I, for one, am imagining a world where a large number of mass-produced devices, sold to a large number of different parties, can be used for both good and evil at the same time. Blows my mind; but there it is.
By doing exactly the wrong thing, and encouraging blatantly insecure behavior, you drive the metric that people are looking at through the floor (demonstrating your Epic Competence), and shove all the risk under the rug of the metric that everybody avoids looking at and politely doesn't mention!
Wait, are we talking about the banking system here?
Oh, no. If I were good enough to apply Terrible Person Logic to finance, rather than security, I would be rich enough to leave Slashdot posting to my auxiliary manservant...
Given than EUV is absorbed by pretty much all normal matter, why would it have trouble lighting up our light sensing cells, while at the same time microwaving our brains into mush? I'm pretty sure I could sense that.
Unless re-emitted as visible light, something that high in the UV range would just be absorbed by the cornea, lens, or aqueous or vitreous humors before having a chance to hit the retina.
The potentially-permanent damage would be noticeable; but probably not immediately(allegedly, the sensation is similar to having your eyes full of sand, without any sand you can remove, sometimes followed by cateracts. Zesty!)
If the UV is high energy enough, and there is something even slightly fluorescent in the eye, you might be able to see the visible light produced when the fluorescent material is energized by the UV. That would be a Bad Sign; but at least an immediate one (possibly not as bad as seeing Cherenkov radiation in your eye; but still bad).
"Which makes you wonder if the information on the NSA crap isn't being passed to the DEA."
TFA specifically says that the NSA is among the sources used by the DEA. Unclear whether the DEA gets all the NSA's stuff, or whether some of it is 'cool kids only'; but it would appear that the DEA is laundering a certain amount of intelligence for use against domestic targets.
Oh, 'facilitated communication' was quite the clusterfuck. Mostly preyed on severely autistic or otherwise nonverbal children (and if you think that dead people have an affective grip on our little hominid brains, try crippled kids...) Eventually started to come unglued when some of the communications facilitators began making (by means of their helpless meat-puppets) allegations of child sexual abuse against parents... Thankfully, 'facilitated communication' mostly crumbled under the onslaught of actual testing (shockingly, when the 'facilitator' couldn't see the stimulus; but only the kid could, performance on questions about it plummeted to chance. Funny how that happens), rather than a recap of the 'satanic panic' incident.
(A less dramatic; but also scientifically problematic, source of criticism was the 'we can place electrodes on every inch of kiddo, to discern the slightest volitional muscle movements, and nothing. Why, again, is it that "facilitators" are magically getting all kinds of output?' school of assistive tech people, who understandably had questions about what, exactly, the 'facilitator' could be detecting that instruments couldn't.)
On the plus side (and notably unlike 'facilitated communication', which required a true-believer to be in immediate contact with the patient), it would be reasonably trivial to pipe eyeball-cam footage to an otherwise blinded observer.
Doesn't mean that hopefully families won't be conned (or con themselves) into playing sick human-Ouija-board games with locked-in patients; but "Is this pupil dilation pattern conveying information?" should be a pretty testable question.
"Makes you wonder who the DEA is getting advice from."
In a conspiracy-theorist's perfect world, the CIA would be dishing dirt on competing drug-runners in order to boost their own margins. I don't think that I dare hope for a setup that cute, though.
It wouldn't entirely surprise me if keys duplicated from pictures are actually better than the ones duplicated with your basic hardware-store cloning machine. Those are neat, fast, and work; using the template key to control the height of the blank above a cut-off wheel; but some amount of analog-copy-degradation can happen, especially if the original key isn't in fantastic shape or the operator is sloppy.
If you are working from an image, you can't use that strategy, so actually computing the bitting codes and cutting a key to those specifications, essentially creating a first-generation master once again, becomes much more likely...
Sounds like a way of having to get one of those bothersome warrants.
Even better, if the original collection mechanism was illegal, you can avoid having the evidence excluded as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' by producing a "parallel construction", that isn't illegal, for how you came to possess it! Such convenience.
The 'war on drugs' has either introduced or popularized many of the more...unpleasant...police practices, so it isn't 100% surprising that people who litigate drug cases, one side or the other, probably have a lot of unpleasant cocktail party stories.
Exactly! People love Objective Metrics (especially ones made of numbers, because numbers are super scientific) that are easy to measure; because they allow even the laziest among them to experience the warm, comforting, embrace of Knowledge. They hate, and thus tend to ignore, fuzzy metrics that are difficult or impossible to quantify (like 'security') because those are a morass of nescience and harrowing epistemic uncertainty.
By doing exactly the wrong thing, and encouraging blatantly insecure behavior (you also likely create a culture of casual key-sharing and letting just anybody who 'lost their key' in), you drive the metric that people are looking at through the floor (demonstrating your Epic Competence), and shove all the risk under the rug of the metric that everybody avoids looking at and politely doesn't mention!
Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?
You just tell everybody who has to come in for a key replacement who it was who lost their key, then turn your back and whistle innocently. Cuts the loss rate significantly.
I don't think so. A long distance photo is not going to give enough detail. You'll need a high resolution photo of the key.
Wacky Fun!. That paper appears to deal with a less sophisticated key; but demonstrated successful attacks at 195 feet, with comparatively cheap apparatus.
Plus, 'Sea World' is pretty much a life term in Supermax, except with more gawkers, for something of the size (not well proportioned to live in a swimming pool) and intelligence (relatively high) of a killer whale.
If you are a lifer anyway, and the guard is dumb enough to come into your cell, why not shiv him just on principle?
The ghastly-little-soldering has been dissuading me; but apparently the move toward eDisplayPort (rather than LVDS) in recent iPads means that you can successfully connect their screens to ordinary DisplayPort sources, given a suitable physical adapter and a power supply for the backlight.
I don't know if the same is true of the Surface Pro or not. If it's an LVDS panel, the conversion hardware isn't wildly expensive (but the ebay cheapy boards aren't nearly small enough to fit neatly); if it's eDP, some moderately heroic soldering and a custom flexPCB might actually make it happen...
At that price, the Surface Pro is more or less even with the Wacom stylus-input displays (of similar size, larger ones are substantially more expensive) that don't have a computer attached to them...
Unless the pen input is totally gimped, this seems like it would be a serious competitor to those for everyone except people whose photoshopping is serious enough that the Surface's specs can't handle it. Especially if your demands are at all mobile, it's hard to justify buying the Wacom when you could get the screen and stylus input with the laptop thrown in for free. It's a pity that the Surface can't act as a monitor/input device (optionally, while charging at your desk, for example, it could go from a waste of space to an extra monitor) for more powerful computers.
Anybody else overcome by Alpha Centauri nostaliga at the notion of large, initially hidden, fungus-based communications networks?
Also, given that we've discovered several enormous fungi (I think the largest known spreads across some 2,200 acres), I wonder if this sort of thing is actually much more common than we currently know. Ping would probably suck; but there is a lot of (fungal) fiber in the ground.
That is in effect the essential idea of insurance. Its a wager. Clearly it only works if more money gets taken from "losers" than gets paid to "winners."
If it were merely that, insurance companies would be a nearly honest business, like bookies or casinos...
The trouble is not so much that, for insurance to be something worth offering, the sum paid in (by all subscribers) must be greater than the sum paid out (to parties who end up making claims); but that insurers are...talented and creative... when it comes to reducing both the number of eligible claimants and the size of eligible claims. At least in ordinary gambling, the rules of the game are generally fixed and relatively simple.
In this case, the assignment of 'damages' numbers to intrusion incidents is so absurdly vague that there is absolutely no way in hell I'd dare go up against an insurance outfit. Sure, when it comes time for some prosecutin', you hear that "it cost eleventy-zillion dollars when Anonymous defaced Sony"; but your insurer won't be using DEA math when it comes time to pay up.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, am imagining a world where a large number of mass-produced devices, sold to a large number of different parties, can be used for both good and evil at the same time. Blows my mind; but there it is.
You'll be find as long as you stay out of the machines in a chip fab.
Based on the likely cost of a spoiled 200-300mm wafer on a 10nm process, I suspect that the operator of the fab would kill you before the UV does...
By doing exactly the wrong thing, and encouraging blatantly insecure behavior, you drive the metric that people are looking at through the floor (demonstrating your Epic Competence), and shove all the risk under the rug of the metric that everybody avoids looking at and politely doesn't mention!
Wait, are we talking about the banking system here?
Oh, no. If I were good enough to apply Terrible Person Logic to finance, rather than security, I would be rich enough to leave Slashdot posting to my auxiliary manservant...
Given than EUV is absorbed by pretty much all normal matter, why would it have trouble lighting up our light sensing cells, while at the same time microwaving our brains into mush? I'm pretty sure I could sense that.
Unless re-emitted as visible light, something that high in the UV range would just be absorbed by the cornea, lens, or aqueous or vitreous humors before having a chance to hit the retina.
The potentially-permanent damage would be noticeable; but probably not immediately(allegedly, the sensation is similar to having your eyes full of sand, without any sand you can remove, sometimes followed by cateracts. Zesty!)
If the UV is high energy enough, and there is something even slightly fluorescent in the eye, you might be able to see the visible light produced when the fluorescent material is energized by the UV. That would be a Bad Sign; but at least an immediate one (possibly not as bad as seeing Cherenkov radiation in your eye; but still bad).
"Which makes you wonder if the information on the NSA crap isn't being passed to the DEA."
TFA specifically says that the NSA is among the sources used by the DEA. Unclear whether the DEA gets all the NSA's stuff, or whether some of it is 'cool kids only'; but it would appear that the DEA is laundering a certain amount of intelligence for use against domestic targets.
Oh, 'facilitated communication' was quite the clusterfuck. Mostly preyed on severely autistic or otherwise nonverbal children (and if you think that dead people have an affective grip on our little hominid brains, try crippled kids...) Eventually started to come unglued when some of the communications facilitators began making (by means of their helpless meat-puppets) allegations of child sexual abuse against parents... Thankfully, 'facilitated communication' mostly crumbled under the onslaught of actual testing (shockingly, when the 'facilitator' couldn't see the stimulus; but only the kid could, performance on questions about it plummeted to chance. Funny how that happens), rather than a recap of the 'satanic panic' incident.
(A less dramatic; but also scientifically problematic, source of criticism was the 'we can place electrodes on every inch of kiddo, to discern the slightest volitional muscle movements, and nothing. Why, again, is it that "facilitators" are magically getting all kinds of output?' school of assistive tech people, who understandably had questions about what, exactly, the 'facilitator' could be detecting that instruments couldn't.)
On the plus side (and notably unlike 'facilitated communication', which required a true-believer to be in immediate contact with the patient), it would be reasonably trivial to pipe eyeball-cam footage to an otherwise blinded observer.
Doesn't mean that hopefully families won't be conned (or con themselves) into playing sick human-Ouija-board games with locked-in patients; but "Is this pupil dilation pattern conveying information?" should be a pretty testable question.
We're sorry; but your 'intrinsic human dignity' would be violated by following your wishes. Have a nice day.
"Makes you wonder who the DEA is getting advice from."
In a conspiracy-theorist's perfect world, the CIA would be dishing dirt on competing drug-runners in order to boost their own margins. I don't think that I dare hope for a setup that cute, though.
It wouldn't entirely surprise me if keys duplicated from pictures are actually better than the ones duplicated with your basic hardware-store cloning machine. Those are neat, fast, and work; using the template key to control the height of the blank above a cut-off wheel; but some amount of analog-copy-degradation can happen, especially if the original key isn't in fantastic shape or the operator is sloppy.
If you are working from an image, you can't use that strategy, so actually computing the bitting codes and cutting a key to those specifications, essentially creating a first-generation master once again, becomes much more likely...
Sounds like a way of having to get one of those bothersome warrants.
Even better, if the original collection mechanism was illegal, you can avoid having the evidence excluded as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' by producing a "parallel construction", that isn't illegal, for how you came to possess it! Such convenience.
The 'war on drugs' has either introduced or popularized many of the more...unpleasant...police practices, so it isn't 100% surprising that people who litigate drug cases, one side or the other, probably have a lot of unpleasant cocktail party stories.
This "recreating the investigative trail" sounds like a fancy way to describe perjury.
The term is 'testilying', citizen.
"This planet is not, in fact, disposable."
Strictly speaking, the fact that it cannot be evacuated does not make it indispensable, except to the people who are going to be left behind.
Exactly! People love Objective Metrics (especially ones made of numbers, because numbers are super scientific) that are easy to measure; because they allow even the laziest among them to experience the warm, comforting, embrace of Knowledge. They hate, and thus tend to ignore, fuzzy metrics that are difficult or impossible to quantify (like 'security') because those are a morass of nescience and harrowing epistemic uncertainty.
By doing exactly the wrong thing, and encouraging blatantly insecure behavior (you also likely create a culture of casual key-sharing and letting just anybody who 'lost their key' in), you drive the metric that people are looking at through the floor (demonstrating your Epic Competence), and shove all the risk under the rug of the metric that everybody avoids looking at and politely doesn't mention!
Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?
You just tell everybody who has to come in for a key replacement who it was who lost their key, then turn your back and whistle innocently. Cuts the loss rate significantly.
I don't think so. A long distance photo is not going to give enough detail. You'll need a high resolution photo of the key.
Wacky Fun!. That paper appears to deal with a less sophisticated key; but demonstrated successful attacks at 195 feet, with comparatively cheap apparatus.
Lord Dagon's Tithe only comes due from time to time.
Or good, old-fashioned, learned helplessness! It's amazing what sorts of useful institutions that little quirk can keep operational!
Plus, 'Sea World' is pretty much a life term in Supermax, except with more gawkers, for something of the size (not well proportioned to live in a swimming pool) and intelligence (relatively high) of a killer whale.
If you are a lifer anyway, and the guard is dumb enough to come into your cell, why not shiv him just on principle?
The ghastly-little-soldering has been dissuading me; but apparently the move toward eDisplayPort (rather than LVDS) in recent iPads means that you can successfully connect their screens to ordinary DisplayPort sources, given a suitable physical adapter and a power supply for the backlight.
I don't know if the same is true of the Surface Pro or not. If it's an LVDS panel, the conversion hardware isn't wildly expensive (but the ebay cheapy boards aren't nearly small enough to fit neatly); if it's eDP, some moderately heroic soldering and a custom flexPCB might actually make it happen...
At that price, the Surface Pro is more or less even with the Wacom stylus-input displays (of similar size, larger ones are substantially more expensive) that don't have a computer attached to them...
Unless the pen input is totally gimped, this seems like it would be a serious competitor to those for everyone except people whose photoshopping is serious enough that the Surface's specs can't handle it. Especially if your demands are at all mobile, it's hard to justify buying the Wacom when you could get the screen and stylus input with the laptop thrown in for free. It's a pity that the Surface can't act as a monitor/input device (optionally, while charging at your desk, for example, it could go from a waste of space to an extra monitor) for more powerful computers.
Anybody else overcome by Alpha Centauri nostaliga at the notion of large, initially hidden, fungus-based communications networks?
Also, given that we've discovered several enormous fungi (I think the largest known spreads across some 2,200 acres), I wonder if this sort of thing is actually much more common than we currently know. Ping would probably suck; but there is a lot of (fungal) fiber in the ground.
That is in effect the essential idea of insurance. Its a wager. Clearly it only works if more money gets taken from "losers" than gets paid to "winners."
If it were merely that, insurance companies would be a nearly honest business, like bookies or casinos...
The trouble is not so much that, for insurance to be something worth offering, the sum paid in (by all subscribers) must be greater than the sum paid out (to parties who end up making claims); but that insurers are...talented and creative... when it comes to reducing both the number of eligible claimants and the size of eligible claims. At least in ordinary gambling, the rules of the game are generally fixed and relatively simple.
In this case, the assignment of 'damages' numbers to intrusion incidents is so absurdly vague that there is absolutely no way in hell I'd dare go up against an insurance outfit. Sure, when it comes time for some prosecutin', you hear that "it cost eleventy-zillion dollars when Anonymous defaced Sony"; but your insurer won't be using DEA math when it comes time to pay up.