An open competition to build a (much) smaller power inverter, with a $1,000,000 prize.
Design and build a kW-scale inverter with the highest power density (at least 50 Watts per cubic inch).
Efficiency is not mentioned anywhere. I see somebody arguing that efficient with space is still being efficient. This is true, but is not what is commonly meant when referring to the efficient of an inverter, and misusing the word in this context is confusing.
Because in 2016 I expect to be able to close my laptop lid when I feel like it and reopen it and continue working. Is that an unreasonable expectation? It actually worked pre El Capitan, now it doesn't. Seems to be a bug in handling whatever VMWare Fusion is doing.
I guess updates in general are dangerous these days.
Does it refuse to accept keyboard and trackpad input when coming back from sleep every morning like OS X does? I hate having to do a force shutdown and restart every morning.
IMO they are different things. Copying might mean that an employee of the shop downloaded designs from thingiverse and listed them for sale on ebay. Steals or infringes is pretty vague in terms of is actually happening.
It seems reasonable for the author to assume that the audience of this site knows what scraping is, and it is a more precise word for what happened than copying, stealing or infringing. Scraping implies a scripted, automated effort with little human intervention past the point of building the script. There is no selection in terms of, 'hey, this looks neat - I'm going to sell those'; it is a complete replication of a catalogue without intervention.
Maybe not completely relevant,but pretty ridiculous: https://discussions.apple.com/... and it does involve apple kind of but not quite following a standard.
Meh... I mean, it's totally bad and she should not have done it. But I suspect that 90% of your population isn't going to give a rats ass about the e-mail server debacle.
Given the choice between 'maybe did some shady things with an email server that she shouldn't have had' vs. 'wants to ban a large group of people from the country', many, many people are going to be able to put up with the former to avoid the latter.
Except that there are things like Wireshark and other tools that let you sniff packets and see what is inside them. If it's widely used enough somebody is going to have tried.
I know we chastise the editors a lot for not specifying the meaning of an abbreviation, but I feel like in this case it is actually not helpful at all - it doesn't much matter what MIT stands for - it matters more what the MIT license is.
I think we're past the point of registering just cameras. What we should instead be doing is requiring and enforcing registration of smartphones and any devices with a camera, and requiring any video recording device to watermark incoming images so that you can identify exactly which device took a particular picture. This would solve all sorts of problems from photo copyright to child pornography. You would be able to tell exactly which device was used to take a picture and find out who the first distributor was.
There are obviously lots of holes that you have to fill in on the way there - you would have to stop the momentum towards open hardware and software - no more letting ordinary people install custom software on their phones willy nilly. Custom ROMs are leading to the devastation of our society. Custom apps need to be tightly controlled to avoid people developing software to workaround the watermarking (though maybe it is best to just ban them outright).
Any software capable of loading and transmitting a file needs to be tightly controlled so that we know exactly who is sending these images where.
It is ridiculous that with the state of technology today we still allow people to run arbitrary software on personal computers and devices. We need to lock all this down before the harm to society is irreversible.
I don't have particular objections to the long form census, especially as I doubt they will come after you if you don't fill out all the questions, or answer erroneously (although considering the data is used for planning though this wouldn't necessarily seem to be in ones best interest).
However, it makes me worry that this is being presented as 'open and fair government'. I was really hoping Trudeau's campaign for 'real change' would include dropping the political blowing smoke up asses and not making every decision part of a heroic effort for 'open and fair government.'
I would be more concerned about the extra radiation from the DC rather than the sound.
Whenever I see networking WiFi equipment I get headaches. I couldn't imagine having to see a DC all the time. I'd be able to feel myself getting cancer.
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor. But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
If you consider, for example, the connection between having sex and having a baby (and for the sake of example, ignore all the signs in between), and you took a sample of women who had babies three months after having sex, you could perhaps conclude that there is no relationships between having sex and having a baby.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
You will be able to get far better statistics by looking at your Fukushima population in say 2030 and comparing your cancer rate to the general population.
Perhaps it isn't what it is walling and what exposure it offers. I mean, there are obvious nefarious things like relaying spam and such. However, with wider and wider adoption of Wordpress in larger sites, there is lots of opportunity such as:
1. Changing affiliate links to redirect money to yourself 2. During election time, political sites seem to be potential big targets. Obviously one approach would be to do something blatant and visible, but if you wanted to be more nefarious you could make subtle changes that would impact the political message while going mostly undetected 3. Along the same lines, adding subtle, hidden referrals to other sites could help drive huge traffic. Similar to 1, say you had a site that offered products reviews and provided a link to another site where you could purchase the product. You could instead link to your own site to drive business. It would be subtle, perhaps unnoticeable, but would end with people buying a TV from say, Best Buy instead of Sears.
These are just some of many possible options where you can alter content in subtle ways for either profit, or to discredit another person/group.
I wouldn't judge her for not recording the transactions, on the other hand, given that it was unlikely to stop I wonder if it would have been possible to record and wait until she was finished in order to prevent it from happening to future students. I doubt this is isolated behaviour and it sounds like he was generally an asshole.
Additionally, enduring and keeping the records might have underlined and highlighted the bleakness of the situation a student might find themselves in - forced to endure unwanted attention because of the stakes that are on the line.
That was more a comment on typical human nature which results in people choosing dictionary based passwords.
Also, it depends on the cost factor as well, obviously. I don't recall seeing an indication of what it was.
Either way, it would be fairly reasonable to try, say, the top 30000 common dictionary passwords (and other common passwords) on each hash in the table. According to http://openwall.info/wiki/john..., you can do about 1000 bcrypt hashes per second on a single core of an i7 3k series. So you can try all 30000 dictionary passwords in 30 seconds on a single core. If you ran say, 1 million passwords, it would take 30 million seconds, which is 347 days. Now if you can rent a single of these cores for say, $25 a month (which I think is conservative but it's hard to find cloud compute based on a specific processor), you would need 12 of them for a month, which would cost $300.
Magnified by my suspicion (completely not based on any scientific study) that: People with weaker passwords that would be found using the dictionary attack are:
- More likely to reuse their passwords elsewhere
- Less likely to pay attention to news like this
- Less likely to actually change their password other places if they do find out about this
I mean, if something legitimately looked like it would make it possible to purchase google.com, for example, and it was a reputable site, then I would try it. Not because I would want to do evil, and not because I intend to cause harm. But only because I'm curious and would assume that it doesn't actually work, and the small part (ok, bigger than I'd like to think) of me that relates to this comic would be compelled to point out to the reputable vendor that something was obviously wrong with their site as I would expect to complete the transaction and not actually end up owning google.com.
The surprise for this guy was probably that the transaction actually went through and some reputable system actually believed him to own the domain.
"Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven’t registered for the site, and thus can’t contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows positive reviews."
So, first of all, this punishes users for registering for the site. Given this information, I wonder if it will dissuade people from registering in the first place. On the other hand, assuming that they publish reviews attached to positive ratings immediately, I foresee people leaving negative text with positive ratings to work around this.
"On top of that, Peeple has outlawed a laundry list of bad behaviors, including profanity, sexism and mention of private health conditions."
I'm curious as to how they intend to outlaw these behaviours. I doubt that they are hand reviewing the reviews. So if my private health condition is mentioned then, presumably I have to somehow monitor the site for awareness of it, and then file a complaint *after* personal details have been disclosed.
On the other hand, this is a site that has not been launched yet and it has been in at least three major news outlets and we're talking about it on slashdot. I suppose we fell into the publicity trap hook, line and sinker.
Well, it calls attention to something that I certainly wasn't sure about.
Obviously, I have an ethernet port exposed in a building, I would certainly expect that if somebody applied current it would probably kill the switch.
What I wouldn't have been certain about was what other impact it might have.
The experiment showed that not only was the switch killed, but also another laptop connected to the switch, and not just that laptop, but also the external hard drive connected to the laptop.
So the risk of an open ethernet port isn't just your network infrastructure, but also other connections down the line.
I don't find it particularly surprising, however I wouldn't have been certain.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... from the website:
INTRODUCING THE LITTLE BOX CHALLENGE
An open competition to build a (much) smaller power inverter, with a $1,000,000 prize.
Design and build a kW-scale inverter with the highest power density (at least 50 Watts per cubic inch).
Efficiency is not mentioned anywhere. I see somebody arguing that efficient with space is still being efficient. This is true, but is not what is commonly meant when referring to the efficient of an inverter, and misusing the word in this context is confusing.
Because in 2016 I expect to be able to close my laptop lid when I feel like it and reopen it and continue working. Is that an unreasonable expectation? It actually worked pre El Capitan, now it doesn't. Seems to be a bug in handling whatever VMWare Fusion is doing.
I guess updates in general are dangerous these days.
Does it refuse to accept keyboard and trackpad input when coming back from sleep every morning like OS X does? I hate having to do a force shutdown and restart every morning.
IMO they are different things. Copying might mean that an employee of the shop downloaded designs from thingiverse and listed them for sale on ebay. Steals or infringes is pretty vague in terms of is actually happening.
It seems reasonable for the author to assume that the audience of this site knows what scraping is, and it is a more precise word for what happened than copying, stealing or infringing. Scraping implies a scripted, automated effort with little human intervention past the point of building the script. There is no selection in terms of, 'hey, this looks neat - I'm going to sell those'; it is a complete replication of a catalogue without intervention.
Those were *my* config.sys and autoexec.bat files, you insensitive clod!
I'm pretty sure I could connect the ends together so it wouldn't really serve the purpose of preventing multiple chains of cables.
Maybe not completely relevant,but pretty ridiculous: https://discussions.apple.com/... and it does involve apple kind of but not quite following a standard.
Ian
Meh... I mean, it's totally bad and she should not have done it. But I suspect that 90% of your population isn't going to give a rats ass about the e-mail server debacle.
Given the choice between 'maybe did some shady things with an email server that she shouldn't have had' vs. 'wants to ban a large group of people from the country', many, many people are going to be able to put up with the former to avoid the latter.
Except that there are things like Wireshark and other tools that let you sniff packets and see what is inside them. If it's widely used enough somebody is going to have tried.
Who wood have thought?
I know we chastise the editors a lot for not specifying the meaning of an abbreviation, but I feel like in this case it is actually not helpful at all - it doesn't much matter what MIT stands for - it matters more what the MIT license is.
Who says compassion isn't profitable?
I think we're past the point of registering just cameras. What we should instead be doing is requiring and enforcing registration of smartphones and any devices with a camera, and requiring any video recording device to watermark incoming images so that you can identify exactly which device took a particular picture. This would solve all sorts of problems from photo copyright to child pornography. You would be able to tell exactly which device was used to take a picture and find out who the first distributor was.
There are obviously lots of holes that you have to fill in on the way there - you would have to stop the momentum towards open hardware and software - no more letting ordinary people install custom software on their phones willy nilly. Custom ROMs are leading to the devastation of our society. Custom apps need to be tightly controlled to avoid people developing software to workaround the watermarking (though maybe it is best to just ban them outright).
Any software capable of loading and transmitting a file needs to be tightly controlled so that we know exactly who is sending these images where.
It is ridiculous that with the state of technology today we still allow people to run arbitrary software on personal computers and devices. We need to lock all this down before the harm to society is irreversible.
I don't have particular objections to the long form census, especially as I doubt they will come after you if you don't fill out all the questions, or answer erroneously (although considering the data is used for planning though this wouldn't necessarily seem to be in ones best interest).
However, it makes me worry that this is being presented as 'open and fair government'. I was really hoping Trudeau's campaign for 'real change' would include dropping the political blowing smoke up asses and not making every decision part of a heroic effort for 'open and fair government.'
I would be more concerned about the extra radiation from the DC rather than the sound.
Whenever I see networking WiFi equipment I get headaches. I couldn't imagine having to see a DC all the time. I'd be able to feel myself getting cancer.
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor. But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
If you consider, for example, the connection between having sex and having a baby (and for the sake of example, ignore all the signs in between), and you took a sample of women who had babies three months after having sex, you could perhaps conclude that there is no relationships between having sex and having a baby.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
You will be able to get far better statistics by looking at your Fukushima population in say 2030 and comparing your cancer rate to the general population.
Perhaps it isn't what it is walling and what exposure it offers. I mean, there are obvious nefarious things like relaying spam and such. However, with wider and wider adoption of Wordpress in larger sites, there is lots of opportunity such as:
1. Changing affiliate links to redirect money to yourself
2. During election time, political sites seem to be potential big targets. Obviously one approach would be to do something blatant and visible, but if you wanted to be more nefarious you could make subtle changes that would impact the political message while going mostly undetected
3. Along the same lines, adding subtle, hidden referrals to other sites could help drive huge traffic. Similar to 1, say you had a site that offered products reviews and provided a link to another site where you could purchase the product. You could instead link to your own site to drive business. It would be subtle, perhaps unnoticeable, but would end with people buying a TV from say, Best Buy instead of Sears.
These are just some of many possible options where you can alter content in subtle ways for either profit, or to discredit another person/group.
It's hard to market genetically modified food in the US these days. But people have less trouble with gmo pets I guess.
I wouldn't judge her for not recording the transactions, on the other hand, given that it was unlikely to stop I wonder if it would have been possible to record and wait until she was finished in order to prevent it from happening to future students. I doubt this is isolated behaviour and it sounds like he was generally an asshole.
Additionally, enduring and keeping the records might have underlined and highlighted the bleakness of the situation a student might find themselves in - forced to endure unwanted attention because of the stakes that are on the line.
That was more a comment on typical human nature which results in people choosing dictionary based passwords.
Also, it depends on the cost factor as well, obviously. I don't recall seeing an indication of what it was.
Either way, it would be fairly reasonable to try, say, the top 30000 common dictionary passwords (and other common passwords) on each hash in the table. According to http://openwall.info/wiki/john..., you can do about 1000 bcrypt hashes per second on a single core of an i7 3k series. So you can try all 30000 dictionary passwords in 30 seconds on a single core. If you ran say, 1 million passwords, it would take 30 million seconds, which is 347 days. Now if you can rent a single of these cores for say, $25 a month (which I think is conservative but it's hard to find cloud compute based on a specific processor), you would need 12 of them for a month, which would cost $300.
Magnified by my suspicion (completely not based on any scientific study) that:
People with weaker passwords that would be found using the dictionary attack are:
- More likely to reuse their passwords elsewhere
- Less likely to pay attention to news like this
- Less likely to actually change their password other places if they do find out about this
you will have at least some payoff.
Meh.
I mean, if something legitimately looked like it would make it possible to purchase google.com, for example, and it was a reputable site, then I would try it. Not because I would want to do evil, and not because I intend to cause harm. But only because I'm curious and would assume that it doesn't actually work, and the small part (ok, bigger than I'd like to think) of me that relates to this comic would be compelled to point out to the reputable vendor that something was obviously wrong with their site as I would expect to complete the transaction and not actually end up owning google.com.
The surprise for this guy was probably that the transaction actually went through and some reputable system actually believed him to own the domain.
"Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven’t registered for the site, and thus can’t contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows positive reviews."
So, first of all, this punishes users for registering for the site. Given this information, I wonder if it will dissuade people from registering in the first place. On the other hand, assuming that they publish reviews attached to positive ratings immediately, I foresee people leaving negative text with positive ratings to work around this.
"On top of that, Peeple has outlawed a laundry list of bad behaviors, including profanity, sexism and mention of private health conditions."
I'm curious as to how they intend to outlaw these behaviours. I doubt that they are hand reviewing the reviews. So if my private health condition is mentioned then, presumably I have to somehow monitor the site for awareness of it, and then file a complaint *after* personal details have been disclosed.
On the other hand, this is a site that has not been launched yet and it has been in at least three major news outlets and we're talking about it on slashdot. I suppose we fell into the publicity trap hook, line and sinker.
Well... you can still brute force a lot of the passwords if you have the hash and the salt.
Now if they encrypted the hashes then that might make for harder work.
Hmmm, that's a different situation then. I wonder how far you can traverse with this.
Well, it calls attention to something that I certainly wasn't sure about.
Obviously, I have an ethernet port exposed in a building, I would certainly expect that if somebody applied current it would probably kill the switch.
What I wouldn't have been certain about was what other impact it might have.
The experiment showed that not only was the switch killed, but also another laptop connected to the switch, and not just that laptop, but also the external hard drive connected to the laptop.
So the risk of an open ethernet port isn't just your network infrastructure, but also other connections down the line.
I don't find it particularly surprising, however I wouldn't have been certain.