Simple solution: charge the full fare (i.e., the fare for whichever part of the route you're booking would cost most) but offer a rebate - which the passenger(s) can only claim if and when they actually arrive at the destination airport.
That doesn't really make sense; there's nothing stopping them from reserving seats on the first leg for last-minute fares, the ticketing system would just have to know when two different routes make use of the same flight.
What they might not be able to do if they can't stop "hidden city" travelers is to pass on the full cost savings from not running a direct flight to those customers that are disadvantaged as a result.
That would certainly be cool, but unfortunately it wouldn't produce any more thrust (per unit energy) than a conventional photon drive. (Less, in fact.)
I suppose in principle the device could be propelling the ambient dark matter. That would be kind of cool too, though probably difficult to prove.
Which "they" are you talking about? The linked article *does* give an "answer" - "the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive".
It also claims that a model based on this theory is being used to guide the NASA team's experimental design. To be fair, that's not necessarily unreasonable, in the absence of a more credible theory.
... on the Windows side. Too much stuff would break if you had to approve every server connection.
The applications that are providing the attack vector might be fixable. It isn't really a good thing for a remote attacker to be able to get your machine to try to open a file, especially a remote one. The main problem, from the sounds of it, is the sheer number of applications affected.
You can't change people's behaviour with statistics, though. I really don't know whether there is any effective way to train police officers not to see themselves as at risk.
If the statistics support it being safe enough, you might be able to prohibit them from carrying handguns while on routine patrol, I suppose. I can't see that flying, though, to be honest.
Not relevant to your point, but seriously - the limit is 55, the flow of traffic is 65-70 and the cops don't do anything about it? What's up with that?
I have to wonder why there was no class action lawsuit (or was there?) over this.
But yes, you shouldn't need a lawsuit. In New Zealand the consumer guarantees act should apply, though I have no idea whether anyone tried using it to obtain a refund. I don't imagine we're the only nation with a similar law.
At an absolute minimum, they should be obliged to grant permission to third parties wanting to provide ongoing support if they are unwilling to do so themselves.
IIRC, when Google announced that they were removing the certificate, they referred to specific terms in CNNIC's contract with them that had been violated. Not sure about Mozilla.
Does CNNIC have similar contracts with Apple and Microsoft? Do they have similar terms? It occurs to me that they might not be as rigorous, because they might have been drafted several years earlier than Google's one - seeing as Chrome is a relative newcomer.
Meantime, I can run a supported version of Windows on PCs, even laptops, that are 10+ years old. (If I need to, I mean. Linux would be my first choice for performance reasons.)
But if you're rich enough to buy a Mac in the first place, you should be able to afford to replace it every few years, IMO.
MS included non-core calls in their implementation of Java and put it in the com.com.java. library set
Exactly. In other words, it was a non-compliant implementation.
Now, however, Microsoft are insisting that nobody create non-compliant implementations based on their work - just what they did to Java - and (I suspect) many of the same pundits that decried Microsoft back then are now saying that it's not a reasonable restriction.
So... now the Americans are a trustworthy source? You might want to make up your mind about that.
(Never mind that that quote merely claims that they had stopped their program for the time being, which is entirely plausible. Doesn't mean they can't start up it again if we let them get away with it.)
"The 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid was a cross-border attack carried out by Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants on an Israeli military patrol on 12 July 2006 on Israeli territory."
Really? Just Americans? Last time I checked the sanctions were just a *tad* wider than that.
And, gee, last time I checked *I* wasn't an American, either. Just because you're idiot enough to believe Iranian propaganda doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Sure, if we could bully the US into getting rid of its nuclear weapons that would be a good idea, in my opinion, though North Korea, Pakistan, China, and Russia would come first on my list. But for the time being it isn't practical to much more about any of them. We *may* however be able to keep Iran from getting them.
Where do you get this crap about Iran being "crazy"? Fox News? Israeli and U.S. government propaganda?
General knowledge.
To be fair, upon going back over my collection of news reports I was surprised how few of them were about Iran as opposed to other Islamic nations. On the other hand I specifically claimed that Iran has a reputation for being batshit crazy rather than that it actually is batshit crazy. Scott Adams once pointed out that if you analyzed Iran's actions rather than their words they didn't seem nearly as insane.
Even so, there were some relevant items about Iran - and none about Jordon, though a more thorough search might turn up more.
Ashton visit to Iran sparks co-operation and controversy - "Do you think our country has no order that you can go anywhere you want and see anyone you want to see?" the head of the judiciary, Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, demanded on Tuesday night.
There's also Iran's own constitution. The first five articles are all about how Islamic Iran is. In other words, they're a theocracy and don't even try to hide it. The preamble even says "... with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."
The Supreme Leader has considerable power and is chosen entirely on religious grounds. In other words, he's chosen precisely because he's batshit crazy.
Can you really be so sure that one day the Supreme Leader won't decide to nuke Israel, counting on God to protect Iran from Israel's counterstrike?
I'm not sure that Jordan has blown up any teenagers in Mexico recently. We're comparing Jordan and Iran, remember, not Iran and anybody else.
I'm not claiming, mind you, that Jordan is necessarily really any more trustworthy or any less batshit crazy than Iran. I know little about Jordan, so it's entirely plausible that the difference is entirely PR.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple solution: charge the full fare (i.e., the fare for whichever part of the route you're booking would cost most) but offer a rebate - which the passenger(s) can only claim if and when they actually arrive at the destination airport.
That doesn't really make sense; there's nothing stopping them from reserving seats on the first leg for last-minute fares, the ticketing system would just have to know when two different routes make use of the same flight.
What they might not be able to do if they can't stop "hidden city" travelers is to pass on the full cost savings from not running a direct flight to those customers that are disadvantaged as a result.
That would certainly be cool, but unfortunately it wouldn't produce any more thrust (per unit energy) than a conventional photon drive. (Less, in fact.)
I suppose in principle the device could be propelling the ambient dark matter. That would be kind of cool too, though probably difficult to prove.
The point is that the laws of physics, as currently understood, do not allow the "universal em background field" to be used in that way.
It is too soon to cry "Eureka!"
Did you read the article? Sounded pretty much like "Eureka!" to me.
Which "they" are you talking about? The linked article *does* give an "answer" - "the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive".
It also claims that a model based on this theory is being used to guide the NASA team's experimental design. To be fair, that's not necessarily unreasonable, in the absence of a more credible theory.
It's as if someone had been coding Samba ... in 1987!
You would need to disable the Workstation service, not just the Server service.
The applications that are providing the attack vector might be fixable. It isn't really a good thing for a remote attacker to be able to get your machine to try to open a file, especially a remote one. The main problem, from the sounds of it, is the sheer number of applications affected.
Reminiscent of DLL hijacking attacks, really.
This isn't a buffer overflow bug. In fact, it isn't a bug at all, but a design weakness.
The writer seems to me to be confused between encryption of web traffic and encryption of data in general.
AFAIK, Let's Encrypt is all about making https universal. It has nothing to do with encypting application data.
You can't change people's behaviour with statistics, though. I really don't know whether there is any effective way to train police officers not to see themselves as at risk.
If the statistics support it being safe enough, you might be able to prohibit them from carrying handguns while on routine patrol, I suppose. I can't see that flying, though, to be honest.
The one will inevitably result in the other on occasion, no matter how high the quality of the personnel involved. Being human means making mistakes.
It might be possible to make the failure rate acceptably low, but you'll never get it to zero.
Not relevant to your point, but seriously - the limit is 55, the flow of traffic is 65-70 and the cops don't do anything about it? What's up with that?
I have to wonder why there was no class action lawsuit (or was there?) over this.
But yes, you shouldn't need a lawsuit. In New Zealand the consumer guarantees act should apply, though I have no idea whether anyone tried using it to obtain a refund. I don't imagine we're the only nation with a similar law.
At an absolute minimum, they should be obliged to grant permission to third parties wanting to provide ongoing support if they are unwilling to do so themselves.
IIRC, when Google announced that they were removing the certificate, they referred to specific terms in CNNIC's contract with them that had been violated. Not sure about Mozilla.
Does CNNIC have similar contracts with Apple and Microsoft? Do they have similar terms? It occurs to me that they might not be as rigorous, because they might have been drafted several years earlier than Google's one - seeing as Chrome is a relative newcomer.
Meantime, I can run a supported version of Windows on PCs, even laptops, that are 10+ years old. (If I need to, I mean. Linux would be my first choice for performance reasons.)
But if you're rich enough to buy a Mac in the first place, you should be able to afford to replace it every few years, IMO.
MS included non-core calls in their implementation of Java and put it in the com.com.java. library set
Exactly. In other words, it was a non-compliant implementation.
Now, however, Microsoft are insisting that nobody create non-compliant implementations based on their work - just what they did to Java - and (I suspect) many of the same pundits that decried Microsoft back then are now saying that it's not a reasonable restriction.
Seems unlikely to be significant. In any case it's a single finite additional heat input, whereas carbon emissions are continuous.
Sounds a lot like the Java licensing terms that Microsoft were sued for violating earlier this century. Ironic on both fronts, really.
So ... now the Americans are a trustworthy source? You might want to make up your mind about that.
(Never mind that that quote merely claims that they had stopped their program for the time being, which is entirely plausible. Doesn't mean they can't start up it again if we let them get away with it.)
To quote Wikipedia:
"The 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid was a cross-border attack carried out by Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants on an Israeli military patrol on 12 July 2006 on Israeli territory."
Started by Israel, my ass.
Really? Just Americans? Last time I checked the sanctions were just a *tad* wider than that.
And, gee, last time I checked *I* wasn't an American, either. Just because you're idiot enough to believe Iranian propaganda doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Sure, if we could bully the US into getting rid of its nuclear weapons that would be a good idea, in my opinion, though North Korea, Pakistan, China, and Russia would come first on my list. But for the time being it isn't practical to much more about any of them. We *may* however be able to keep Iran from getting them.
Where do you get this crap about Iran being "crazy"? Fox News? Israeli and U.S. government propaganda?
General knowledge.
To be fair, upon going back over my collection of news reports I was surprised how few of them were about Iran as opposed to other Islamic nations. On the other hand I specifically claimed that Iran has a reputation for being batshit crazy rather than that it actually is batshit crazy. Scott Adams once pointed out that if you analyzed Iran's actions rather than their words they didn't seem nearly as insane.
Even so, there were some relevant items about Iran - and none about Jordon, though a more thorough search might turn up more.
Rafsanjani and Mashaei barred from Iran presidency poll - Only eight of the 686 people who registered as potential candidates were reportedly cleared to stand.
Ashton visit to Iran sparks co-operation and controversy - "Do you think our country has no order that you can go anywhere you want and see anyone you want to see?" the head of the judiciary, Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, demanded on Tuesday night.
Iran sentences British-Iranian activist Ghoncheh Ghavami 'over volleyball game' - speaks for itself
Wikipedia, Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Freedom and equality of religion - Freedom to convert from Islam to another religion (apostasy), is prohibited and may be punishable by death.
There's also Iran's own constitution. The first five articles are all about how Islamic Iran is. In other words, they're a theocracy and don't even try to hide it. The preamble even says "... with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."
The Supreme Leader has considerable power and is chosen entirely on religious grounds. In other words, he's chosen precisely because he's batshit crazy.
Can you really be so sure that one day the Supreme Leader won't decide to nuke Israel, counting on God to protect Iran from Israel's counterstrike?
I'm not sure that Jordan has blown up any teenagers in Mexico recently. We're comparing Jordan and Iran, remember, not Iran and anybody else.
I'm not claiming, mind you, that Jordan is necessarily really any more trustworthy or any less batshit crazy than Iran. I know little about Jordan, so it's entirely plausible that the difference is entirely PR.