IIRC, the range of your MAC address is determined by the manufacturer of your ethernet chip. There is a list of assigned ethernet addresses.
So yes, your router may have a MAC in a different range from your NIC, as will your neighbour's NIC (unless you use the ISP-provided NIC). Of course, if your NIC and router are both made by the same company (LinkSys, maybe?), they could have MACs in the same range.
Because it can be used with a hands-free headset that can connect to a mobile phone even if the device is some distance away, it could be a perfect way to get around the ban.
OK, the law says you can't have a cell phone. There's probably a reason for this (safety?). Now, the manufacturers are trying to violate the spirit of the law while following the letter. While not technically illegal, it's still wrong.
And yet, before vaccination, smallpox was very virulent, and quite deadly to its hosts.
That is because humans were not its optimal host. The virus tended to kill its hosts before it had a chance to evolve into a less-deadly form. Assuming we hadn't destroyed it and it hadn't destroyed us, eventually it could have evolved to a form that doesn't kill us, and we would be the optimal host for the new strain of smallpox, which would probably be deadly to the next species it passed on to.
Sorry, that's not how real viruses work. My wife's a virologist (studying ebola, if you care), and she's explained this a "few" times
It is not optimal for a virus to kill its host. Ever. End-of-story.
Because a virus cannot live outside of a host, it is important that the virus keep its host alive as long as possible. Therefore, each virus evolves in an "optimal host". This host is a type of life (animal, plant, even bacteria), in which the virus exists without killing the host. The problem arises when the virus tries to expand its territory to a non-optimal host. In some of these hosts, it can't even get a footing, and dies off without infecting cells. In others, however, it infects the cells in a non-optimal way, killing the host (and with it the virus).
For example, ebola tends to kill people. Depending on the strain, it's between 50% and 90% fatality in humans. Obviously, humans are not ebola's optimal host. However, there are some species of bats that carry the ebola virus, and are not affected by it. These bats are the natural hosts of ebola, allowing the virus the best opportunity to survive without overpopulating.
This is all from memory, as my wife's at work, so corrections are appreciated.
If the language you're using does not automatically check array indices, then you have to do it yourself.
OK, consider a language where every array access is validated. You loop through an array. As a programmer, you know you only have to check the array length once, at the beginning of the loop. The runtime doesn't know this, and thus checks the bounds every time through.
Now, you say, this can easily be done in the compiler. However, what if someone decides to write the bytecode themselves. This could allow a buffer overflow in a Java virtual machine, for example. So Java checks array bounds on every access, so that a rogue applet can't gain elevated privs. Plus for security, minus for efficiency.
Is there any requirement that Google keeps the same PageRank algorithm after the case? They are continually tweaking it, so SK's optimizations are still time-limited.
Google's PageRank algorithm is designed to ensure that the most topical pages for a search get the top billing. SearchKing's services seem to be altering customer pages to get around Google's requirement to have decent content on the site. Google fixes their PageRank so it can continue to serve its purpose. SearchKing sues.
O(n) describes how the processing time of a problem increases when more elements are put into the input set. For example, O(n) means that when you add 1 to the input set, you add 1 to the number of loops at runtime.
O(2^n) means that for each element you put into the input set, the number of loops doubles. Thus, while an input set with 3 elements in it would loop 8 times, an input set with 4 elements would loop 16, etc. The number gets unmanageable fast - 10 elements = 1024 loops, 20 elements = 1048576 loops, 100 elements = 1267650600228229401496703205376 loops. Basically, it means that for any significant amount of data, don't expect it to be finished in your lifetime.
While I suspect you ov being a troll, I will respond to the last line of your message:
Blind people can lead rich, full lives. - in environments that don't require a dependancy on EYESIGHT. The net IS one of those environments.
The web should be one of those environments. It's not like it's particularly hard to do. Unless it's a photo gallery, the majority of your webpage content is (should be) text. Since you probably have images, just plain text won't do everything you want. That's where the 'ALT' attribute comes in to play. Those who chose not to use them are just plain lazy.
While there is more to accessiblity than using ALT tags, they are a start, and would probably improve the majority of pages on the web.
Web accessibility doesn't prevent beautiful pages. The Web Accessibility Initiative by the W3C has information on making web pages that degrade well. This means that you can have all the flash, Javascript, ActiveX, and everything else you want, and still let someone using Lynx and a screenreader hear what you have to say.
Nothing can ever be the only line of defense. How many PHBs know that? When they see/hear from media/rumours that this is the ultimate defence, how many of them will rush out to get it and tell their IT staff that this is all they need?
At first glance, this looks like something that may be useful. However, what happens if a user knows about the system and its patterns, and plans out the attack over a large period of time?
The user could "poison" the information by slowly changing his working habits. If done properly, the AI would probably think this was no different than the user just learning to do things in a different way. When the habits are close enough to the infringing behaviour, the user can probably do anything without setting off alarms.
In addition, if this is the only line of security, the user can then gradually return his patterns to normal. The logs from this system won't show anything. The PHBs may well decide that, when using something as smart as this, traditional logs won't be needed.
We didn't intentionally block the signal, Your Honour. The copper wiring around the theatre to enhance the viewing experience.
Hey, you don't have to lie. It does enhance the experience, and there's probably something else beneficial you can attribute to the wires (extra insulation to block out sound from the lobby/outside, for example).
Blah. With all the laws that the entertainment industry is trying to push through, you'd think they'd be able to propose this one that would be beneficial to the consumers as well as themselves?
While jamming the screaming babies, etc. may be a bit difficult, I don't see why phone-jamming should be too much of a problem.
We already know that tunnels cause dead areas in cell networks. All we have to do is create this artificially in the theatre. Is it possible to create an electromagnetic jamming field that would surround a single theatre in a multiplex? That way if you absolutely must use a cell phone, you can go out into the hall or the lobby to make your call.
Slashdot Mirror
So yes, your router may have a MAC in a different range from your NIC, as will your neighbour's NIC (unless you use the ISP-provided NIC). Of course, if your NIC and router are both made by the same company (LinkSys, maybe?), they could have MACs in the same range.
It is not optimal for a virus to kill its host. Ever. End-of-story.
Because a virus cannot live outside of a host, it is important that the virus keep its host alive as long as possible. Therefore, each virus evolves in an "optimal host". This host is a type of life (animal, plant, even bacteria), in which the virus exists without killing the host. The problem arises when the virus tries to expand its territory to a non-optimal host. In some of these hosts, it can't even get a footing, and dies off without infecting cells. In others, however, it infects the cells in a non-optimal way, killing the host (and with it the virus).
For example, ebola tends to kill people. Depending on the strain, it's between 50% and 90% fatality in humans. Obviously, humans are not ebola's optimal host. However, there are some species of bats that carry the ebola virus, and are not affected by it. These bats are the natural hosts of ebola, allowing the virus the best opportunity to survive without overpopulating.
This is all from memory, as my wife's at work, so corrections are appreciated.
Now, you say, this can easily be done in the compiler. However, what if someone decides to write the bytecode themselves. This could allow a buffer overflow in a Java virtual machine, for example. So Java checks array bounds on every access, so that a rogue applet can't gain elevated privs. Plus for security, minus for efficiency.
- The Ring Sets Out
- The Ring Goes South
- The Treason of Isengard
- The Ring Goes East
- The War of the Ring
- The End of the Third Age
These are the titles of the books in the 7-book Millenium set (the 7th book contains the appendices and index)Not if you're a hobbit...
Is there any requirement that Google keeps the same PageRank algorithm after the case? They are continually tweaking it, so SK's optimizations are still time-limited.
IANAL, but can't Google request that the court documents be sealed if they contain trade secrets?
Is that about how everything is working here?
O(n) describes how the processing time of a problem increases when more elements are put into the input set. For example, O(n) means that when you add 1 to the input set, you add 1 to the number of loops at runtime.
O(2^n) means that for each element you put into the input set, the number of loops doubles. Thus, while an input set with 3 elements in it would loop 8 times, an input set with 4 elements would loop 16, etc. The number gets unmanageable fast - 10 elements = 1024 loops, 20 elements = 1048576 loops, 100 elements = 1267650600228229401496703205376 loops. Basically, it means that for any significant amount of data, don't expect it to be finished in your lifetime.
While there is more to accessiblity than using ALT tags, they are a start, and would probably improve the majority of pages on the web.
You mean like the W3C HTML standards
Web accessibility doesn't prevent beautiful pages. The Web Accessibility Initiative by the W3C has information on making web pages that degrade well. This means that you can have all the flash, Javascript, ActiveX, and everything else you want, and still let someone using Lynx and a screenreader hear what you have to say.
Nothing can ever be the only line of defense. How many PHBs know that? When they see/hear from media/rumours that this is the ultimate defence, how many of them will rush out to get it and tell their IT staff that this is all they need?
The user could "poison" the information by slowly changing his working habits. If done properly, the AI would probably think this was no different than the user just learning to do things in a different way. When the habits are close enough to the infringing behaviour, the user can probably do anything without setting off alarms.
In addition, if this is the only line of security, the user can then gradually return his patterns to normal. The logs from this system won't show anything. The PHBs may well decide that, when using something as smart as this, traditional logs won't be needed.
- Talk to management about it. Follow your company's procedures for bringing up issues.
- Propose another method (works well in conjunction with the above)
- Deal with it.
- Get a different job
- Deliberately avoid doing your assigned tasks
Do whichever of the above you want. However, if you chose not to work, don't be surprised when your employer chooses not to pay you.We didn't intentionally block the signal, Your Honour. The copper wiring around the theatre to enhance the viewing experience.
Hey, you don't have to lie. It does enhance the experience, and there's probably something else beneficial you can attribute to the wires (extra insulation to block out sound from the lobby/outside, for example).
I'm not sure, but I think that even frequencies we can't "see" can still damage our eyes.
Hmm...true.
How 'bout making the theatre into a Faraday cage? Blocks the transmissions, but does't have any active components.
Blah. With all the laws that the entertainment industry is trying to push through, you'd think they'd be able to propose this one that would be beneficial to the consumers as well as themselves?
While jamming the screaming babies, etc. may be a bit difficult, I don't see why phone-jamming should be too much of a problem.
We already know that tunnels cause dead areas in cell networks. All we have to do is create this artificially in the theatre. Is it possible to create an electromagnetic jamming field that would surround a single theatre in a multiplex? That way if you absolutely must use a cell phone, you can go out into the hall or the lobby to make your call.