Seriously... doesn't slashdot have any mechanisms to ban users who are consistantly racist/anti-homosexual and generally offensive on here? I realise that every one of this guy's posts have been modded down to -1 and therefore rarely get seen but this kind of offensive behaviour should not be tolerated. Thats my 2 cents anyway.
Thankyou! Someone with enough sense to read through the FUD and see that these are all just simple processes that mostly ask for your permission before they act. I know it is important to monitor our privacy, especially against companies like microsoft, but this type of article just blows it all out of proportion... ever heard of the boy that cried wolf?
The point is not how much you brake but rather how much energy you need to use to get back up to the speed you were going before you had to brake.
For example if you drive straight up to a red light and brake to a stop you have to accelerate right back up to 30 or whatever you were doing when you continue. Whereas if you anticipate the light and slow down to a point where you might not have to stop at the light... ie by the time you get there it has changed back to green, you do not have to accelerate as much to get back up to speed.
And I can tell you that this article is slanted very heavily to create a sensationalist story.
The maths question that appears in the article is very similar to something I would expect to see at GCSE level. NOT university level.
I'm doing a degree at university in Computer Networking, we had to do Diploma Maths (which is slightly above A-level standard) in our first year and it was very difficult stuff, if questions like that appeared in the exam I would have thanked god, and walked out with 100% (and so would everyone else on the course). I'm not sure where they found that question and exactly what the test was actually trying to achieve but it certainly doesn't match my experience of GCSE, A-level and Degree level maths in the UK.
Even more disturbing is the fact that this technology is only to be used internally... ie google talk stays in the year 2000.
It seems odd that with such a huge amount of grey matter in that company that their IM application is not up to scratch. I really expect more from Google, maybe they should stop buying technology and write decent applications themselves, or at least improve the technology they buy so it includes the same features that their competitors have included for years.
I would guess it has to have some degree of promise for it to become a flop so I don't think it counts, it's just a... "nothing"
although apparently they did sell one or possibly two (but i think the first person putting his on ebay doesnt count as an extra sale for Microsoft imho!) so maybe it even counts as a success in Microsoft marketing speak?
Re:I disagree with Smart Appliances being listed
on
The Top 21 Tech Flops
·
· Score: 1
I agree, in England there are a few food stores who use an extra barcode for "smartovens" basically microwaves that have a scanner on them. You scan the packet throw your food in it and away you go, totally lazy and probably bad for society but still, they are becoming more popular. I think it's probably one of those features that will appear on every microwave pretty soon.
Really this is getting irritating now. I'm fed up with posts like "where did the UK go so wrong" and "omfg1984wtfroflcopter".
I live in the UK, very near to Middlesborough where the idea was piloted and I've seen (or rather heard) the things in action. I would argue with a lot of your beliefs that it is turning the UK into a place where privacy is not respected or that we are constantly monitored by the state as we are not. Never when I walk down the street do I feel as if I am constantly being watched even though there may well be a few CCTV cameras in most town centres.
CCTV monitors public places, if you are in a public place, almost by definition you have accepted the fact that someone is going to see you (whether it would be a person or a camera) and I'm not going to argue with that, having a camera there is nothing more than having a policeman stood there (with an exeptional memory, granted but still effectively the same) and everyone these days seems to want more "bobbies on the beat".
Now with speakers being connected to the cameras, everyone seems to be in uproar, yet again about privacy. But in reality I can not understand why. They still monitor public places, they dont follow you into your bathroom, they are the same cameras, connected to the same screens where the same policeman or woman sits and watches for signs of crime or antisocial behaviour (something that everyone would like less of) only now that policeman or woman can let an offender know what they are doing wrong and that they have been seen doing it... exactly the same thing a policeman would do if he was stood in the town center and witnessed it in person.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that just because it is a camera and not a policeman doesn't mean it encroaches on anyones rights any more than before it is simply technology allowing our policeforce to be more effective. Effective in a one policeman can cover more square-footage point of view and from the evidence gathering side of things.
Personally, I am against these cameras going country-wide for the sole reason that will cost the taxpayer a lot of money and that they do not fit well into every situation -in some cases nothing short of more cops will do. But for giving streched police forces a more efficient monitoring method -I'm all for it in selective cases.
True, dynamically changing keys could really make cracking a WEP key very dependant on speed for an attack to be successful. But the I suppose that depends on how long the hacker needs to be connected (and the time interval of the key change). I'd still argue that 99.9% of WLANS implementing WEP are still just as vunerable as they were before this new attack was released.
True, certain circumstances a hacker will want to crack the WEP key there and then and instantly perform whatever devious tricks he has planned. Often however the attack can be done in three parts:
Packet sniffing: Where the hacker would have a wireless packet sniffer such as airodump or kismet on his PDA safely out of site in his pocket.. or in the old days when it used to take a lot longer.. in a baggie dropped in a nearby bush for collection a day or so later.
Take said PDA home... run aircrack and get the key
Return ready with nasty tricks and your laptop all set up with the correct key to become authenticated on the target WLAN
I know this method fails when dynamic WEP keys are used but it is still an example of how a wireless network can be hacked with very little suspicion -whether it takes 10 minutes or 1 minute.
Oh and by the way WPA2 is just as vunerable with a weak key.
Use "password" as you passphrase and you will have me "in your garden stealin ur passwordz"
and you would deserve it
10 minutes, 1 minute... no big deal
on
WEP Broken Even Worse
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This isn't really news. It's pretty smart that they have managed to crack WEP with so few IVs (it usually takes about 200,000 for 64bit and just under a million for 128bit) but in reality this doesn't change (or expose) WEPs inherent vuneribilities at all, for example I am currently doing my dissertation on wireless security and in tests WEP64 on average can be cracked in about 3 minutes and WEP128 in about 10 minutes so getting this down to a minute doesn't really change the fact that a hacker could capture enough packets simply by hanging around and drinking a coffee using the "old" tools.
An interesting sidenote is that the amount of time a hacker needs to be near a target WLAN for WPA-PSK is measured in seconds making it much more insecure if it has a weak passphrase than WEP is even now with crack times under a minute.
Please if you want a secure home wireless network choose WPA-PSK and make the passphrase as long and as abstract as possible, nothing else is safe -and if you have the cash... buy a radius server
No I was merly pointing out that the amount of immigrants (or refugees) that enter america has nothing to do with you level of technology. People are often much more interested in somewhere nice to live (which I'm sure the US is). Also that sometimes the reasons that refugees will come to the US is because the US was direcly involved in events that caused them to leave in the first place.
I'm not really interested if you think you are right to claim these advances as american or not, the fact of the matter is that the US is not and has never been THE technology king and probably never will be, BUT on the other hand neither has any other country. Technology advances best in a competitive environment and without other strong competitiors will stagnate thus keeping a pretty even keel between the few most technologically advanced nations.
My point isn't that the US is not a power, technologically speaking, just that there is never just one leader in technology there are many and this diversity and competition keeps us advancing.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously... doesn't slashdot have any mechanisms to ban users who are consistantly racist/anti-homosexual and generally offensive on here? I realise that every one of this guy's posts have been modded down to -1 and therefore rarely get seen but this kind of offensive behaviour should not be tolerated. Thats my 2 cents anyway.
WTB mod points!
Thankyou! Someone with enough sense to read through the FUD and see that these are all just simple processes that mostly ask for your permission before they act. I know it is important to monitor our privacy, especially against companies like microsoft, but this type of article just blows it all out of proportion... ever heard of the boy that cried wolf?
and a Zune in every pocket....
Oh wait...
Well maybe not this exact product but holographic storage has fantastic pottential for search.
The point is not how much you brake but rather how much energy you need to use to get back up to the speed you were going before you had to brake.
For example if you drive straight up to a red light and brake to a stop you have to accelerate right back up to 30 or whatever you were doing when you continue. Whereas if you anticipate the light and slow down to a point where you might not have to stop at the light... ie by the time you get there it has changed back to green, you do not have to accelerate as much to get back up to speed.
You've got my vote, I'd love a four day week once a month! If only we could get rid of "Meeting Monday" and "Wait for the end of the day Friday" too!
An element acting like a solid!! Whoever would have thought it?
Someone should have saved them some time and just told them to pop it in the freezer :P
And I can tell you that this article is slanted very heavily to create a sensationalist story.
The maths question that appears in the article is very similar to something I would expect to see at GCSE level. NOT university level.
I'm doing a degree at university in Computer Networking, we had to do Diploma Maths (which is slightly above A-level standard) in our first year and it was very difficult stuff, if questions like that appeared in the exam I would have thanked god, and walked out with 100% (and so would everyone else on the course). I'm not sure where they found that question and exactly what the test was actually trying to achieve but it certainly doesn't match my experience of GCSE, A-level and Degree level maths in the UK.
Dropping the soap
Agreed.
Even more disturbing is the fact that this technology is only to be used internally... ie google talk stays in the year 2000.
It seems odd that with such a huge amount of grey matter in that company that their IM application is not up to scratch. I really expect more from Google, maybe they should stop buying technology and write decent applications themselves, or at least improve the technology they buy so it includes the same features that their competitors have included for years.
From TFA: "Everyone does dumb stuff when they are fifteen," Ms Gibson told ABC Radio.
Personally I think this is great, not dumb. It's a far cry from the typical prank done by a 15 year old and really shows some ingenuity and humour...
If I were in the position to give the kid a job, I would.
Pringles have been doing this for years!
Check out the pattern for the iphone.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=iphoneNo publicity is bad publicity right? Maybe thats why Microsoft get in so many lawsuits with other people...
I would guess it has to have some degree of promise for it to become a flop so I don't think it counts, it's just a... "nothing"
although apparently they did sell one or possibly two (but i think the first person putting his on ebay doesnt count as an extra sale for Microsoft imho!) so maybe it even counts as a success in Microsoft marketing speak?
I agree, in England there are a few food stores who use an extra barcode for "smartovens" basically microwaves that have a scanner on them. You scan the packet throw your food in it and away you go, totally lazy and probably bad for society but still, they are becoming more popular. I think it's probably one of those features that will appear on every microwave pretty soon.
Really this is getting irritating now. I'm fed up with posts like "where did the UK go so wrong" and "omfg1984wtfroflcopter".
I live in the UK, very near to Middlesborough where the idea was piloted and I've seen (or rather heard) the things in action. I would argue with a lot of your beliefs that it is turning the UK into a place where privacy is not respected or that we are constantly monitored by the state as we are not. Never when I walk down the street do I feel as if I am constantly being watched even though there may well be a few CCTV cameras in most town centres.
CCTV monitors public places, if you are in a public place, almost by definition you have accepted the fact that someone is going to see you (whether it would be a person or a camera) and I'm not going to argue with that, having a camera there is nothing more than having a policeman stood there (with an exeptional memory, granted but still effectively the same) and everyone these days seems to want more "bobbies on the beat".
Now with speakers being connected to the cameras, everyone seems to be in uproar, yet again about privacy. But in reality I can not understand why. They still monitor public places, they dont follow you into your bathroom, they are the same cameras, connected to the same screens where the same policeman or woman sits and watches for signs of crime or antisocial behaviour (something that everyone would like less of) only now that policeman or woman can let an offender know what they are doing wrong and that they have been seen doing it... exactly the same thing a policeman would do if he was stood in the town center and witnessed it in person.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that just because it is a camera and not a policeman doesn't mean it encroaches on anyones rights any more than before it is simply technology allowing our policeforce to be more effective. Effective in a one policeman can cover more square-footage point of view and from the evidence gathering side of things.
Personally, I am against these cameras going country-wide for the sole reason that will cost the taxpayer a lot of money and that they do not fit well into every situation -in some cases nothing short of more cops will do. But for giving streched police forces a more efficient monitoring method -I'm all for it in selective cases.
Sounds more like "porn movie on the cheap" to me.
Damn, done it again...
Do not expose your sex obsession in public, Do not expose your sex obs...
True, dynamically changing keys could really make cracking a WEP key very dependant on speed for an attack to be successful. But the I suppose that depends on how long the hacker needs to be connected (and the time interval of the key change). I'd still argue that 99.9% of WLANS implementing WEP are still just as vunerable as they were before this new attack was released.
True, certain circumstances a hacker will want to crack the WEP key there and then and instantly perform whatever devious tricks he has planned. Often however the attack can be done in three parts:
I know this method fails when dynamic WEP keys are used but it is still an example of how a wireless network can be hacked with very little suspicion -whether it takes 10 minutes or 1 minute.
Oh and by the way WPA2 is just as vunerable with a weak key.
Use "password" as you passphrase and you will have me "in your garden stealin ur passwordz"
and you would deserve it
This isn't really news. It's pretty smart that they have managed to crack WEP with so few IVs (it usually takes about 200,000 for 64bit and just under a million for 128bit) but in reality this doesn't change (or expose) WEPs inherent vuneribilities at all, for example I am currently doing my dissertation on wireless security and in tests WEP64 on average can be cracked in about 3 minutes and WEP128 in about 10 minutes so getting this down to a minute doesn't really change the fact that a hacker could capture enough packets simply by hanging around and drinking a coffee using the "old" tools.
An interesting sidenote is that the amount of time a hacker needs to be near a target WLAN for WPA-PSK is measured in seconds making it much more insecure if it has a weak passphrase than WEP is even now with crack times under a minute.
Please if you want a secure home wireless network choose WPA-PSK and make the passphrase as long and as abstract as possible, nothing else is safe -and if you have the cash... buy a radius server
No I was merly pointing out that the amount of immigrants (or refugees) that enter america has nothing to do with you level of technology. People are often much more interested in somewhere nice to live (which I'm sure the US is). Also that sometimes the reasons that refugees will come to the US is because the US was direcly involved in events that caused them to leave in the first place.
I'm not really interested if you think you are right to claim these advances as american or not, the fact of the matter is that the US is not and has never been THE technology king and probably never will be, BUT on the other hand neither has any other country. Technology advances best in a competitive environment and without other strong competitiors will stagnate thus keeping a pretty even keel between the few most technologically advanced nations. My point isn't that the US is not a power, technologically speaking, just that there is never just one leader in technology there are many and this diversity and competition keeps us advancing.
Yes you are right. I'm sure they stop and consider how technologically advanced you are while fleeing from regime change (read: bunker busters).
Prove it! (Joking) I've already conceeded this one.
Erm... Julius Edgar Lilienfield invented the transistor(Polish) and registered his patents in Germany which were later copied by Bell Labs
Well it was done in the US but it appears America's greatest electrical engineer was Serbian (Nikola Tesla).
True but what country pays china billions a year to make things for it because it cant mass produce them efficiently enough on its own?
Erm... Germany [NobelPrize.org]http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes /chemistry/laureates/1944/