Pudding Pops were frozen snack, with Bill Cosby in their TV ads. There's a recent meme from those ads, good joke material given the recent allegations against him. Whether you're old and savvy, or young and hip, you should get the reference.
These are in fact "MITM as an amplifier" attacks. The key works by being within a certain range of the car - typically just a few feet. Boost that signal (both ways) enough, and the car is unlocked. The practical attack seems to be to steal a car parked on the street in front of the house/building the owner is in, as otherwise it's impractical (too many potential signals, too much amplification required).
A useful, related trick when hunting for your car in a big parking lot - you can double-triple the range at which your remote works to lock/unlock your car to find it by pressing the remote against the side of your head.
I'll sell the used Discs for 50% of what I paid easily on craigslist. and I get cash and the game sold within minutes.
For "real" games, sure.
For an online-only, multiplayer-only game (as so many are these days), once the server shuts down the game is worthless. Heck, once player population is sparse enough, it's nearly so.
I'd love some system where EA got hit with the "turn in cost", even at 10%, when they shut the servers down.
The only problem I see is lack of professionalism. Having dancers, be it male or female, at a professional event like this underestimates the intelligence of its attendees.
The dancers seemed quite professional to me, and after all they were the only ones working. In case you missed it, this was a tech conference (aka, an extended party), not a day at the office. It's all-marketing, all-sales-pitch, all-sex-appeal (mostly metaphorical sex-appeal, but still), all the time, with a thin gauze of technical briefing to fool the occasional company so that not everyone had to pay their own ride to the party.
I worked on a code base where we took elaborate precautions to be 100% sure we had no use-after-free bugs (macros that would crash the system any time it happened). I was just shocked how many we found, and how frequently people kept generating new ones. Too many C programmers who shouldn't be, I guess.
Well put. The skilled trades are really better jobs than most people realize - the first 5 or so years suck, but that's true with most jobs anyway. I think we're also all underestimating the changes that "micro-manufacturing" will bring (3D printers, CnC mills, lost-wax casting equipment and so on). From a new class of jobs operating those machines (much like jobs at Kinkos or a print shop 20 years ago) to a whole new category of jobs "customizing things for other people". Plus a whole new arena of person-to-person service jobs, as the cost of manufactured goods declines.
It was not a process of automation on the farm putting farmers out of work who then migrated to other jobs.
It was a big factor. The steam tractor made a huge difference in the amount of labor required for farming, first in threshing rigs and then in ploughing, and innovation was quite rapid during the industrial revolution. It's tied quite closely to the rise in the size of farms, and the economies of scale that make small farms impractical.
We're arguing correlation vs causation, which can be hard to sort out historically. Certainly automation on the farm happened at the same time farm jobs vanished, and of the new manufacturing jobs very few were making farm equipment.
just without the additional benefits of anonymity and protection from liability.
Wrong on both counts. Free speech has always included anonymous speech - from as far back as when the Founding Fathers were fomenting revolution. I'm not sure how liability protection is relevant, but LLC partnerships have always has free speech, as have corporations such as newspapers and TV stations.
The only problem with this idea that the unemployed will find work is that the number of people required to design/operate/maintain technology is much smaller than the number of people required to do the work the technology replaces.
We've gone from 95% of people doing agricultural work to less than 5%. Yet people found new jobs: almost everyone did. Same thing with manufacturing. But somehow not with burger flipping jobs? Those are magic? Seems unlikely.
But corporations are run by people - people who decide where to spend money - apparently the wrong people, for they disagree with Ratzo. Can't have that.
Ah, so the problem is that the wrong people have free speech. The mechanism for raising money to pay for political expression is, of course, entirely irrelevant. And of course, anonymity has always been held as a necessary, even critical aspect of political speech, since before the revolution started and many of the founders were pamphleteers.
And what's the practical consequence for not upholding the convention? Yeah, it's that the other side won't either. There's no other sort of enforcement.
And, as you say, brigands and bandits (now sometimes called terrorists or unlawful combatants or whatever, but the problem is centuries old), basically anyone not identifiable as a soldier who's fighting a war, is not protected. No, it's not at all the same as a murderer - that's a crime in a civilian society where a nation's laws apply. That in no way applies to combat.
Since when was buying a political ad in the paper not protected speech? The SCOTUS has been clear from very early on that a law that de facto restricts speech is a law that restricts speech. Do you really think there's something wrong with, say, a Kickstarter to fund a political ad? What if none of us can afford a full-page ad, so we each by a 1 square inch section of the page such that the full-page ad appears? Is that somehow different?
Or is it really that the wrong people are getting the message out? Cause it sure seems like it form here.
Oh, I agree there. I think there's too much tolerance for boondoggles, and too little "figure out how to do it cost-effectively, and we'll buy a bunch of it". It sure seems like an easier problem than a self-driving car, especially for ballistic targets, if we don't insist on perfect detection before starting. The Navy has solved this problem fairly well vs anti-ship missiles.
So maybe that particular program sucks. Sounds like we need to get it right, not abandon the concept. As far as the money we spend on defense, you do realize we spend less than either Medicare or Social Security, right?
I think some believe that no time ever again in our entire future will anyone ever launch a ballistic missile at us. Wishing doesn't make it so. (and our days as the sole hyperpower have already passed).
"Speech" is shorthand for "expression", including the press and other ways of being heard. These usually require money. People who all want to express the same political point pooling their money to do so is political expression: this couldn't be more clear.
I think what you're really try to say is "free speech doesn't include wrong ideas" (as judged by Ratzo, of course).
Still, better to shoot down the missile in flight. How did it become an Accepted Truth of the left that missile defense was a bad thing? Because Reagan first proposed it? I'll take a system with a 50% chance of working (as does any cop wearing a bullet-"proof" vest). Hell, I'll take a system with a 20% chance of working over nothing, if it can be improved over time.
The Geneva conventions only apply to conflicts where both sides have signed them. The penalty for not complying is that the other side doesn't have to comply either. The last time we fought an enemy who had signed the Geneva convention, or honored it in spirit, was the Nazis in WWII. An agreement of the nature "we'll treat your prisoners well if you treat ours well" is laudable, but it really goes both ways.
Anyhow, the protections of the Geneva conventions and centuries of treaties and military tradition have only ever applied to lawful combatants: those who wear a uniform and report through a chain of command to a government. Spies have always been executed. Bandits have always been executed. A military tribunal to confirm that you aren't in fact an enemy soldier is all you get.
Perhaps you want to appeal to honor and chivalry, and that would be a very good appeal, but the Geneva conventions and related treaties are right out unless the enemy is in uniform, and it's clear what government they work for (or group who claims they're really the government, that's just as good).
How has this anything to do with "Net Neutrality" T-Mobile doesn't sell content, and they aren't throttling the competition while promoting that content. Further, this program is open to any content service - provide the infrastructure, and T-Mobile will stop charging their users for our data. Sounds right to me.
It worked perfectly well for the "illegal combatants". Just invent a new expression and no treaties or laws have direct references to them.
Sigh. No. Pretty much every treaty about how armies behave has included rules for brigands, pirates, or other "illegal combatants". The rules allow them to be executed at a whim, with the only trial required being a "field tribunal" to confirm they aren't actually members of an actual army.
It's been this way for centuries, in military tradition and then in treaty. Organizing to fight without forming a formal army with a chain of command and ultimate government authority is looked upon quite harshly. You don't want mercenary companies pillaging the countryside for fun and profit - only governments get to do that.
Reading through the opinion I see you're right, and it is broader: the court was focused on the fact that media corporations are still corporations, and any such ban on speech could be used to ban newspapers etc from political speech. (I think I was confusing this with the Hobby Lobby case.) Note that direct contributions from corporations and unions to politicians are still banned, what's allowed is for the corporation to spend money to get its opinion heard, as every newspaper and news TV show does.
Modern watermarking, as I understand it, works by subtly altering the color balance in different areas of the screen. It's below the threshold of human perception, but survives the analog hole even with fairly crappy cameras (it's not sensitive to resolution or encoding, depending only on color accuracy being consistent across the screen).
So, you're no longer talking about Citizens United, then. What exactly are you talking about? A fantasy problem?
Citizens United held that since a closely held corporation is just a kind of partnership, the rights of the partners aren't lost merely because they chose "inc" vs "llc". it has nothing to do with publicly traded corporations. Nor does it have anything to do with "corporations are people".
Where Apple has fallen down shockingly here is that a mere $1 billion would make for a $10 million "contribution" to each and every US senator. Maybe 1 or two of them aren't corrupt. Maybe. The other 98 would be Apple's bitches, and the DOJ problem would go away. It's like they don't know how government works.
Slashdot Mirror
Pudding Pops were frozen snack, with Bill Cosby in their TV ads. There's a recent meme from those ads, good joke material given the recent allegations against him. Whether you're old and savvy, or young and hip, you should get the reference.
These are in fact "MITM as an amplifier" attacks. The key works by being within a certain range of the car - typically just a few feet. Boost that signal (both ways) enough, and the car is unlocked. The practical attack seems to be to steal a car parked on the street in front of the house/building the owner is in, as otherwise it's impractical (too many potential signals, too much amplification required).
A useful, related trick when hunting for your car in a big parking lot - you can double-triple the range at which your remote works to lock/unlock your car to find it by pressing the remote against the side of your head.
I'll sell the used Discs for 50% of what I paid easily on craigslist. and I get cash and the game sold within minutes.
For "real" games, sure.
For an online-only, multiplayer-only game (as so many are these days), once the server shuts down the game is worthless. Heck, once player population is sparse enough, it's nearly so.
I'd love some system where EA got hit with the "turn in cost", even at 10%, when they shut the servers down.
The only problem I see is lack of professionalism. Having dancers, be it male or female, at a professional event like this underestimates the intelligence of its attendees.
The dancers seemed quite professional to me, and after all they were the only ones working. In case you missed it, this was a tech conference (aka, an extended party), not a day at the office. It's all-marketing, all-sales-pitch, all-sex-appeal (mostly metaphorical sex-appeal, but still), all the time, with a thin gauze of technical briefing to fool the occasional company so that not everyone had to pay their own ride to the party.
Sometimes, a troll is so epic it deserves to be modded up, not down (or, better, whatever combination gives you +5 Troll). This is one of those times.
Well played, sir, well played.
I worked on a code base where we took elaborate precautions to be 100% sure we had no use-after-free bugs (macros that would crash the system any time it happened). I was just shocked how many we found, and how frequently people kept generating new ones. Too many C programmers who shouldn't be, I guess.
Well put. The skilled trades are really better jobs than most people realize - the first 5 or so years suck, but that's true with most jobs anyway. I think we're also all underestimating the changes that "micro-manufacturing" will bring (3D printers, CnC mills, lost-wax casting equipment and so on). From a new class of jobs operating those machines (much like jobs at Kinkos or a print shop 20 years ago) to a whole new category of jobs "customizing things for other people". Plus a whole new arena of person-to-person service jobs, as the cost of manufactured goods declines.
It was not a process of automation on the farm putting farmers out of work who then migrated to other jobs.
It was a big factor. The steam tractor made a huge difference in the amount of labor required for farming, first in threshing rigs and then in ploughing, and innovation was quite rapid during the industrial revolution. It's tied quite closely to the rise in the size of farms, and the economies of scale that make small farms impractical.
We're arguing correlation vs causation, which can be hard to sort out historically. Certainly automation on the farm happened at the same time farm jobs vanished, and of the new manufacturing jobs very few were making farm equipment.
just without the additional benefits of anonymity and protection from liability.
Wrong on both counts. Free speech has always included anonymous speech - from as far back as when the Founding Fathers were fomenting revolution. I'm not sure how liability protection is relevant, but LLC partnerships have always has free speech, as have corporations such as newspapers and TV stations.
The only problem with this idea that the unemployed will find work is that the number of people required to design/operate/maintain technology is much smaller than the number of people required to do the work the technology replaces.
We've gone from 95% of people doing agricultural work to less than 5%. Yet people found new jobs: almost everyone did. Same thing with manufacturing. But somehow not with burger flipping jobs? Those are magic? Seems unlikely.
But corporations are run by people - people who decide where to spend money - apparently the wrong people, for they disagree with Ratzo. Can't have that.
Ah, so the problem is that the wrong people have free speech. The mechanism for raising money to pay for political expression is, of course, entirely irrelevant. And of course, anonymity has always been held as a necessary, even critical aspect of political speech, since before the revolution started and many of the founders were pamphleteers.
And what's the practical consequence for not upholding the convention? Yeah, it's that the other side won't either. There's no other sort of enforcement.
And, as you say, brigands and bandits (now sometimes called terrorists or unlawful combatants or whatever, but the problem is centuries old), basically anyone not identifiable as a soldier who's fighting a war, is not protected. No, it's not at all the same as a murderer - that's a crime in a civilian society where a nation's laws apply. That in no way applies to combat.
Since when was buying a political ad in the paper not protected speech? The SCOTUS has been clear from very early on that a law that de facto restricts speech is a law that restricts speech. Do you really think there's something wrong with, say, a Kickstarter to fund a political ad? What if none of us can afford a full-page ad, so we each by a 1 square inch section of the page such that the full-page ad appears? Is that somehow different?
Or is it really that the wrong people are getting the message out? Cause it sure seems like it form here.
Oh, I agree there. I think there's too much tolerance for boondoggles, and too little "figure out how to do it cost-effectively, and we'll buy a bunch of it". It sure seems like an easier problem than a self-driving car, especially for ballistic targets, if we don't insist on perfect detection before starting. The Navy has solved this problem fairly well vs anti-ship missiles.
So maybe that particular program sucks. Sounds like we need to get it right, not abandon the concept. As far as the money we spend on defense, you do realize we spend less than either Medicare or Social Security, right?
I think some believe that no time ever again in our entire future will anyone ever launch a ballistic missile at us. Wishing doesn't make it so. (and our days as the sole hyperpower have already passed).
"Speech" is shorthand for "expression", including the press and other ways of being heard. These usually require money. People who all want to express the same political point pooling their money to do so is political expression: this couldn't be more clear.
I think what you're really try to say is "free speech doesn't include wrong ideas" (as judged by Ratzo, of course).
Still, better to shoot down the missile in flight. How did it become an Accepted Truth of the left that missile defense was a bad thing? Because Reagan first proposed it? I'll take a system with a 50% chance of working (as does any cop wearing a bullet-"proof" vest). Hell, I'll take a system with a 20% chance of working over nothing, if it can be improved over time.
The Geneva conventions only apply to conflicts where both sides have signed them. The penalty for not complying is that the other side doesn't have to comply either. The last time we fought an enemy who had signed the Geneva convention, or honored it in spirit, was the Nazis in WWII. An agreement of the nature "we'll treat your prisoners well if you treat ours well" is laudable, but it really goes both ways.
Anyhow, the protections of the Geneva conventions and centuries of treaties and military tradition have only ever applied to lawful combatants: those who wear a uniform and report through a chain of command to a government. Spies have always been executed. Bandits have always been executed. A military tribunal to confirm that you aren't in fact an enemy soldier is all you get.
Perhaps you want to appeal to honor and chivalry, and that would be a very good appeal, but the Geneva conventions and related treaties are right out unless the enemy is in uniform, and it's clear what government they work for (or group who claims they're really the government, that's just as good).
How has this anything to do with "Net Neutrality" T-Mobile doesn't sell content, and they aren't throttling the competition while promoting that content. Further, this program is open to any content service - provide the infrastructure, and T-Mobile will stop charging their users for our data. Sounds right to me.
It worked perfectly well for the "illegal combatants". Just invent a new expression and no treaties or laws have direct references to them.
Sigh. No. Pretty much every treaty about how armies behave has included rules for brigands, pirates, or other "illegal combatants". The rules allow them to be executed at a whim, with the only trial required being a "field tribunal" to confirm they aren't actually members of an actual army.
It's been this way for centuries, in military tradition and then in treaty. Organizing to fight without forming a formal army with a chain of command and ultimate government authority is looked upon quite harshly. You don't want mercenary companies pillaging the countryside for fun and profit - only governments get to do that.
Reading through the opinion I see you're right, and it is broader: the court was focused on the fact that media corporations are still corporations, and any such ban on speech could be used to ban newspapers etc from political speech. (I think I was confusing this with the Hobby Lobby case.) Note that direct contributions from corporations and unions to politicians are still banned, what's allowed is for the corporation to spend money to get its opinion heard, as every newspaper and news TV show does.
Modern watermarking, as I understand it, works by subtly altering the color balance in different areas of the screen. It's below the threshold of human perception, but survives the analog hole even with fairly crappy cameras (it's not sensitive to resolution or encoding, depending only on color accuracy being consistent across the screen).
So, you're no longer talking about Citizens United, then. What exactly are you talking about? A fantasy problem?
Citizens United held that since a closely held corporation is just a kind of partnership, the rights of the partners aren't lost merely because they chose "inc" vs "llc". it has nothing to do with publicly traded corporations. Nor does it have anything to do with "corporations are people".
Where Apple has fallen down shockingly here is that a mere $1 billion would make for a $10 million "contribution" to each and every US senator. Maybe 1 or two of them aren't corrupt. Maybe. The other 98 would be Apple's bitches, and the DOJ problem would go away. It's like they don't know how government works.