That or there was a little lack of Google skills after all. The article completely neglects portable CRT TVs over LCD ones. Took me 5 minutes to find a more verbose list.
Last time I checked, no cooler actually tried to turn heat into nothing but rather divert the heat from where it's being actively produced to a place that it can be efficiently dissipated.
If one can force the heat transfer to go faster than it naturally would, the implications on CPU cooling are obvious.
Yes, but criticisms apart, this may well be the reason of the growth. Especially if they're not counting redirects from Live Search. Or you didn't notice that they're not stealing market share from Google (yet)?
The worst result from all this is that next time we may have a really serious threat but nobody will believe WHO or the news because it kept crying "swine".
It's not wishful thinking to me, as I don't think I care if Earth is the only planet with intelligent life or not. But I don't think people really have a grasp of how immense the Universe is when they talk about low probability of other life forms existing elsewhere.
Indeed, that was my point. More specifically, I'm drawing a distinction between having your GMail account hacked and having your e-mail conversations eavesdropped.
In the end, if the Gov. of China really wants it, they can probably get around any HTTPS with a MITM attack, so any HTTPS solution only filters out the "usual" hacker.
If the idea is to protect people's privacy from the Gov. of China, I fear that the HTTPS solution will only create an illusion rather than the real privacy/security.
That and cutting off Internet access for the original computer while someone breaks the Google motto. Thankfully all these tasks are too difficult for a government the size of China's. What's that sarcasm punctuation again? Tilde? ~
If it wasn't for the tilde I'd have missed it;)
If we're talking about IP spoofing and all that, we may just as well talk about man-in-the-middle attacks, which HTTPS didn't seem to be immune last time I checked.
Or do you think that would be too difficult for a Gov. like the one you picture?
-1 Wrong. Dots have been widely used in the user part of email addresses along with some other punctuation characters. From the Wikipedia article:
The local-part of the e-mail address may use any of these ASCII characters:
* Uppercase and lowercase English letters (a-z, A-Z)
* Digits 0 to 9
* Characters ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~
* Character . (dot, period, full stop) provided that it is not the first or last character, and provided also that it does not appear two or more times consecutively.
Is it obvious to everybody that encrypting everything is good only for privacy but doesn't seem to add much to security when compared to encrypting just the authentication data then using a session ID? Or rather, could the gurus please clarify where's the security increase in putting everything over https?
The answer is quite simple, actually. Diversification lessens the risk of having a sudden meltdown on a particular model/product/customer/provider/insert-your-specialization-here bringing the company down with it.
Plus the more means of tapping in their current successful infrastructure with different products, the better.
So they certainly consider the comfortable situation they are right now as the best opportunity to discover their next gold mine, as opposed to waiting for the current one to wear off before taking any initiative.
The only difference I see in your example about Copernicus, Kepler et. al. and Newton is that they answered different questions. I.e. "Why do these dots move so? Because they're planets in elliptical orbits." - "Why does a planet move in elliptical orbit? Because of gravity and inertia".
One can likely go infinitely in either direction: generalization or specialization. The limit would be in ourselves and it's this limit that each new discovery tries to push farther. That's what the child's series of "why"s is about. We don't stop asking "why" because we understand it completely, but because we're either satisfied with the current level of understanding or we just don't know how to move forward yet.
For instance, I'm quite satisfied in knowing that to modify the speed of an object, I have to apply a force proportional to its mass and that this is related to the kinetic energy being transferred to/from it. This is useful for the "what do I generally need to alter the speed of an object" question. If I replace "object" by "photon", maybe I'll need something more sophisticated that may even not be available yet.
"To make a pie from scratch, first you have to create the Universe". Does that sound familiar?
Which integer are you referring to? 2-byte or 4-byte? Signed or unsigned? Have you checked how close our dear *nix based systems are to the signed threshold lately? Hint: 28 years.
Re:I wonder how that is compared to the loss from
on
2010 Bug Plagues Germany
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The rushed temporary get-it-done-yesterday hacks are starting to fail.
Wonderful rant, but pray tell, how does this issue link to y2k hacks when it's an update to previous cards limited to German market? Have you inside knowledge from Gemalto of what motivated the aforementioned update and the reason they used such a way to represent the year in that particular geographic location?
Following this logic, my understanding would be that since a book has universal reach, anything in it can be defended without a proper trade mark file in the US. Or am I eating my foot here?
Are you asking about the edge as it was when the light we might detect now was emitted billions of years ago or the edge as it is now? I find it kind of difficult to speculate about the later since we're always billions of years behind of any sight we may get from it...
Slashdot Mirror
That or there was a little lack of Google skills after all. The article completely neglects portable CRT TVs over LCD ones. Took me 5 minutes to find a more verbose list.
I'd go for a car analogy, but somebody else beat me...
If there's a highly contagious and deadly disease out there and you catch it, I hope you'll be quarantined even if you didn't catch it on purpose.
In fact, if you did catch it on purpose, I hope you'll be prosecuted.
I find the proposal for infected computers in par with such beliefs.
...or not : )
Last time I checked, no cooler actually tried to turn heat into nothing but rather divert the heat from where it's being actively produced to a place that it can be efficiently dissipated.
If one can force the heat transfer to go faster than it naturally would, the implications on CPU cooling are obvious.
Yes, but criticisms apart, this may well be the reason of the growth. Especially if they're not counting redirects from Live Search. Or you didn't notice that they're not stealing market share from Google (yet)?
The worst result from all this is that next time we may have a really serious threat but nobody will believe WHO or the news because it kept crying "swine".
It's not wishful thinking to me, as I don't think I care if Earth is the only planet with intelligent life or not. But I don't think people really have a grasp of how immense the Universe is when they talk about low probability of other life forms existing elsewhere.
Indeed, that was my point. More specifically, I'm drawing a distinction between having your GMail account hacked and having your e-mail conversations eavesdropped.
In the end, if the Gov. of China really wants it, they can probably get around any HTTPS with a MITM attack, so any HTTPS solution only filters out the "usual" hacker.
If the idea is to protect people's privacy from the Gov. of China, I fear that the HTTPS solution will only create an illusion rather than the real privacy/security.
That and cutting off Internet access for the original computer while someone breaks the Google motto. Thankfully all these tasks are too difficult for a government the size of China's. What's that sarcasm punctuation again? Tilde? ~
If it wasn't for the tilde I'd have missed it ;)
If we're talking about IP spoofing and all that, we may just as well talk about man-in-the-middle attacks, which HTTPS didn't seem to be immune last time I checked.
Or do you think that would be too difficult for a Gov. like the one you picture?
Wouldn't that require spoofing the IP address at the same time?
-1 Wrong. Dots have been widely used in the user part of email addresses along with some other punctuation characters. From the Wikipedia article:
The local-part of the e-mail address may use any of these ASCII characters:
* Uppercase and lowercase English letters (a-z, A-Z)
* Digits 0 to 9
* Characters ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~
* Character . (dot, period, full stop) provided that it is not the first or last character, and provided also that it does not appear two or more times consecutively.
Is it obvious to everybody that encrypting everything is good only for privacy but doesn't seem to add much to security when compared to encrypting just the authentication data then using a session ID? Or rather, could the gurus please clarify where's the security increase in putting everything over https?
It bounced back. While the correction for the original post is most welcome, I can hardly see why the second one deserves such a positive rating.
The answer is quite simple, actually. Diversification lessens the risk of having a sudden meltdown on a particular model/product/customer/provider/insert-your-specialization-here bringing the company down with it.
Plus the more means of tapping in their current successful infrastructure with different products, the better.
So they certainly consider the comfortable situation they are right now as the best opportunity to discover their next gold mine, as opposed to waiting for the current one to wear off before taking any initiative.
I prefer this one: http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot
Interesting enough, I seem to be the only one who hated X-Men 3, for much of the same reasons people hated Spider-Man 3.
The only difference I see in your example about Copernicus, Kepler et. al. and Newton is that they answered different questions. I.e. "Why do these dots move so? Because they're planets in elliptical orbits." - "Why does a planet move in elliptical orbit? Because of gravity and inertia".
One can likely go infinitely in either direction: generalization or specialization. The limit would be in ourselves and it's this limit that each new discovery tries to push farther. That's what the child's series of "why"s is about. We don't stop asking "why" because we understand it completely, but because we're either satisfied with the current level of understanding or we just don't know how to move forward yet.
For instance, I'm quite satisfied in knowing that to modify the speed of an object, I have to apply a force proportional to its mass and that this is related to the kinetic energy being transferred to/from it. This is useful for the "what do I generally need to alter the speed of an object" question. If I replace "object" by "photon", maybe I'll need something more sophisticated that may even not be available yet.
"To make a pie from scratch, first you have to create the Universe". Does that sound familiar?
That must explain why some boxes insist in coding their "products" in VB... Good thing that's not the rule and they're not usually the leaders.
You must mean 1901 : )
Which integer are you referring to? 2-byte or 4-byte? Signed or unsigned? Have you checked how close our dear *nix based systems are to the signed threshold lately? Hint: 28 years.
The rushed temporary get-it-done-yesterday hacks are starting to fail.
Wonderful rant, but pray tell, how does this issue link to y2k hacks when it's an update to previous cards limited to German market? Have you inside knowledge from Gemalto of what motivated the aforementioned update and the reason they used such a way to represent the year in that particular geographic location?
Following this logic, my understanding would be that since a book has universal reach, anything in it can be defended without a proper trade mark file in the US. Or am I eating my foot here?
Are you asking about the edge as it was when the light we might detect now was emitted billions of years ago or the edge as it is now? I find it kind of difficult to speculate about the later since we're always billions of years behind of any sight we may get from it...
I bet that you didn't see the "Insightful" coming up.
And that's probably what all this A(H1N1) hype is about. Avoiding unfounded rage and prosecutions.