Maybe you need sunglasses. Can you use it with sunglass tinting? To keep your good vision, you want to protect your eyes from UV radiation, which prevents premature yellowing of the lens and helps prevent cataracts.
Not that part, the use it or lose it part. Patent trolling in general. I mean, BT just now figured out they can mangle the wording of a patent to apply it to something that's been in use for over a decade.
Why would you sit and stare at a computer while running virus removal tools. Move on to the next computer. This is a very common virus with pre-made tools available to remove it from several vendors. Just start it running on 100 computers at a time - just as fast as you can run and type.
All you have to do is get one computer fixed reliably. Then just make sure you do the same thing to the others. It's not like you have hundreds of totally unique infections.
If they have that many PC's, why can't they just re-image them and restore from backup. If it involves much face time with each individual PC then you're doing it wrong.
I think it's fair to call all self-propagating malware a virus. Especially since an executable blindly infecting other executables just isn't common anymore.
Ok. If that's true, that makes things harder to be failsafe. If there isn't a failover to allow it to be unlocked on CPU failure/non-response, then it should never be released. Just before the battery dies, the switch is automatically released.
I said the trigger pull would be detected in nanoseconds, not that it would lock. The lock doesn't have to finish engaging until the trigger is almost completely pulled. That takes at least what - 1/4 second?
If an attacker has time to remove an embedded rechargeable battery from the gun, that's more time than this device is meant to delay the attacker. One would hope that it wouldn't just pop out with a button press. The attacker would probably just hit you over the head with the gun and forget firing it before you become a risk.
If you want to protect against EMP's, you use two different CPU's each running independently coded software, but with the same print matching algorithm. If the CPU's agree, then trust the results. If they do not agree, then failsafe into unlock. Again, a completely fried CPU would need a different sort of failsafe. It would be much more unlikely for both CPU's to produce an answer AND match.
This is all assuming that they have an absolutely foolproof recognition system. What does foolproof mean? It allows more false positives. Lots more. Is that a problem? No. You improved survival odds against a stolen weapon. It decreases false negatives maybe even to the point of not being an issue at all. Unless you're stupid enough to wear gloves. Again, I'm saying that they have to reach a certain level of before they should ever try to release this to the public.
So what you're saying is that a fried CPU is going to continue to run the OS?
It doesn't matter if you don't like it. You don't have to buy it. I don't want it. But you can't say that it's impossible to account for these problems to a reasonable degree. People said the same about autopilot overriding human decisions (Airbus), but overall it saves lives.
I'm not going to argue every point with you ad infinitum. You were saying it was impossible, I'm saying it doesn't have to be. End of story. All the "What if's" are to be solved by this maker.
I'll admit to it being complicated, but you wouldn't have electronics detect that the CPU isn't working. The CPU prevents the gun from being fired but if CPU fails, then there is no mechanism locking it. EMP's aren't exactly portable or convenient. Just think about power steering in a vehicle. Of course cars aren't steer-by-wire, but the power steering assist fails gracefully back to full manual control. I won't do the work of inventing it just to explain my logic, but let's just say the CPU could engage with in a few nanoseconds of the trigger starting to move (to save battery). And can actively lock the trigger until the user is authorized. If the CPU failed, then the trigger would automatically release because it's an active lock. Let's also assume there's a failsafe for a failing CPU's short circuit directly powering the active lock. Maybe an EM-sensitive fuse.
Failure to match is unlikely. It's far more likely that the CPU just won't function. So if there was a 1 in 100 chance that a shooter would have an auth failure (high, just for the purposes of illustration), then using an EMP could reduce that chance of failure even further.
That's not a failure. That's a negative match. Failure means the CPU isn't responding. In the case of an EMP, the CPU won't function and therefore it has "no lock at all."
No...it means don't allow anyone else in the world to find/scan/copy your work and post it online or they own it. You don't have to ever post something online yourself to be affected by this.
Good point. But that might be due to how easy it is to take a screenshot on iOS (not consistent across Android) or a statement on this guy's audience. I won't say it's not faked, but if it were faked you'd hope it would be funnier than this.
If you worked for him, he would be glad you didn't waste time listening to a telemarketer call. I would find it hard to resist the bait to argue that point.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you need sunglasses. Can you use it with sunglass tinting? To keep your good vision, you want to protect your eyes from UV radiation, which prevents premature yellowing of the lens and helps prevent cataracts.
As others have posted, software patents aren't valid in the UK, so they're likely suing based on a US patent.
Not that part, the use it or lose it part. Patent trolling in general. I mean, BT just now figured out they can mangle the wording of a patent to apply it to something that's been in use for over a decade.
As long as you know when to get out. Otherwise, you'd be just like the miner - left with a lot of spare equipment of no value. Inventory isn't free.
That's just added cost to reformatting the hard drive. What are you, stupid?
Why would you sit and stare at a computer while running virus removal tools. Move on to the next computer. This is a very common virus with pre-made tools available to remove it from several vendors. Just start it running on 100 computers at a time - just as fast as you can run and type.
All you have to do is get one computer fixed reliably. Then just make sure you do the same thing to the others. It's not like you have hundreds of totally unique infections.
If they have that many PC's, why can't they just re-image them and restore from backup. If it involves much face time with each individual PC then you're doing it wrong.
I think it's fair to call all self-propagating malware a virus. Especially since an executable blindly infecting other executables just isn't common anymore.
Insightful though this is, the new print menu is one of the nicer things about the new interface.
Cost $0 + admins' time
The cost of fixing the problem was already $0 + admins' time. Unless you're not very bright and just throw out the machines.
The gun is locked by default.
Ok. If that's true, that makes things harder to be failsafe. If there isn't a failover to allow it to be unlocked on CPU failure/non-response, then it should never be released. Just before the battery dies, the switch is automatically released.
I said the trigger pull would be detected in nanoseconds, not that it would lock. The lock doesn't have to finish engaging until the trigger is almost completely pulled. That takes at least what - 1/4 second?
If an attacker has time to remove an embedded rechargeable battery from the gun, that's more time than this device is meant to delay the attacker. One would hope that it wouldn't just pop out with a button press. The attacker would probably just hit you over the head with the gun and forget firing it before you become a risk.
If you want to protect against EMP's, you use two different CPU's each running independently coded software, but with the same print matching algorithm. If the CPU's agree, then trust the results. If they do not agree, then failsafe into unlock. Again, a completely fried CPU would need a different sort of failsafe. It would be much more unlikely for both CPU's to produce an answer AND match.
This is all assuming that they have an absolutely foolproof recognition system. What does foolproof mean? It allows more false positives. Lots more. Is that a problem? No. You improved survival odds against a stolen weapon. It decreases false negatives maybe even to the point of not being an issue at all. Unless you're stupid enough to wear gloves. Again, I'm saying that they have to reach a certain level of before they should ever try to release this to the public.
So what you're saying is that a fried CPU is going to continue to run the OS?
It doesn't matter if you don't like it. You don't have to buy it. I don't want it. But you can't say that it's impossible to account for these problems to a reasonable degree. People said the same about autopilot overriding human decisions (Airbus), but overall it saves lives.
I'm not going to argue every point with you ad infinitum. You were saying it was impossible, I'm saying it doesn't have to be. End of story. All the "What if's" are to be solved by this maker.
I'll admit to it being complicated, but you wouldn't have electronics detect that the CPU isn't working. The CPU prevents the gun from being fired but if CPU fails, then there is no mechanism locking it. EMP's aren't exactly portable or convenient. Just think about power steering in a vehicle. Of course cars aren't steer-by-wire, but the power steering assist fails gracefully back to full manual control. I won't do the work of inventing it just to explain my logic, but let's just say the CPU could engage with in a few nanoseconds of the trigger starting to move (to save battery). And can actively lock the trigger until the user is authorized. If the CPU failed, then the trigger would automatically release because it's an active lock. Let's also assume there's a failsafe for a failing CPU's short circuit directly powering the active lock. Maybe an EM-sensitive fuse.
Failure to match is unlikely. It's far more likely that the CPU just won't function. So if there was a 1 in 100 chance that a shooter would have an auth failure (high, just for the purposes of illustration), then using an EMP could reduce that chance of failure even further.
That's not a failure. That's a negative match. Failure means the CPU isn't responding. In the case of an EMP, the CPU won't function and therefore it has "no lock at all."
No...it means don't allow anyone else in the world to find/scan/copy your work and post it online or they own it. You don't have to ever post something online yourself to be affected by this.
Also known as a Daffy gun.
That's why it has to fail-through to a working state.
On the other hand, if you can manage get close with a knife to cut off the finger, why even use the gun?
Are you implying that adoptive parents are somehow able to pass down their genetics at all?
Sure...because you can't just do a quick search for similar entries in the genre and just imitate that.
He didn't invent it, but he was the first to make it work. Yes, that's a marketing innovation more than a technical one. But still pretty impressive.
Good point. But that might be due to how easy it is to take a screenshot on iOS (not consistent across Android) or a statement on this guy's audience. I won't say it's not faked, but if it were faked you'd hope it would be funnier than this.
If you worked for him, he would be glad you didn't waste time listening to a telemarketer call. I would find it hard to resist the bait to argue that point.
First to file - go for it! Maybe they haven't filed any paperwork yet.
But if you don't mind having buttons on it, check this out:
http://www.u-hid.com/home/index.php
Looks great. I just googled it based on seeing your comment and lo and behold, it does exist.
At a radius where the density crosses a particular threshold. You are aware that a body that big is held together by gravity, right?
For the sun, it doesn't matter - all around cold on both sides of the threshold compared to the core.