Not if the attacker has the original TPM chip. Then it's a trivial replay attack. Ask the original TPM chip to sign its serial number, then hardcore the answer into the new chip.
Actually that sounds like what a manipulative retailer would do if they were smart. Let through one or two negative reviews, bin the other 99% of the negative reviews, and you give the consumer false confidence that you've let through a proportional number of negative reviews. Bonus points if you even go to the trouble of generating fake negative reviews yourself to give the consumer false confidence.
Why is it not the same thing? Scenario 1: redefine everything (e.g., phone, audio) to work over some "universal bus". Scenario 2: redefine everything (e.g., phone, audio) to work over Ethernet. They sound like the same thing to me.
So what? Is x Linux hackers + y CISCO employees working on some code worse than y CISCO employees working on some code? If the Linux hackers don't do what you want them to do, fine, fork the code in the worst place. You're no worse off than you were just working on your own.
It's not about better suited; it's about well suited. As long as it's good enough, why not take advantage of the free maintenance all the Linux hackers do for you?
In that light, anti-virus software seems like a losing battle. I was going to suggest we build an OS for people to stupid to close their own mouths, but I think that's really missing the mark. That's just dealing with passive stupidity. Active stupidity is a much harder problem to tackle....
That's not true. Rayleigh scattering is elastic (no energy is lost) which means none of the light is absorbed. The bits are not holding onto any red, sorry.
There's really no limit to how many volumes you can have and there's no way for them to know how many volumes there are hidden. Most people have only 1 or 2 volumes but there's really nothing, except your own ability to memorize passwords, stopping you from having 3 or 4 or 10 or 950 billion volumes. At what point would they assume that you've told them everything?
Say what? Are you trying to say this is subjective? I'm pretty sure that results about what Windows is more expensive is objectively superior to results about why Macs are so expensive given the search query. Isn't the whole point of search engines, objectively, to return what was queried for?
Black box testing isn't all that productive for RNGs. You can check distribution and very simple patterns, but beyond that it's a major headache. White box testing makes things much easier. Yay source code!
It depends on how "loud" it is. Even if the content of the signal is indistinguishable from noise, you might still be able to tell that it's coming from somewhere.
Yes, though I'd always heard that was due to environmental factors, not genetic factors. Children are exposed to more nutrition and food energy (this is a polite way of saying "kids eat a lot") which causes puberty to start earlier.
Len Adleman did a more impressive DNA computing experiment way back in 1994. Since then Adleman has stated that DNA computing is a dead end until someone comes up with a huge breakthrough. Well...it would be a huge understatement to say that this E. Coli experiment isn't a breakthrough.
It's complicated by the fact that Canada foolishly signed on to WIPO. In order to honour our international obligations, we have to make our copyright laws completely draconian and dysfunctional, or at least that's the rationale they're using. Really I'd much rather see them diplomatically try to weasel out of WIPO.
Checking DNA "across the board" would be effectively impossible up until very recently. Even now, DNA sequencing is a horrendously laborious procedure (in spite of what CSI would have you believe). You'll note that even in this study they didn't sequence any DNA; they just looked at the expressed mRNA.
Slashdot Mirror
All the world must use American English, right?
Not if the attacker has the original TPM chip. Then it's a trivial replay attack. Ask the original TPM chip to sign its serial number, then hardcore the answer into the new chip.
Why is there no "-1, wrong"? :(
Actually that sounds like what a manipulative retailer would do if they were smart. Let through one or two negative reviews, bin the other 99% of the negative reviews, and you give the consumer false confidence that you've let through a proportional number of negative reviews. Bonus points if you even go to the trouble of generating fake negative reviews yourself to give the consumer false confidence.
Why would you go out of your way to make your keyboard less useful? What do you use for your second meta key?
Why is it not the same thing? Scenario 1: redefine everything (e.g., phone, audio) to work over some "universal bus". Scenario 2: redefine everything (e.g., phone, audio) to work over Ethernet. They sound like the same thing to me.
So what? Is x Linux hackers + y CISCO employees working on some code worse than y CISCO employees working on some code? If the Linux hackers don't do what you want them to do, fine, fork the code in the worst place. You're no worse off than you were just working on your own.
It's not about better suited; it's about well suited. As long as it's good enough, why not take advantage of the free maintenance all the Linux hackers do for you?
On the plus side, that $46345 of Apple hardware was only worth about $10000.
And people in Canada. And people in Australia. And South Africa. And Puerto Rico. And, according to Wikipedia, a good 10 other countries.
In that light, anti-virus software seems like a losing battle. I was going to suggest we build an OS for people to stupid to close their own mouths, but I think that's really missing the mark. That's just dealing with passive stupidity. Active stupidity is a much harder problem to tackle....
Well yes, that's what the anti-virus is for, to ensure Mac's don't get viruses ;)
Even more confusing, how would you classify a chimera where some body parts have Y chromosomes and some don't?
Personally I think it would be most useful to model humans :\
Finland has 10 people?
To be fair, I've also heard the Internet, the World Wide Web and e-mail touted using the EXACT same phrase to the letter.
That's not true. Rayleigh scattering is elastic (no energy is lost) which means none of the light is absorbed. The bits are not holding onto any red, sorry.
There's really no limit to how many volumes you can have and there's no way for them to know how many volumes there are hidden. Most people have only 1 or 2 volumes but there's really nothing, except your own ability to memorize passwords, stopping you from having 3 or 4 or 10 or 950 billion volumes. At what point would they assume that you've told them everything?
Say what? Are you trying to say this is subjective? I'm pretty sure that results about what Windows is more expensive is objectively superior to results about why Macs are so expensive given the search query. Isn't the whole point of search engines, objectively, to return what was queried for?
Black box testing isn't all that productive for RNGs. You can check distribution and very simple patterns, but beyond that it's a major headache. White box testing makes things much easier. Yay source code!
It depends on how "loud" it is. Even if the content of the signal is indistinguishable from noise, you might still be able to tell that it's coming from somewhere.
Yes, though I'd always heard that was due to environmental factors, not genetic factors. Children are exposed to more nutrition and food energy (this is a polite way of saying "kids eat a lot") which causes puberty to start earlier.
Len Adleman did a more impressive DNA computing experiment way back in 1994. Since then Adleman has stated that DNA computing is a dead end until someone comes up with a huge breakthrough. Well...it would be a huge understatement to say that this E. Coli experiment isn't a breakthrough.
It's complicated by the fact that Canada foolishly signed on to WIPO. In order to honour our international obligations, we have to make our copyright laws completely draconian and dysfunctional, or at least that's the rationale they're using. Really I'd much rather see them diplomatically try to weasel out of WIPO.
Checking DNA "across the board" would be effectively impossible up until very recently. Even now, DNA sequencing is a horrendously laborious procedure (in spite of what CSI would have you believe). You'll note that even in this study they didn't sequence any DNA; they just looked at the expressed mRNA.