We're talking a device which when it malfunctions, kills (or could kill) someone. And still the manufacturer didn't get the basics of security correct: using signed software updates.
How can we believe that IoT devices, which are manufactured with much less profit overhead, will be more secure? (Unless somehow regulated -- which also didn't for for those FDA-approved pacemakers).
I have some fond memories of The President's Analyst but unfortunately I no longer remember it well enough to know if it was good enough to watch again.
Wow, it just occurred to me that TPC also has three letters (when I saw the movie, "three letter agency" was not in my lexicon).
Ooops, have to switch glasses now to check the lawn...
In good Slashdot tradition, I posted before doing real research.
It seems that the material might have been designed to disperse the incoming energy via slow ablation, in similar fashion as spacecraft reentry heat shields work.
There are limits as to how well a non-moving object can survive this way, I think. Even if the shield absorbed all of the incoming energy, you still end up surrounded by a cloud of super-heated plasma. Anyone want to chime in?
There are limits as to how well ordinary matter can resist the ionization of its electrons. As far as I know, energetic enough photons of the correct frequencies can convert anything into plasma.
Good post. Yes, there are problems, which lead me to believe that the development of the moon will require decades in which only remotely controlled robots will be permanently stationed there.
Possible solutions to your problems are synthesizing the necessary atmosphere from the minerals there using sunlight as an energy source, and living far, far underground so that the overlying bedrock will sufficiently shield radiation.
Who needs it? Besides the obvious problems (and others you didn't mention) it is a large mass which is far enough outside Earth's gravitational well that using it for raw materials for further exploitation of space is attractive, yet it is very, very close to Earth compared to all the other large masses which have the same advantage. So close to Earth that almost-real-time remote control of robots is quite viable --- only 1.3 light-seconds away.
Personally, I think it belongs in the dept. of it-is-only-a-matter-of-profits (or possibly it-is-only-a-matter-of-money, if you want to spin it with a double entendre).
Based on Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt), instead of YbCuO the real formula was YBaCuO. So yes, ytterbium became yttrium but not exactly as you claim.
> A free economy can work just fine with free software.
I'm pretty out there in the pro-FOSS direction, but I have to say, you couldn't be more wrong. There are very few FOSS programs which can replace the very expensive, niche software which drives a lot of the development of modern technology. For FOSS to work, you need to have one (or both) of two things: either a mainstream-enough problem which will attract a sufficient staff of volunteers who are sufficiently skilled in the particular problem domain, OR enough companies willing to join forces to develop a shared FOSS product which all of them need.
There are enumerable proprietary programs which are niche enough to bypass the first, yet not expensive enough that companies would consider developing a shared FOSS solution.
The irony here, of course, is that "operating systems for personal computers" would seem to fall in the first category.
> And there is jackshit the government can do about these dark networks.
I'll forgive your ignorance since Slashdot is explicitly US-centric (and maybe you missed the required reading of "1984"), but anyone living in a country currently governed by a totalitarian government or even recently governed by one can tell you: there's a lot that the government can do. Idea #1: pay people money to "turn in" their fellow members.
This brings back a vague memory of someone posting here an ridiculously long acronym in a similar vein which included a full disclaimer about legal advice...
Google only gives me one hit for IAALBIANYLATINLA and not on/. --- anyway, I remember it being similar to that one but more exaggerated for parody's sake.
Funny you should ask. The answer is: no one knows! This mess is all because of a large range of opinion among both the public and the judiciary about how copyright should work; there is even a large range of conceptualization around these concepts (typically "property" versus "monopoly" --- practically no one thinks about it as an "usufruct", which is my favorite).
You forgot the IANAL. My guess (IAANAL) is that a real lawyer would tell you that relying on "fair use" is chancy even if his opinion was that the case was open-and-shut for the following reasons (not all-inclusive):
He wants to be paid, and if the other side has enough money they can manipulate things so that he will be paid a lot of money
Even in an open-and-shut case with regards to liability for infringement, the chances of the court assigning his costs to the other party are much more in doubt
Court decisions are statistical in nature and certainly have a significant level of outliers
This is in fact a major problem with "fair use" as a control on the power of copyright. It is solely a defense which might be useful if you are already in court. Copyright law should be reformed and at least some levels of fair use need to be explicitly codified within it (unfortunately, I doubt I will live to see this, even if it does happen someday).
Slashdot Mirror
Errata:
"which also didn't for for those FDA-approved pacemakers" -> "which also didn't work for those FDA-approved pacemaker programmers"
We're talking a device which when it malfunctions, kills (or could kill) someone. And still the manufacturer didn't get the basics of security correct: using signed software updates.
How can we believe that IoT devices, which are manufactured with much less profit overhead, will be more secure? (Unless somehow regulated -- which also didn't for for those FDA-approved pacemakers).
How will we monitor the animals with face recognition 24/7 otherwise?
I have some fond memories of The President's Analyst but unfortunately I no longer remember it well enough to know if it was good enough to watch again.
Wow, it just occurred to me that TPC also has three letters (when I saw the movie, "three letter agency" was not in my lexicon).
Ooops, have to switch glasses now to check the lawn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But, but, then how will we fuel our self-driving flying cars?
Murphy strikes yet again!
Tony did it --- but now he's dead, too!
Be careful what you wish for! We're talking "knowledge of good and evil" here! :-)
In good Slashdot tradition, I posted before doing real research.
It seems that the material might have been designed to disperse the incoming energy via slow ablation, in similar fashion as spacecraft reentry heat shields work.
There are limits as to how well a non-moving object can survive this way, I think. Even if the shield absorbed all of the incoming energy, you still end up surrounded by a cloud of super-heated plasma. Anyone want to chime in?
There are limits as to how well ordinary matter can resist the ionization of its electrons. As far as I know, energetic enough photons of the correct frequencies can convert anything into plasma.
Good post. Yes, there are problems, which lead me to believe that the development of the moon will require decades in which only remotely controlled robots will be permanently stationed there.
Possible solutions to your problems are synthesizing the necessary atmosphere from the minerals there using sunlight as an energy source, and living far, far underground so that the overlying bedrock will sufficiently shield radiation.
Who needs it? Besides the obvious problems (and others you didn't mention) it is a large mass which is far enough outside Earth's gravitational well that using it for raw materials for further exploitation of space is attractive, yet it is very, very close to Earth compared to all the other large masses which have the same advantage. So close to Earth that almost-real-time remote control of robots is quite viable --- only 1.3 light-seconds away.
> it-was-only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Personally, I think it belongs in the dept. of it-is-only-a-matter-of-profits (or possibly it-is-only-a-matter-of-money, if you want to spin it with a double entendre).
See articles at
Everyone whose phone number is a factor of an odd perfect number should be killed.
Your ability to refute with a comment containing interesting information is just... amazing!
Based on Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt), instead of YbCuO the real formula was YBaCuO. So yes, ytterbium became yttrium but not exactly as you claim.
The biggest for-(largely unearned)-profit scientific publishers are European. So this is interesting news.
Yes, it's the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA which enable what he was talking about, mostly.
OTOH, the First Amendment is the likely inspiration of "fair use" (which is enshrined in the Copyright Act itself, so I don't think we can be sure).
Or possibly you are airing an old movie to give people an opportunity to understand history. And how societal sensitivities change with time.
As the post notes, context is important. Automated filters will probably never be able to work properly in our lifetime, or even our children's.
> A free economy can work just fine with free software.
I'm pretty out there in the pro-FOSS direction, but I have to say, you couldn't be more wrong. There are very few FOSS programs which can replace the very expensive, niche software which drives a lot of the development of modern technology. For FOSS to work, you need to have one (or both) of two things: either a mainstream-enough problem which will attract a sufficient staff of volunteers who are sufficiently skilled in the particular problem domain, OR enough companies willing to join forces to develop a shared FOSS product which all of them need.
There are enumerable proprietary programs which are niche enough to bypass the first, yet not expensive enough that companies would consider developing a shared FOSS solution.
The irony here, of course, is that "operating systems for personal computers" would seem to fall in the first category.
> And there is jackshit the government can do about these dark networks.
I'll forgive your ignorance since Slashdot is explicitly US-centric (and maybe you missed the required reading of "1984"), but anyone living in a country currently governed by a totalitarian government or even recently governed by one can tell you: there's a lot that the government can do. Idea #1: pay people money to "turn in" their fellow members.
Got it?
Your comment implies that there is no possible scenario in which someone uses one of your photos without permission and it is not stealing.
Do you actually believe this? Or are you just being hyperbolic, or overgeneralizing?
Nope. I Am Also Not A Lawyer.
This brings back a vague memory of someone posting here an ridiculously long acronym in a similar vein which included a full disclaimer about legal advice...
Google only gives me one hit for IAALBIANYLATINLA and not on /. --- anyway, I remember it being similar to that one but more exaggerated for parody's sake.
How I would search for that post, I have no idea.
Funny you should ask. The answer is: no one knows! This mess is all because of a large range of opinion among both the public and the judiciary about how copyright should work; there is even a large range of conceptualization around these concepts (typically "property" versus "monopoly" --- practically no one thinks about it as an "usufruct", which is my favorite).
See the recent ruling: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
You forgot the IANAL. My guess (IAANAL) is that a real lawyer would tell you that relying on "fair use" is chancy even if his opinion was that the case was open-and-shut for the following reasons (not all-inclusive):
This is in fact a major problem with "fair use" as a control on the power of copyright. It is solely a defense which might be useful if you are already in court. Copyright law should be reformed and at least some levels of fair use need to be explicitly codified within it (unfortunately, I doubt I will live to see this, even if it does happen someday).
And don't forget, kids: this is the agency which is constantly telling us we can safely backdoor encryption!
(Well, maybe that's mainly the FBI, instead. But I still trust them just as much as I'd trust the NSA.)