Or the brute force solution. Break it apart and reform it in the correct color order. It leaves less permanent damage than fiddling with the stickers.
Yeah, I did this too. In fact, the first thing I did was to see if I could take it apart without breaking it. Being able to solve it this way meant that I didn't have to waste time try to solve it the normal way. People considered this method cheating, but I preferred to refer to it as thinking outside of the box.
Just for fun, I did, much later, solve it the normal way using a strategy guide.. The strategy guide was included in a box lot that my Dad won at an auction.
SNMP Write Communities are inherently insecure; you're writing data to a device with a plaintext credential. The whole POINT of a SET vs GET community is that one is considered "non-public".
Sorry, you're not correct.
The post you replied to talked about the "public" community. The "public" community is hard set to read-only in any implementations I have seen since the 90s. You need a write-enabled community to write. Enabling those and giving access other than on secured ports is folly, and not a fault of the protocol.
The default R/W community string for most devices is "Private". However, pretty much all network devices come with SNMP R/W disabled by default.
There are a number of ways to make SNMP a bit less open. For example, you can restrict sections of the MIB table. This is best practice for any router that is on the internet as SNMP can be used as a DDOS attack by constantly requesting the entire MIB table. In addition, access lists are your friend.
That being said, these manufacturers were just being really stupid when they decided to store user login information, even if it is hashed, in the MIB table. I can only guess that it was being used to share information with their management software and, instead of developing their own protocol, they decided to take a shortcut and use SNMP.
Try telling that to HR departments around the world. All too often I've seen jobs posted looking for LAN technicians saying they want you to have a Computer Science or related degree; a few of them pass on my resume when they see my degree is in Network Systems Administration (I'm not entirely sure if a person is doing it, because in these cases I get an email saying I don't meet the minimum requirement even though I meet ALL of their requirements listed, including their bonus/preferred requirements, just I don't have a CS degree, nor am I interested in getting one.)
All the more jobs for the rest of us who realize that having a CS degree opens doors...
Personally, I'll never understand this attitude. Why would you not want to get a degree if it will open doors? It doesn't have to be expensive (most companies just check for the degree and the school rarely matters), you can do it online, and, if you investigate it, your employer may even pay for it.
I ripped all of my CDs to FLAC using EAC along with each album's CUE sheet. I then store the FLAC on DVD media and the MP3 on my computer. The oldest one is about 10 years old now. All of the original discs are in storage. This does remind me that it's probably close to that time to migrate from DVD to Blu-Ray.
I don't store the FLACs on a hard drive because even magnetic media will degrade over time if not refreshed. I do store digital copies of my movies on my hard-drive but I'm constantly upgrading the drives where my movies are stored every few years for more space.
I buy MP3s (Amazon) for single songs that I like but I still buy compact discs for music that I really enjoy and want to keep an archive. Plus, the sound comes out better if I rip it myself and I like having the physical media. If nothing else, it's physical proof that I bought the music.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won [...] It's called a PC
On an Internet-connected PC, you have to worry about antivirus and other security issues. Or on an Internet-disconnected PC, you have to worry about reconnecting it to the Internet every few weeks so that Steam can renew its receipts. That and the PC doesn't have quite as many games designed to be played with multiple controllers. Sure, you can use an Xbox 360 Controller and use a TV as a monitor, but publishers aren't necessarily willing to accommodate this setup. On the whole, PC multiplayer games tend to be designed around the assumption of one player per machine so that the publisher can sell multiple licenses to a single household.
Multiple controllers on the same TV?? Sure, it looks like a lot of fun in the movies but whenever I've sat down with more than one person on a console the lack of screen real estate due to split screen kills it for me. You really need an 80" TV to do it right.
If you were right that the console makers actually cared about local multi-player, wouldn't you think that they would have built-in multiple TV support by now? Instead, the Xbox has multilink, which requires a separate console per player.
I do think that Dual Play for 3D TVs will improve two player games. I also think that there will be much more refined support for multi-player and controller on the PC as the Xbox and PS4 are basically PCs. This makes ports much easier to do while retaining full gamepad support. I can't remember a recent game that didn't have it....
And yeah, I don't have a horse in this race yet either, though I have all three from the last generation. Even so, I distinctly remember the sour taste in my mouth when I got my 360 and discovered I'd have to pay them for the privilege of viewing Netflix, and then being thankful that I already had my Wii, PS3, and Apple TV hooked up and ready to go.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won, been given the ribbon, watered down, fed some oats, and released into a nice pasture to frolic with the mares. It's called a PC and you don't have to worry about bundling, Kinect, being locked out of DLCs (aka Skyrim), etc.
I honestly think they don't know how many individual humans are their customers.
As has been pointed out by others, "subscriber" in telecom parlance refers to the device, not the person who owns it. Ergo, if you have a work phone, personal phone, and one of those wireless hotspot devices, you count as 3 subscribers.
Add a car with 911 service and a Kindle and you are up to 5 pretty quickly.
It's got nothing to do with that. As the GP said, this is a total BS interpretation of the statistic. In wireless telco parlance, a "subscriber" is just an active SIM, not a person. So the total # of "subscribers" among mobile systems includes not just cellular phones but also cellular wireless enabled laptops/tablets/Kindles; all the cars out there with OnStar or something similar; every truck or car with a wireless fleet tracker; every cargo container or physical asset that has a wireless location/anti-theft tracker; every FedEx driver who has a cellular-enabled signature capture reader; every utility meter or security camera with a cellular data link... the list goes on and on. "7.1 billion" is probably more like 1/2 people with phones and 1/2 "things" with cellular connections.
This list likely includes law enforcement trackers, military devices (devices that are not using MIL sats), and whatever the security agencies are using these days. Also, don't forget mifi devices, airplanes, and probably a ton of other crap that we just don't know about.
Roughly, on the same amount of stored electrical energy.
So carbon fibre body components have a lot of potential to help make EVs range-competitive with fossil fuel cars.
We are definitely within reach of EVs that are practical for nearly every car driver.
1.5x better energy density batteries 1/3 vehicle weight reduction 1/3 price reduction
is all that's really needed from where we are now.
Wake me when there are battery exchanges or high capacity charging every 30 miles.... Until then pure EVs will be toys for the rich and short range commuter cars for a small minority.
As a Jeep owner, the biggest concern, for me personally, is what happens when you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere. It's not like you can carry extra batteries with you. At least with gas you can bring an extra container in the trunk when you know that you are going out on a trail, boating, etc. And, if you do get stuck, its almost trivial to find gas or have it delivered. With batteries, I'm willing to bet every manufacturer will have their own brand and unique connections.
I realize that most of this will eventually get solved. But I predict that we are at least 20 to 25 years out before it is. At that point, I will be retired and on a beach not needing a car for much of anything....
You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.
Um... not to nitpick, but you might want to work on your wording a little. If "your environment" were accelerating at the same rate as you, in the same direction, you'd be weightless for a lot longer than "a very brief period of time".
Not to nitpick further but, this is not actual weightlessness but an illusion. It's like the show "Brain Games" where they show a photo and you think you see color but it's really in B&W. You would get a sense of the real thing but I'm pretty sure that astronaut's, who have been into space, would tell you that it's but a pale imitation.
Actually, most of it won't go to the lawyers. However, there are only a few lawyers vs thousands involved in the Class.So the lawyers make 1/3 and split it among a very limited few. The rest (2/3) gets spread among thousands and thousands. So lawyers make a lot, and everyone else makes a little.
The fix for this is lawyers representing a Class in a lawsuit, are limited to the some multiple of the average member of the Class. Last class action I was a part of, I got some $2.34. Imagine a lawyer only able to gain 10K times that amount MAX. It would change how they proceed in representing the Class. I don't mind Lawyers making money at all. However, when they make Millions while I get $2.34 is really not a good representation of Justice.
You do realize that if the lawyers had forgone their complete amount you would have made $3.34 instead of $2.34. I agree that if the lawyers made cost (hours, fees, etc.) + 10% of the settlement then they would work just a tad harder to get a larger amount. But, unfortunately, it's lawyers who write the laws and who get to profit from them. It's one of the reasons why we have such a complicated legal system in the first place.
One day someone will write an artificial intelligence engine that can process all of our laws and rules. Of course, it will promptly go insane.....
Never underestimate the tendency of a large corporation to do something mean and stupid just to save a few pennies. Someone is probably going to get a bonus for shutting off some servers and doing some creative accounting.
Chances are that no extra effort has to be undertaken to keep these games online beyond "do nothing" and "just let it be".
The problem is that "do nothing" still has associated costs. EA may be planning on upgrading or moving their data center, they could be moving towards new servers or clusters that require less power, cooling, cheaper to run etc. The cost of moving or migrating the legacy game servers becomes costly and a nightmare. On top of that, they need to keep the servers patched, monitored, etc. The point is that "do nothing" still requires overhead (electricity, cooling, maintenance, etc) that costs more than they are taking in. By any business logic, these should have been shut down years ago. EA is just finally getting around to some Spring cleaning.
No, fat increases obesity too. Fat contains more available calories per gramme than sugar.
While fat does increase obesity, it does so at a much lower rate than sugar. In other words, the conversion of natural fat is much more inefficient than the conversion of high fructose corn syrup and sugar.
Consuming sugar doesn't bother me. What does bother me is consuming all the preservatives in out food, and all the unnatural sweeteners that are included. Although I am not a scientist, I wonder if high fructose corn syrup, calorie free sweeteners, and to a lesser extend, regular corn syrup, are far worse for us than the FDA understands yet.
Also, try going 2 weeks without any sugar except for naturally occurring sugars in fruits and the like... you'll get your actual sense of sweetness back. I can no longer drink sugary soda (I usually drink seltzer, and occasionally I drink coke watered down with seltzer to 1/5 the concentration). I can't eat milk chocolate or most candy. They all taste disgustingly sweet to me.
I'm assuming that you are in the US since your ID is Vermonter... Chocolate bars in the US are chocolate in name only. It's candy. Chocolate should not be that sweet.
I'm originally from Canada and I prefer milk chocolate bars (i.e. Cadbury, Nestle) or good dark chocolate (Ganong - NB, Canada). There are specialty chocolates in the US, like Ghirardelli dark that is good. Anything above 72% cacoa is too tart for me, but 72% is a nice dark chocolate.
I usually bring back chocolate from Canada when I visit and my US co-workers can't believe the difference. I just ran out and they are begging me to go back and get more....
Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.
In the 90's the health kick began and it was determined, at the time, that weight gain and clogged arteries were tied to the amount of fat that we consumed. There was no distinction between fat types. So, the food industry reduced the total amount of fat in foods. However, this also affected the taste so they added sugar and, worse, high fructose corn syrup, to boost the taste. Current research indicates that eating fat actually results in a lower amount of weight gain as eating high fructose corn syrup or sugars.
Personally, I would rather have real sugar in my foods than high fructose corn syrup, but that's all that you can get in the US. I try to avoid it as much as possible. High Fructose corn syrup should be banned...
It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.
It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?
A recent study of elderly who lived past 80 (was on 60 minutes) indicated that being a bit overweight (not obese) as you get older tends to protect you from a wide range of old age diseases and results in longer life.
No user should be able to do anything that would lead to this result. This is not the doctors fault. He may have violated a few policies, but to blame the entire incident on him is a bit ridiculous. This was a failure of their Network/Security team.
I second that notion. You have two issues here: the doctor should not have been able to reconfigure access in this way, and the IT staff should have spotted an unusual flow when the breach was active.
You missed the part where the doctor is actually a developer and was essentially working in IT....
You can't remove computer from the demand without the domain admin password. If they're handing out that password to end users, they've got a whole other series of problems.
Wrong, you just have to have local Admin rights.
The proper way to remove a computer from the domain is to log in as a user with local admin rights and then enter a domain account with the rights to Add/Remove Computers. This removed the computer from the domain and deletes the computer account from the domain.
However, you can also log in as a user with local admin rights and when prompted, after selecting Workgroup mode, enter a crap ID and password when prompted for domain credentials. The domain part will fail, but the computer will be switched to workgroup mode on reboot. The difference is that there is now an orphaned computer account still listed in the domain. But the client is now no longer on the domain as far as it is concerned.
The reason why this is allowed is simply because a mechanism is needed to switch a computer from domain mode to workgroup mode if, for some reason, the domain is unavailable.
I think you meant "the two inventors OF the patents"... But then, you are AMERICAN, aren't you... You Americans sure do have problems with prepositions...
No.
"The other half will go to the two inventors ON the patents", while not completely grammatically correct, is accepted as vernacular shorthand for "The other half will go to the two inventors... whose signatures are...on the patents".
"OF" the patents is completely incorrect because this would indicate that the people who came up with the idea of using patents would get paid and not the actual inventors of this particular invention.
Not really... that's just another verb that still suggests it somehow can change within a given individual.
How about this then: People who lack this gene on average, for a given population, are measured to have an IQ that is 6 points less than those who do.
I think that the reason why the word "boost" is used is because they are working on developing a gene therapy that would "boost" IQ in people who don't have the gene. In that context, it's perfectly acceptable.
Personally, I wouldn't sign up for the first version of such a drug as most IQ tests only measure certain skills such as memory, logical,and spacial thinking and then combine them into a single score. Very little artistic or humanistic traits are tested. So, while this gene may have an influence in higher IQ, it may also decrease some other trait that they didn't measure for.
Something about this strikes a chord.... Oh, right... Divergent....
What I loved aout Europe was there wasn't a need for a car - unlike here in the most of the States. Not having to worry about parking or getting booted or towed or feeding the meter or.....
People bitch about European taxes. Well, take you car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, registration, emissions testing and eliminate them.
You now have how much left per month? $400 - $500 - more?
And let's mention the reduction of stress from having to deal with all the chores associated with that car. I have to make time to go and get my car checked for emissions - and it'll pass - but I have to do it for the "privalege" of driving - even though it IS a nessessity here in the States.
Back to taxes...
Add in a single payer medical system - not this Obamacare crap - and those high European taxes do not seem so bad.
They are not perfect, but they have solved some social problems a bit better than we have.
You do realize that the vast majority of Europe is MUCH more densely populated than the US, and most US cities, which makes it more economical to create a public transportation system that can get you just about anywhere efficiently. The closest analogy in the US would be NYC or LA.
Can someone explain something to me, because I don't get it. If I want content, and netflix has the content, and I have a subscription to Netflix and an ISP, assuming neither has a monopoly, why does it matter if netflix or the ISP pays for the transmission of data? One of the two of them has to pay for it for my consumption. I understand this all changes if there's a monopoly by either netflix or the ISP, but without the monopoly, why does capitalism not drive this to cost+ a reasonable cost of doing buisness/profit margin? And if it does, why do I really care if I pay this money to either the ISP or netflix, I have to pay it to someone. Now obviously, this goes out the window if one or both has a monopoly. Also, please, I'm looking for a real answer as to why I should care, not "zomg, ISP greeeeed"
Basically, Netflix pays their ISP for bandwidth. You pay your Comcast for bandwidth. The traffic goes through Netflix's ISP, through the Internet backbone, to the Comcast network. Netflix's ISP is supposed to have a peering arrangement with Comcast where they agree to carry traffic to and from each other, usually for free. Normally both ISPs are close to being equal in the amount of data they exchange so this is fair.
Comcast has two arguments that they are using to charge Netflix extra to deliver their data to you:
1. Netflix data takes up a lot of bandwidth on the Comcast network and someone has to pay for that bandwidth. This is a total lie as you have already paid for this bandwidth through Comcast service fees, Netflix has already paid their ISP for this bandwidth, and tax payers have paid ISPs for time immemorial to upgrade their infrastructure, much of which has been just pocketed.
2. Netflix is using a small ISP to get a really good deal on their ISP rates and because their ISP is tiny, in comparison to Comcast, the peering agreement is unfair. Comcast does have a valid point here, but are going after the wrong party. Comcast should be charging Netflix's ISP additional fees as part of the peering agreement, which they would then have to pass on to their customers. Wait, you say, doesn't Netflix end up being charged more anyway? Yes, but this way the existing internet model is maintained and there is no prioritization of data based on who paid a toll or not. However, Netflix paying Comcast is a gateway to Comcast charging other companies for bandwidth even though their ISPs have fair peering agreements. Once this happens, any new internet business will have to have enough funding to pay Comcast for premium access or they would be at a severe disadvantage against the established companies.
I have a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and it has a push button start with proximity fob detection. The fob also includes a blade key, but it's only for unlocking the door if the battery in the fob fails. In that case, I just need to hold the fob over the "Start" button for a few seconds and it acts like a RFID.
I have yet to have any problems with the key-less system. Personally, I prefer it over the key based systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that it can eat through solid rock, given enough time.
Or the brute force solution. Break it apart and reform it in the correct color order. It leaves less permanent damage than fiddling with the stickers.
Yeah, I did this too. In fact, the first thing I did was to see if I could take it apart without breaking it. Being able to solve it this way meant that I didn't have to waste time try to solve it the normal way. People considered this method cheating, but I preferred to refer to it as thinking outside of the box.
Just for fun, I did, much later, solve it the normal way using a strategy guide.. The strategy guide was included in a box lot that my Dad won at an auction.
SNMP Write Communities are inherently insecure; you're writing data to a device with a plaintext credential. The whole POINT of a SET vs GET community is that one is considered "non-public".
Sorry, you're not correct.
The post you replied to talked about the "public" community. The "public" community is hard set to read-only in any implementations I have seen since the 90s. You need a write-enabled community to write.
Enabling those and giving access other than on secured ports is folly, and not a fault of the protocol.
The default R/W community string for most devices is "Private". However, pretty much all network devices come with SNMP R/W disabled by default.
There are a number of ways to make SNMP a bit less open. For example, you can restrict sections of the MIB table. This is best practice for any router that is on the internet as SNMP can be used as a DDOS attack by constantly requesting the entire MIB table. In addition, access lists are your friend.
That being said, these manufacturers were just being really stupid when they decided to store user login information, even if it is hashed, in the MIB table. I can only guess that it was being used to share information with their management software and, instead of developing their own protocol, they decided to take a shortcut and use SNMP.
Try telling that to HR departments around the world. All too often I've seen jobs posted looking for LAN technicians saying they want you to have a Computer Science or related degree; a few of them pass on my resume when they see my degree is in Network Systems Administration (I'm not entirely sure if a person is doing it, because in these cases I get an email saying I don't meet the minimum requirement even though I meet ALL of their requirements listed, including their bonus/preferred requirements, just I don't have a CS degree, nor am I interested in getting one.)
All the more jobs for the rest of us who realize that having a CS degree opens doors...
Personally, I'll never understand this attitude. Why would you not want to get a degree if it will open doors? It doesn't have to be expensive (most companies just check for the degree and the school rarely matters), you can do it online, and, if you investigate it, your employer may even pay for it.
I ripped all of my CDs to FLAC using EAC along with each album's CUE sheet. I then store the FLAC on DVD media and the MP3 on my computer. The oldest one is about 10 years old now. All of the original discs are in storage. This does remind me that it's probably close to that time to migrate from DVD to Blu-Ray.
I don't store the FLACs on a hard drive because even magnetic media will degrade over time if not refreshed. I do store digital copies of my movies on my hard-drive but I'm constantly upgrading the drives where my movies are stored every few years for more space.
I buy MP3s (Amazon) for single songs that I like but I still buy compact discs for music that I really enjoy and want to keep an archive. Plus, the sound comes out better if I rip it myself and I like having the physical media. If nothing else, it's physical proof that I bought the music.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won [...] It's called a PC
On an Internet-connected PC, you have to worry about antivirus and other security issues. Or on an Internet-disconnected PC, you have to worry about reconnecting it to the Internet every few weeks so that Steam can renew its receipts. That and the PC doesn't have quite as many games designed to be played with multiple controllers. Sure, you can use an Xbox 360 Controller and use a TV as a monitor, but publishers aren't necessarily willing to accommodate this setup. On the whole, PC multiplayer games tend to be designed around the assumption of one player per machine so that the publisher can sell multiple licenses to a single household.
Multiple controllers on the same TV?? Sure, it looks like a lot of fun in the movies but whenever I've sat down with more than one person on a console the lack of screen real estate due to split screen kills it for me. You really need an 80" TV to do it right.
If you were right that the console makers actually cared about local multi-player, wouldn't you think that they would have built-in multiple TV support by now? Instead, the Xbox has multilink, which requires a separate console per player.
I do think that Dual Play for 3D TVs will improve two player games. I also think that there will be much more refined support for multi-player and controller on the PC as the Xbox and PS4 are basically PCs. This makes ports much easier to do while retaining full gamepad support. I can't remember a recent game that didn't have it....
Fair enough.
And yeah, I don't have a horse in this race yet either, though I have all three from the last generation. Even so, I distinctly remember the sour taste in my mouth when I got my 360 and discovered I'd have to pay them for the privilege of viewing Netflix, and then being thankful that I already had my Wii, PS3, and Apple TV hooked up and ready to go.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won, been given the ribbon, watered down, fed some oats, and released into a nice pasture to frolic with the mares. It's called a PC and you don't have to worry about bundling, Kinect, being locked out of DLCs (aka Skyrim), etc.
I honestly think they don't know how many individual humans are their customers.
As has been pointed out by others, "subscriber" in telecom parlance refers to the device, not the person who owns it. Ergo, if you have a work phone, personal phone, and one of those wireless hotspot devices, you count as 3 subscribers.
Add a car with 911 service and a Kindle and you are up to 5 pretty quickly.
It's got nothing to do with that. As the GP said, this is a total BS interpretation of the statistic. In wireless telco parlance, a "subscriber" is just an active SIM, not a person. So the total # of "subscribers" among mobile systems includes not just cellular phones but also cellular wireless enabled laptops/tablets/Kindles; all the cars out there with OnStar or something similar; every truck or car with a wireless fleet tracker; every cargo container or physical asset that has a wireless location/anti-theft tracker; every FedEx driver who has a cellular-enabled signature capture reader; every utility meter or security camera with a cellular data link... the list goes on and on. "7.1 billion" is probably more like 1/2 people with phones and 1/2 "things" with cellular connections.
This list likely includes law enforcement trackers, military devices (devices that are not using MIL sats), and whatever the security agencies are using these days. Also, don't forget mifi devices, airplanes, and probably a ton of other crap that we just don't know about.
Roughly, on the same amount of stored electrical energy.
So carbon fibre body components have a lot of potential to help make EVs range-competitive with fossil fuel cars.
We are definitely within reach of EVs that are practical for nearly every car driver.
1.5x better energy density batteries
1/3 vehicle weight reduction
1/3 price reduction
is all that's really needed from where we are now.
Wake me when there are battery exchanges or high capacity charging every 30 miles.... Until then pure EVs will be toys for the rich and short range commuter cars for a small minority.
As a Jeep owner, the biggest concern, for me personally, is what happens when you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere. It's not like you can carry extra batteries with you. At least with gas you can bring an extra container in the trunk when you know that you are going out on a trail, boating, etc. And, if you do get stuck, its almost trivial to find gas or have it delivered. With batteries, I'm willing to bet every manufacturer will have their own brand and unique connections.
I realize that most of this will eventually get solved. But I predict that we are at least 20 to 25 years out before it is. At that point, I will be retired and on a beach not needing a car for much of anything....
You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.
Um... not to nitpick, but you might want to work on your wording a little. If "your environment" were accelerating at the same rate as you, in the same direction, you'd be weightless for a lot longer than "a very brief period of time".
Not to nitpick further but, this is not actual weightlessness but an illusion. It's like the show "Brain Games" where they show a photo and you think you see color but it's really in B&W. You would get a sense of the real thing but I'm pretty sure that astronaut's, who have been into space, would tell you that it's but a pale imitation.
Actually, most of it won't go to the lawyers. However, there are only a few lawyers vs thousands involved in the Class.So the lawyers make 1/3 and split it among a very limited few. The rest (2/3) gets spread among thousands and thousands. So lawyers make a lot, and everyone else makes a little.
The fix for this is lawyers representing a Class in a lawsuit, are limited to the some multiple of the average member of the Class. Last class action I was a part of, I got some $2.34. Imagine a lawyer only able to gain 10K times that amount MAX. It would change how they proceed in representing the Class. I don't mind Lawyers making money at all. However, when they make Millions while I get $2.34 is really not a good representation of Justice.
You do realize that if the lawyers had forgone their complete amount you would have made $3.34 instead of $2.34. I agree that if the lawyers made cost (hours, fees, etc.) + 10% of the settlement then they would work just a tad harder to get a larger amount. But, unfortunately, it's lawyers who write the laws and who get to profit from them. It's one of the reasons why we have such a complicated legal system in the first place.
One day someone will write an artificial intelligence engine that can process all of our laws and rules. Of course, it will promptly go insane.....
Never underestimate the tendency of a large corporation to do something mean and stupid just to save a few pennies. Someone is probably going to get a bonus for shutting off some servers and doing some creative accounting.
Chances are that no extra effort has to be undertaken to keep these games online beyond "do nothing" and "just let it be".
The problem is that "do nothing" still has associated costs. EA may be planning on upgrading or moving their data center, they could be moving towards new servers or clusters that require less power, cooling, cheaper to run etc. The cost of moving or migrating the legacy game servers becomes costly and a nightmare. On top of that, they need to keep the servers patched, monitored, etc. The point is that "do nothing" still requires overhead (electricity, cooling, maintenance, etc) that costs more than they are taking in. By any business logic, these should have been shut down years ago. EA is just finally getting around to some Spring cleaning.
No, fat increases obesity too. Fat contains more available calories per gramme than sugar.
While fat does increase obesity, it does so at a much lower rate than sugar. In other words, the conversion of natural fat is much more inefficient than the conversion of high fructose corn syrup and sugar.
Consuming sugar doesn't bother me. What does bother me is consuming all the preservatives in out food, and all the unnatural sweeteners that are included. Although I am not a scientist, I wonder if high fructose corn syrup, calorie free sweeteners, and to a lesser extend, regular corn syrup, are far worse for us than the FDA understands yet.
Also, try going 2 weeks without any sugar except for naturally occurring sugars in fruits and the like... you'll get your actual sense of sweetness back. I can no longer drink sugary soda (I usually drink seltzer, and occasionally I drink coke watered down with seltzer to 1/5 the concentration). I can't eat milk chocolate or most candy. They all taste disgustingly sweet to me.
I'm assuming that you are in the US since your ID is Vermonter... Chocolate bars in the US are chocolate in name only. It's candy. Chocolate should not be that sweet.
I'm originally from Canada and I prefer milk chocolate bars (i.e. Cadbury, Nestle) or good dark chocolate (Ganong - NB, Canada). There are specialty chocolates in the US, like Ghirardelli dark that is good. Anything above 72% cacoa is too tart for me, but 72% is a nice dark chocolate.
I usually bring back chocolate from Canada when I visit and my US co-workers can't believe the difference. I just ran out and they are begging me to go back and get more....
Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.
In the 90's the health kick began and it was determined, at the time, that weight gain and clogged arteries were tied to the amount of fat that we consumed. There was no distinction between fat types. So, the food industry reduced the total amount of fat in foods. However, this also affected the taste so they added sugar and, worse, high fructose corn syrup, to boost the taste. Current research indicates that eating fat actually results in a lower amount of weight gain as eating high fructose corn syrup or sugars.
Personally, I would rather have real sugar in my foods than high fructose corn syrup, but that's all that you can get in the US. I try to avoid it as much as possible. High Fructose corn syrup should be banned...
It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.
It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?
A recent study of elderly who lived past 80 (was on 60 minutes) indicated that being a bit overweight (not obese) as you get older tends to protect you from a wide range of old age diseases and results in longer life.
No user should be able to do anything that would lead to this result. This is not the doctors fault. He may have violated a few policies, but to blame the entire incident on him is a bit ridiculous. This was a failure of their Network/Security team.
I second that notion. You have two issues here: the doctor should not have been able to reconfigure access in this way, and the IT staff should have spotted an unusual flow when the breach was active.
You missed the part where the doctor is actually a developer and was essentially working in IT....
You can't remove computer from the demand without the domain admin password. If they're handing out that password to end users, they've got a whole other series of problems.
Wrong, you just have to have local Admin rights.
The proper way to remove a computer from the domain is to log in as a user with local admin rights and then enter a domain account with the rights to Add/Remove Computers. This removed the computer from the domain and deletes the computer account from the domain.
However, you can also log in as a user with local admin rights and when prompted, after selecting Workgroup mode, enter a crap ID and password when prompted for domain credentials. The domain part will fail, but the computer will be switched to workgroup mode on reboot. The difference is that there is now an orphaned computer account still listed in the domain. But the client is now no longer on the domain as far as it is concerned.
The reason why this is allowed is simply because a mechanism is needed to switch a computer from domain mode to workgroup mode if, for some reason, the domain is unavailable.
I would also hazard a guess that Fortran tends to be a tad easier to read than C... Especially for scientists...
I think you meant "the two inventors OF the patents"... But then, you are AMERICAN, aren't you... You Americans sure do have problems with prepositions...
No.
"The other half will go to the two inventors ON the patents", while not completely grammatically correct, is accepted as vernacular shorthand for "The other half will go to the two inventors... whose signatures are ...on the patents".
"OF" the patents is completely incorrect because this would indicate that the people who came up with the idea of using patents would get paid and not the actual inventors of this particular invention.
Not really... that's just another verb that still suggests it somehow can change within a given individual.
How about this then: People who lack this gene on average, for a given population, are measured to have an IQ that is 6 points less than those who do.
I think that the reason why the word "boost" is used is because they are working on developing a gene therapy that would "boost" IQ in people who don't have the gene. In that context, it's perfectly acceptable.
Personally, I wouldn't sign up for the first version of such a drug as most IQ tests only measure certain skills such as memory, logical,and spacial thinking and then combine them into a single score. Very little artistic or humanistic traits are tested. So, while this gene may have an influence in higher IQ, it may also decrease some other trait that they didn't measure for.
Something about this strikes a chord.... Oh, right... Divergent....
What I loved aout Europe was there wasn't a need for a car - unlike here in the most of the States. Not having to worry about parking or getting booted or towed or feeding the meter or .....
People bitch about European taxes. Well, take you car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, registration, emissions testing and eliminate them.
You now have how much left per month? $400 - $500 - more?
And let's mention the reduction of stress from having to deal with all the chores associated with that car. I have to make time to go and get my car checked for emissions - and it'll pass - but I have to do it for the "privalege" of driving - even though it IS a nessessity here in the States.
Back to taxes...
Add in a single payer medical system - not this Obamacare crap - and those high European taxes do not seem so bad.
They are not perfect, but they have solved some social problems a bit better than we have.
You do realize that the vast majority of Europe is MUCH more densely populated than the US, and most US cities, which makes it more economical to create a public transportation system that can get you just about anywhere efficiently. The closest analogy in the US would be NYC or LA.
Europe population density: http://kids.britannica.com/com...
US Population Density: http://image.lang-8.com/w0_h0/...
San Francisco Population Density: http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/s...
Can someone explain something to me, because I don't get it. If I want content, and netflix has the content, and I have a subscription to Netflix and an ISP, assuming neither has a monopoly, why does it matter if netflix or the ISP pays for the transmission of data? One of the two of them has to pay for it for my consumption. I understand this all changes if there's a monopoly by either netflix or the ISP, but without the monopoly, why does capitalism not drive this to cost+ a reasonable cost of doing buisness/profit margin? And if it does, why do I really care if I pay this money to either the ISP or netflix, I have to pay it to someone. Now obviously, this goes out the window if one or both has a monopoly. Also, please, I'm looking for a real answer as to why I should care, not "zomg, ISP greeeeed"
Basically, Netflix pays their ISP for bandwidth. You pay your Comcast for bandwidth. The traffic goes through Netflix's ISP, through the Internet backbone, to the Comcast network. Netflix's ISP is supposed to have a peering arrangement with Comcast where they agree to carry traffic to and from each other, usually for free. Normally both ISPs are close to being equal in the amount of data they exchange so this is fair.
Comcast has two arguments that they are using to charge Netflix extra to deliver their data to you:
1. Netflix data takes up a lot of bandwidth on the Comcast network and someone has to pay for that bandwidth. This is a total lie as you have already paid for this bandwidth through Comcast service fees, Netflix has already paid their ISP for this bandwidth, and tax payers have paid ISPs for time immemorial to upgrade their infrastructure, much of which has been just pocketed.
2. Netflix is using a small ISP to get a really good deal on their ISP rates and because their ISP is tiny, in comparison to Comcast, the peering agreement is unfair. Comcast does have a valid point here, but are going after the wrong party. Comcast should be charging Netflix's ISP additional fees as part of the peering agreement, which they would then have to pass on to their customers. Wait, you say, doesn't Netflix end up being charged more anyway? Yes, but this way the existing internet model is maintained and there is no prioritization of data based on who paid a toll or not. However, Netflix paying Comcast is a gateway to Comcast charging other companies for bandwidth even though their ISPs have fair peering agreements. Once this happens, any new internet business will have to have enough funding to pay Comcast for premium access or they would be at a severe disadvantage against the established companies.
I have a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and it has a push button start with proximity fob detection. The fob also includes a blade key, but it's only for unlocking the door if the battery in the fob fails. In that case, I just need to hold the fob over the "Start" button for a few seconds and it acts like a RFID.
I have yet to have any problems with the key-less system. Personally, I prefer it over the key based systems.