the ground?
What? The TSA reacted sanely?
Those people are too smart to be working for the TSA. FIRE THEM!!!
You're attacking the wrong person. The person you're attacking is making fun of the person who claimed "research".
Slashdot, c'mon. I know that reading is a lost art, but could you at least make an effort?
No worries. I said PLUS one for profuse swearing. ;)
+1, Insightful. +1 for profuse swearing.
That was kinda why I asked a question instead of assuming. You know that symbol called a question mark?
I said "Would this violate patents" not "This violates patents". Sheesh. I think we're probably even agreeing with each other, but you need to read a little more carefully.
Ooh, it gets better. They've published an official statement all but explicitly stating they're sabotaging other chips. (Note, I said all but. They don't say how they're detecting them or what their "proactive and global process" is.)
FTDI Chip is committed to taking appropriate measures to protect our customers from the adverse impacts caused by counterfeiting of FTDI Chip devices. Many of these devices resemble FTDI Chip markings which may lead the customer to believe they are genuine. FTDI Chip has established a proactive and global process aimed at detecting and deterring such counterfeit activity.
FTDI drivers may be used only in conjunction with products based on FTDI parts.
Well, if I use a product based on a clone of FTDI's chip, can't I claim that it's "based on" an FTDI part? Would this violate patents to sell an imported clone in the US, as the clones are actually a microcontroller which is interface-compatible--not a direct ripoff--according to TFA? Sounds like a slimy enough lawyer could do some weaseling there.
There is no situation that panic cannot make worse.
In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, Don't Panic.
If you value your time and skills, don't work for free. Teach for free, but don't let people use you.
To put it differently: I will teach anyone anything I know how to do, for free, as long as it's clear that they want to learn. Sharing knowledge freely and desiring to learn are both valuable for society in the long term. But if you want me to do the work myself, you need to pay me.
Something about teaching a person to fish...
No, in order to be a troll, I'd need to be aiming at eliciting negative responses AND not believe what I'm saying. Neither was my intent. You may not like my language, but it's certainly not a troll. I had a legitimate point to make, and I made it.
Really? Troll?
Stuff like this is one area where commercial companies are providing a lower quality of service. If you provide better service than the pirates, purchasing suddenly becomes a much more attractive option.
Myself, I either prefer to pay an artist directly, go see a show, or listen to Pandora or the radio. Purchasing DRM'd music isn't on my todo list.
If you want people to pay for stuff, you need to provide service that's better that being forced to eat rancid dog food, puke it up, and eat it again. DRM needs to die.
you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare
Hrm, VMware Workstation 5.5 is getting a bit long in the tooth, but...
VMware Workstation 5.5 Configuring a Dual-Boot Computer for Use with a Virtual Machine
Many users install VMware Workstation on a dual-boot or multiple-boot computer so they can run one or more of the existing operating systems in a virtual machine. If you are doing this, you may want to use the existing installation of an operating system rather than reinstall it in a virtual machine.
[...]
To support such installations, VMware Workstation makes it possible for you to use a physical IDE disk or partition, also known as a physical disk, inside a virtual machine.
You are incorrect. QED.
Hi, sockpuppet with a grand total of THREE posts, two on this thread...
That's what creating a new thread is for. None of his replies addressed me whatsoever. Not a single thing referred to something I actually stated. Instead he replied directly to me, and claimed I said things I didn't, repeatedly, and can't quote them--because I didn't say ANY of them.
That brings to mind this quote, which seems to adequately describe much of the hoopla surrounding this topic. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-solar or other technologies, but each has its place. Nuclear is a superior baseload technology and can even be operated in load-following mode.)
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
-- RAH
I love being proven wrong. +1 Informative. You learn something everyday.
Wow. More straw-man. Where did I say thorium reactors were just as good? Fact is, I didn't. And you're STILL lying your ass off. You're insisting I said things that I never did--and you can't quote them, because I didn't say them.
Will someone mod this idiot -1, Flamebait already? This isn't a case of disagreeing; he's flat out lying about what I said.
Where did I say they generated equivalent waste streams? Seriously, quote it. You've got a straw-man going. I was pointed out the problem where the GGP claimed fusion was 100% clean!
FFS learn to read already. All I said was "fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux". I don't know HOW you read anything else into that. Not once did I discuss waste from fission, except to say that launching it into space is a preposterous idea.
You're so full of it, it isn't even funny. You're imagining words where I didn't say any.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? It's full of total BS.
First, as the summary even pointed out, fusion will produce waste due to the high neutron flux. You didn't even read the summary, nor do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Second, LFTRs were designed to NOT meltdown. In fact, you need to heat the piping in order to have the salt not freeze. Again, your statement that all fission reactors melt down is proof of your ignorance. You're full of FUD.
Third, they tested them. They just walked away. And it shut down by itself. No special magic, no SCRAM. Then they walked away for 40 years. And it didn't melt down. Instead, it froze. Yes, there were problems discovered later, like the evolution of fluorine gas--but these are not even on the same scale of challenges as preventing an inherently meltdown-prone PBWR from going south for the winter. Also, you don't need to use water as your coolant. As we all know very well, water is dangerously prone to turning into a fuel-oxidizer mix and going off.
Also, what would make you think that solutions need to be expensive? Why is THAT your criteria for a safe design? See, PBWRs are bad because they're inherently unstable. I hope we never build another. However, I'm still pro-nuclear, and I think that a LFTR is the way to go for now, since the design is inherently walk-away safe. Yes, there are materials challenges. You need to use special piping doped with 1.1% niobium and so on. But these are things we've researched and can continue to refine. Solutions should be judged on technical merit, not simply on, "it's expensive, so it must be good!"
Also, why the hell would you suggest launching old nuclear reactor parts into space? Which orifice did you pull that out of?
You're so full of FUD that I can only wonder which energy conglomerate you're shilling for. Care to tell us?
Neetzan, not Phil. Totally different people.
Do you really think the same government that is asking for and/or collecting this data is going to prosecute the provider?
Wow, you just don't get it, do you? Yeah, the GP should've been more careful about criminal vs civil, but you're being cagey (like a lawyer: smells like lawyer, username looks like lawyer..). Company says one thing, provides another. The government isn't going to file criminal charges against them--the people who used the service are going to file a civil class-action suit.
It most certainly does help you. It gives you a better chance that someone who IS a software developer will discover the flaws in it and publish something to one of the security lists, which can eventually make its way to a media outlet like Slashdot. Also, it's much harder to hide a flaw like that for indefinite period of time (not that counter-examples don't exist, just that they're not nearly so pervasive) in a widely used open source product than a widely used closed source product.
Now shove off, shill.
We're all spread out. There's hotspots of issues and then huge swaths of relatively uninhabited areas without anything resembling a critical mass.
The people in the cities are out in the streets. The people in the suburbs and farms still have something to lose.
I know that reading the article is verboten here, but they altered their privacy policy to allow tracking after they got wind of The Guardian preparing to publish this story.
Four days later, Whisper rewrote large sections of its terms of service and introduced an entirely new privacy policy.
Okay, NSA, we heard you.. we'll get right on that.
"Sorry, we shut down Project Minaret. We don't do that anymore."
Closed source? Check.
Commercial? Check.
Being hawked after the latest revelation that some other commercial and closed source app promising privacy was doing exactly the opposite? Check.
Go fuck yourself.