What I noticed recently was when I clicked on the final "clear browser data" button, Google Chrome would make a http request or two back to Google. Not sure why this happen. I don't have "send usage statistics and crash reports" enabled, but I do have show suggestions, use suggestion service dns prefetching, phishing protection enabled.
Anyone else managed to reproduce this on their Google Chrome browser?
> If the person whose wrist your briefcase of disks is handcuffed to is bought out,
1) You would need all three disks to reconstruct the original OTP that will be used. 2) If I send more sets of three and only use some sets, that makes it even harder. 3) I could even send 9 disks over time and over different couriers/channels and then randomly choose different combinations of them to construct the actual OTP.
Can anyone replicate this behaviour: when I clear all browser history on Google Chrome, Chrome makes a few http requests to Google just after that is done. What's that about?
This was on Windows 7. I encountered this when I was capturing packets for some performance test so I had to keep clearing the browser cache for some tests.
That doesn't even look like a big problem to me in comparison.
It seems much easier to tap energy from that crater than to do what they are having to do to plug the Gulf well.
Of course they should figure out if they would actually get significant energy from it. If yes, do some seismic studies to have a guess at how much gas is left, and whether there are any more "surprising" caverns under the surface that they might wish to avoid...
The 2010 Accord is bigger and heavier than the 1986 model right? Better safety standards, and the engines is significantly more powerful. You're spend about the same on fuel, but getting a better car.
My guess is the car manufacturers have figured that whatever customers say, they are willing to put up with fuel costs of 25-30 mpg cars in order to get other more desirable features.
I'm curious though, how much more expensive is a 2010 Accord compared to a 1986 Accord when taking into account inflation?
I can hear imaginary voices in my head. I bet most of you can too. Just imagine Donald Duck saying something. There you go.
As long as you are no danger to others why should you be punished for what you are thinking? Judge people by their actions. Leave the judging of people by their thoughts to God (if you believe in God(s)), and to wives who know you so well that they know what you're thinking and smack you rightfully for it;).
Thing is nowadays TB drives are quite cheap. Generate a huge OTP, spread it over three drives at A, spread it over another three drives and send all three to B via three different couriers/paths. Add ECC if you want.
If they all made it safely without interception. You've got your secure channel. 1TB/128kbps = 2 years. 1TB/256kbps = 1 year.
You could send more than one set of drives. When they all arrive, you tell the "B" let's start with drive set #5.
You don't bother figuring out whether something is malicious or not, that's harder than solving the halting problem (since you do not know the full inputs and full program description).
What you do: you workaround the halting problem by forcing the program to stop anyway.
Example: 1) having the operating system force the program to halt if it's still running after X seconds. 2) having the program state up front the maximum time "T" it will want to run for, and have the operating system force the program to halt it if it's still running after "T" seconds. In the case of 2), you can also have someone validate the requirement "T" to see if it makes sense. Infinity or 1 hour for a simple problem is too long.
So similarly, you can have programs state up front what sandbox they want to run in.
Then if the sandbox petition is signed by a trusted party the program runs without prompting the user and the O/S enforces the sandbox.
If the sandbox petition is not signed by a trusted party and the user does not have sufficient rights, the program does not run.
If the sandbox petition is not signed by a trusted party and the user has sufficient rights, the user gets a prompt from the O/S. Then if the user says it's OK, the program runs and the O/S enforces the sandbox ( which may be a different one which the user chooses instead).
And that is why I'm not impressed by the UAC, or whatever the current operating systems offer to users in terms of security. Despite all the resources they claim to put into it, all of them are so primitive and don't help users. They require users to solve something harder than the halting problem. When you get a prompt in Windows 7 asking for "approval", Windows 7 doesn't even tell you what the program is trying to do. That's ridiculous, if an employee asked a boss to allow him to do something with the Company's resources, even an ignorant boss might want to know roughly what he wants to do. Just because the employee is wearing a Microsoft "Trust Me" t-shirt doesn't count.
As for Linux: SE Linux and AppArmor as they are don't help "normal" users much. OSX? The security experts will tell you OSX is not as secure from a technical POV.
I'm not sure if they have done a study to test if regular overuse of swear words could reduce their efficacy in such situations. Dr Stevens claims it does, but...
[1] They may increase pain if you use them incorrectly:).
Yes this kernel feature probably needs to be done first, but for decades people have had to manually save data before restarting X, without the X developers ever fixing that. Some apps have worked around this problem, but if the X bunch use that as an excuse to not fix things it's going to stay crap and this kernel feature will be mostly useless.
It doesn't affect me anymore, I use Linux mainly for servers. So I don't really care who is responsible, I'm just putting on a virtual "Steve Jobs" turtleneck and saying overall it still sucks, the problem is far from fixed yet, and it sure isn't "insanely great".
When I last used KDE years ago, that didn't work so well. For instance, my ssh connections weren't restored. And even for KDE apps the session saving thing didn't save everything.
You may ask "why should SSH connections be restored?" and I'll reply: why should my apps and connections go down in the first place just because X goes down?
Heck even in windows when I kill "explorer.exe" my apps still keep running. I know it's not the same thing, but who cares when all the fanatics keep saying Linux is so stable, but when X goes down, I lose stuff.
In my experience a cli-based Linux system may be more stable than windows XP, but X can be less stable than Windows XP SP2/SP3. I've got X to lock up or abend a fair number of times, and have had to restart X, this causes me to lose unsaved work. For a Desktop User, it matters little if the rest of the O/S is still running merrily when X goes down and takes the GUI apps along with it.
Yes I could use stuff like "screen" instead and treat X as a glorified interface to multiple screen sessions, but that's pathetic.
> Besides, logging out of your desktop and then logging in again is surely better than what you suggest?
Where did I suggest people do that? To me such a kernel feature is useless till the rest of the "Linux Desktop" bunch work together and produce something like this:
Yes the kernel bunch probably have to do this feature first, but for decades the X server going down has caused X applications to lose unsaved data and basically not work well, and for those decades it still has not been fixed. So far the applications individually workaround such crappiness. Which only makes it a bit less crappy.
> Some laptops have two GPUs, a low-power and inefficient GPU and a high-power and powerful GPU. Users should be able to switch to one or another at runtime. In this version, Linux adds support for this feature. You need to restart X, though.
How do you restart X without affecting all your GUI apps? If you can't restart X without bringing down your GUI apps, I don't see the point for the target audience.
For some people, "only having to restart X" will only save a bit of time over rebooting the whole laptop, reconfiguring bios etc.
Sure, but just compare Apple with Sculley at the helm and Apple with Jobs at the helm. And compare with other companies. The CEO sets the culture of the company. Heck compare with Xerox. They had lots of great stuff there, so what did the Xerox bosses do to get it to us?
The biggest difference between Jobs and the CEOs that try to emulate him is: Jobs is an asshole with taste. The rest too often are just assholes.
Taste is important. When some guy shows his work to Jobs, Jobs is often able to tell the difference between "insanely great" and "meh" - at least in the bits the public notice (whether consciously or subconsciously). And people showing subpar work to Jobs deep down know that Jobs is right: that it isn't "Insanely Great", so they are more likely to try to achieve that.
Whereas in HTC etc, you can get away with crappy scrolling - "hey it works, so what if it doesn't feel like an extension of myself". And the CEO says, "Looks like it works, OK let's launch it".
But, in my opinion people are more willing to put up with flaws in stuff that they consider part of themselves.
Grey matte skin = bad. I won't be surprised if most human males don't find grey matte "plastic" mannequins super sexy, no matter how wonderfully shaped they are.
I think you miss the GP's point. The GP's point is there's a difference between possessing a manual/guide and actually creating the banned substances itself (at least banned in the form and quantities found).
I don't see a problem with people having manuals for making such weapons (unless they obtained them illegally, or those manuals are banned by the laws of their country for some reason). It's when they start making them then it becomes a problem.
I don't care if my neighbour has a manual for manufacturing anthrax, as long as he never tries.
You'll see how they modded a live crab so it could run across a mesh net at near full speed, no change in gait, whereas previously it would have problems.
This video was done in 2005 so the "rethink" definitely happened way before 2010;).
Slashdot Mirror
This alleged has been burning for thousands of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain
What I noticed recently was when I clicked on the final "clear browser data" button, Google Chrome would make a http request or two back to Google. Not sure why this happen. I don't have "send usage statistics and crash reports" enabled, but I do have show suggestions, use suggestion service dns prefetching, phishing protection enabled.
Anyone else managed to reproduce this on their Google Chrome browser?
> If the person whose wrist your briefcase of disks is handcuffed to is bought out,
1) You would need all three disks to reconstruct the original OTP that will be used.
2) If I send more sets of three and only use some sets, that makes it even harder.
3) I could even send 9 disks over time and over different couriers/channels and then randomly choose different combinations of them to construct the actual OTP.
Nope, I don't have that enabled. I do have the rest enabled (show suggestions, use suggestion service dns prefetching, phishing protection).
Those connections are made when I click clear browsing data, not when I need suggestions...
Can anyone replicate this behaviour: when I clear all browser history on Google Chrome, Chrome makes a few http requests to Google just after that is done. What's that about?
This was on Windows 7. I encountered this when I was capturing packets for some performance test so I had to keep clearing the browser cache for some tests.
That doesn't even look like a big problem to me in comparison.
It seems much easier to tap energy from that crater than to do what they are having to do to plug the Gulf well.
Of course they should figure out if they would actually get significant energy from it. If yes, do some seismic studies to have a guess at how much gas is left, and whether there are any more "surprising" caverns under the surface that they might wish to avoid...
The 2010 Accord is bigger and heavier than the 1986 model right? Better safety standards, and the engines is significantly more powerful. You're spend about the same on fuel, but getting a better car.
My guess is the car manufacturers have figured that whatever customers say, they are willing to put up with fuel costs of 25-30 mpg cars in order to get other more desirable features.
I'm curious though, how much more expensive is a 2010 Accord compared to a 1986 Accord when taking into account inflation?
How much more will you pay? Imagine yourself looking at some online web site with the airfares listed:
LA to Singapore
Cheapest subsonic: USD1000
Cheapest supersonic: USD3000
Will you really go for the supersonic ticket? What would be your price point? USD2000?
He's right: if you die in your 20s you skip many decades of danger which would ultimately be fatal.
I can hear imaginary voices in my head. I bet most of you can too. Just imagine Donald Duck saying something. There you go.
;).
As long as you are no danger to others why should you be punished for what you are thinking? Judge people by their actions. Leave the judging of people by their thoughts to God (if you believe in God(s)), and to wives who know you so well that they know what you're thinking and smack you rightfully for it
Thing is nowadays TB drives are quite cheap. Generate a huge OTP, spread it over three drives at A, spread it over another three drives and send all three to B via three different couriers/paths. Add ECC if you want.
If they all made it safely without interception. You've got your secure channel. 1TB/128kbps = 2 years. 1TB/256kbps = 1 year.
You could send more than one set of drives. When they all arrive, you tell the "B" let's start with drive set #5.
You don't bother figuring out whether something is malicious or not, that's harder than solving the halting problem (since you do not know the full inputs and full program description).
What you do: you workaround the halting problem by forcing the program to stop anyway.
Example:
1) having the operating system force the program to halt if it's still running after X seconds.
2) having the program state up front the maximum time "T" it will want to run for, and have the operating system force the program to halt it if it's still running after "T" seconds.
In the case of 2), you can also have someone validate the requirement "T" to see if it makes sense. Infinity or 1 hour for a simple problem is too long.
So similarly, you can have programs state up front what sandbox they want to run in.
Then if the sandbox petition is signed by a trusted party the program runs without prompting the user and the O/S enforces the sandbox.
If the sandbox petition is not signed by a trusted party and the user does not have sufficient rights, the program does not run.
If the sandbox petition is not signed by a trusted party and the user has sufficient rights, the user gets a prompt from the O/S. Then if the user says it's OK, the program runs and the O/S enforces the sandbox ( which may be a different one which the user chooses instead).
And that is why I'm not impressed by the UAC, or whatever the current operating systems offer to users in terms of security. Despite all the resources they claim to put into it, all of them are so primitive and don't help users. They require users to solve something harder than the halting problem. When you get a prompt in Windows 7 asking for "approval", Windows 7 doesn't even tell you what the program is trying to do. That's ridiculous, if an employee asked a boss to allow him to do something with the Company's resources, even an ignorant boss might want to know roughly what he wants to do. Just because the employee is wearing a Microsoft "Trust Me" t-shirt doesn't count.
As for Linux: SE Linux and AppArmor as they are don't help "normal" users much. OSX? The security experts will tell you OSX is not as secure from a technical POV.
Swear words reduce pain or allow you to endure more pain when you use them in certain scenarios[1]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8147170.stm
I'm not sure if they have done a study to test if regular overuse of swear words could reduce their efficacy in such situations. Dr Stevens claims it does, but...
[1] They may increase pain if you use them incorrectly :).
> Tuthill added that the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits until the practice of issuing citations for swearing is stopped.
[citation needed]
Yes this kernel feature probably needs to be done first, but for decades people have had to manually save data before restarting X, without the X developers ever fixing that. Some apps have worked around this problem, but if the X bunch use that as an excuse to not fix things it's going to stay crap and this kernel feature will be mostly useless.
It doesn't affect me anymore, I use Linux mainly for servers. So I don't really care who is responsible, I'm just putting on a virtual "Steve Jobs" turtleneck and saying overall it still sucks, the problem is far from fixed yet, and it sure isn't "insanely great".
In comparison here's the state of things for:
OSX: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3709/gfxcardstatus-brings-2010-macbook-pro-gpu-switching
Windows: http://www.osnews.com/story/22850/NVIDIA_Unveils_Optimus_Seamless_GPU_Switching
When I last used KDE years ago, that didn't work so well. For instance, my ssh connections weren't restored. And even for KDE apps the session saving thing didn't save everything.
You may ask "why should SSH connections be restored?" and I'll reply: why should my apps and connections go down in the first place just because X goes down?
Heck even in windows when I kill "explorer.exe" my apps still keep running. I know it's not the same thing, but who cares when all the fanatics keep saying Linux is so stable, but when X goes down, I lose stuff.
In my experience a cli-based Linux system may be more stable than windows XP, but X can be less stable than Windows XP SP2/SP3. I've got X to lock up or abend a fair number of times, and have had to restart X, this causes me to lose unsaved work. For a Desktop User, it matters little if the rest of the O/S is still running merrily when X goes down and takes the GUI apps along with it.
Yes I could use stuff like "screen" instead and treat X as a glorified interface to multiple screen sessions, but that's pathetic.
> Besides, logging out of your desktop and then logging in again is surely better than what you suggest?
Where did I suggest people do that? To me such a kernel feature is useless till the rest of the "Linux Desktop" bunch work together and produce something like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3709/gfxcardstatus-brings-2010-macbook-pro-gpu-switching
Yes the kernel bunch probably have to do this feature first, but for decades the X server going down has caused X applications to lose unsaved data and basically not work well, and for those decades it still has not been fixed. So far the applications individually workaround such crappiness. Which only makes it a bit less crappy.
> Some laptops have two GPUs, a low-power and inefficient GPU and a high-power and powerful GPU. Users should be able to switch to one or another at runtime. In this version, Linux adds support for this feature. You need to restart X, though.
How do you restart X without affecting all your GUI apps? If you can't restart X without bringing down your GUI apps, I don't see the point for the target audience.
For some people, "only having to restart X" will only save a bit of time over rebooting the whole laptop, reconfiguring bios etc.
Sure, but just compare Apple with Sculley at the helm and Apple with Jobs at the helm. And compare with other companies. The CEO sets the culture of the company. Heck compare with Xerox. They had lots of great stuff there, so what did the Xerox bosses do to get it to us?
The biggest difference between Jobs and the CEOs that try to emulate him is: Jobs is an asshole with taste. The rest too often are just assholes.
Taste is important. When some guy shows his work to Jobs, Jobs is often able to tell the difference between "insanely great" and "meh" - at least in the bits the public notice (whether consciously or subconsciously). And people showing subpar work to Jobs deep down know that Jobs is right: that it isn't "Insanely Great", so they are more likely to try to achieve that.
Whereas in HTC etc, you can get away with crappy scrolling - "hey it works, so what if it doesn't feel like an extension of myself". And the CEO says, "Looks like it works, OK let's launch it".
But, in my opinion people are more willing to put up with flaws in stuff that they consider part of themselves.
But you could write: Mickey, a mouse is.
At least Yoda might.
Lucky for him ICE cars will probably still be around for the next 20 years. Electric motor cars don't normally need to change gears.
Grey matte skin = bad. I won't be surprised if most human males don't find grey matte "plastic" mannequins super sexy, no matter how wonderfully shaped they are.
Skin appearance does help in determining the fertility: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4396230.stm
I think you miss the GP's point. The GP's point is there's a difference between possessing a manual/guide and actually creating the banned substances itself (at least banned in the form and quantities found).
I don't see a problem with people having manuals for making such weapons (unless they obtained them illegally, or those manuals are banned by the laws of their country for some reason). It's when they start making them then it becomes a problem.
I don't care if my neighbour has a manual for manufacturing anthrax, as long as he never tries.
What was used to cover the welded together cages in the end? Or was it permanently left without a "skin"?
I found this video interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_full_on_animal_movement.html
You'll see how they modded a live crab so it could run across a mesh net at near full speed, no change in gait, whereas previously it would have problems.
This video was done in 2005 so the "rethink" definitely happened way before 2010 ;).