As far as I can see, Microsoft are only using infection stats from their removal tool (MSRT).
There is correlation for some countries but not for China.
So it'll be interesting to know why PCs in China that use Windows Update tend to have less infection than the US (or world average) ones that use Windows Update as compared to other countries with alleged similar Windows piracy rates.
What might also be good is some device for dogs (ddr dance pads + computer + software), and some training for humans, so that people stop trying to get their dogs to do stuff like this:
I suspect many dogs can talk to us if we just give them a device to do so something like what Stephen Hawking uses might be useful (with a cut down vocab).
> You lose power that way but you lose complexity as well, > At most they may have a one shot last ditch friction brake.
You're not going to lose much complexity if you still keep a friction brake. I'm not even sure that a "one shot last ditch" friction brake is going to be simpler than normal friction brakes.
Stopping a 1000kg car travelling at 100kph within 3 seconds means dumping/transferring 128 kilowatts. The faster the stop the more energy has to be dumped. Until they start to be able to take in the max wattage, they're going to have to keep using friction brakes. In comparsion Prius electric motors do about 73kW output - I'm not sure how fast their batteries can be charged (I see no mention of capacitors that can store 400kJ in 3 or more seconds for the Prius ).
If it's too cheap and abundant, the whole earth might start to glow due to waste heat. People would be using lots of energy and having to pumping the waste heat skywards.
But most people might be on space colonies before that scenario becomes likely.
1) The children will take some characteristics from their dads as well. 2) A few generations of people doing what you say and you might have a breed of humans more likely to rape.
> In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is. With electronic voting,,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.
But where's your proof that fraud is harder? All I see is they have to bribe fewer people.
So far a number of Brazilians keep claiming that fraud is harder, but provide no proof at all. Just because reports of fraud are down does not mean fraud is harder or rarer - it could mean that fraud is harder to detect (which is normal for most electronic voting systems out there).
If there is no _effective_ penalty for offering bribes to counters like your father (e.g. nothing good happens even if your dad reports it, and maybe even bad stuff could happen), I don't see why an electronic system would make things better.
Unless perhaps the Brazilian election system is as verifiable as the system mentioned in the video I linked to ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s ). However even in that case, the voters could be bribed to lie and say stuff has been tampered with when they haven't.
In the Canadian and other systems, the counters count the paper votes in the _open_ in front of observers. In my country (Malaysia) the vote counters lift up the paper ballot to show it to observers. So far I think in my country the cheating probably comes mainly from postal votes. So there's a limit to the amount of rigging they can do (the ruling party actually lost control of a few states in the last election - they sure pissed off enough people). Of course there's gerrymandering too.
Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?
Most electronic voting systems are bad at a very important requirement:
Convincing the loser (and enough of his supporters) that he lost.
The system doesn't just have to work correctly, it has to be accepted as working correctly (enough).
With various fancy cryptography and systems it is possible to have an electronic system that is anonymous, verifiable and reasonably secure (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s for ideas on how this could be done), but as far as I can tell, they're not going for such systems.
So why not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.
That paper based system may take a bit more time, but it scales reasonably well - the more voters there are, the more volunteers there should be for counting. I'm assuming that it's not a case where too many of the citizens either can't count or are too lazy to do so.
That saying doesn't apply if the loans are in US dollars (which is likely, if the US side has any clue).
1) Because unlike the man you lend 1 million dollars to, the US Gov can "print" US dollars (as in legally create them). If direct "printing" is a bit too crude and unbecoming, the US Gov could ask the US Federal Reserve to lend it money (with some cushy terms of course). BTW go google for Federal Reserve trillions (and youtube search too).
2) The US Gov can "print" money (within reason) without turning into a Zimbabwe because many countries in the world hold billions (or trillions) of US dollars that they need to buy oil, grain, CPUs. In Zimbabwe when Mugabe prints money, the Zimbawe citizens become poorer, and the rest of the world just laughs. Inflation is just another way for Mugabe to tax his own people. Whereas when the US Gov prints money, the US Gov doesn't just tax its own citizens it taxes the rest of the world! If the US Gov hands enough of the printed money to the US citizens, they aren't too screwed (they'd be like Mugabe's cronies in Zimbabwe).
So see the trillions of dollars the USA owes China in that light.
And realize how ignorant so many people are when they say "Oh no, we owe China trillions, we're in deep shit, and it's all because of their evil currency manipulation" or keep talking about how good things would be if the US went back to the gold standard.
Then also realize why Iran selling oil in Euro (and creating this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse ) is bad for the USA. BTW Iraq also sold oil in Euro shortly before it got "regime changed" (then naturally it went back to selling oil in USD).
The USA needs everyone to use its "tokens" to buy and sell stuff.
Yes the USA got crappy Chinese goods in return for those "tokens", but hey the Chinese might have got crappy tokens too;).
And that's why US Gov officials soon shut up about China's currency manipulation. It's a bit like Mutually Assured Financial Destruction. It's in both parties interest to keep the show going and the balls in the air as long as possible.
If lots of people start using Google's free stuff, there'd be fewer people visiting: https://buy.garmin.com/shop/buymaps.do
And giving Garmin lots of $$$.
Garmin making an android device just shows that the Garmin bosses aren't in denial of what's going to happen to Garmin. It doesn't mean they have nothing to worry about.
The problem is there is currently no way for Starbucks/Hyatt/etc to provide WiFi security to their customers/guests, so that:
1) their customers can't see each other's traffic. 2) their customers don't have to enter pesky WPA passwords.
It's not important what the original point of WiFi security was, after all WiFi security was broken from scratch, so it's not like the WiFi designers were a good authority on what is good or best.
Secondly, just because you can plug your network cable into a hotel room's network jack doesn't mean you can see traffic from other guests. In many Visitor Based Networks stuff like Cisco's "port security" is used on the switches.
And nowadays very many WiFi networks are built specifically for visitors to use. So the problem I state is real, is common and there is no good solution at the moment.
If I run one of those networks and want to provide a decent service to my guests I can't. I don't have to feel responsible for the privacy of a guest's traffic beyond my network, but within my network I might want to do my best. If a guest walks out of the hotel and to some mall and get mugged there, nobody usually blames the hotel. But if they get mugged in the hotel even if it's not the hotel's fault - it's not good for the hotel.
Trying to get the "average user" to use end to end encryption for everything at Star Bucks is not a realistic answer to the problem - since not all the popular sites in the world support encryption. So that's way more ridiculous or "pie in the sky" than what I'm asking for. Go ahead try https://www.google.com/ you'll get redirected at best.
> and most browsers let you permanently trust a self-signed certificate for a single site. That means that you will get the a notification when the certificate changes.
That is why self-signed certs can actually be safer than CA signed certs when popular browsers have 20 to 40+ different CA certs installed. Which was my point. Hence I suggested "ssh style".
Try to get some perspective here before calling people nasty names. He didn't change their wifi password or other stuff. He didn't change the password to their printer either ( I know someone who has done that).
He just printed a note to them on the _shared_ printer. If they intentionally shared the printer then he has done nothing wrong. If they aren't intentionally sharing the printer, then sure from legalistic PoV he's done something wrong.
But I personally think what he did was not harmful to others. On the other hand it is rather risky to him after all he could get into big trouble for that given the state of "computer misuse laws" and the lack of understanding of IT stuff amongst the general public and cops. "Oh noes, the evil neighbour hacked my printer! Call the cops!".
Judging from the posts, he's a lot more polite than you are, even if he really is a "worthless piece of shit".
But how do you know they are intentionally sharing their internet connection? And how do you know they aren't intentionally sharing their printer?
Because people don't normally share their printer? If that's the case, then it's a good thing he told them right? I don't think he printed an entire book.
Can we please have a way to have secure _anonymous_ WiFi access?
Something like https/TLS? With https you don't need to give everyone passphrases or have them share the same passphrase. And the users can't decipher each other's traffic. Can we have something like that for WiFi please?
Combine it with something like ssh method: "WARNING! The AP's public key fingerprint has changed!". Then that's good enough, make the CA stuff optional.
Because, the CA system on browsers doesn't really improve security that much since there are tons of CAs bundled with browsers. And if one screws up and signs microsoft.com/somebank.com for the bad guy the browsers don't give a warning that the cert has changed, even if the original cert had years left before expiry. Whereas the SSH method will give you a warning.
It'll probably get stolen on its way to Malaysia...;)
> But the question remains, were you elite enough to simply listen to the tones, or did you hold it up to a VoIP phone and look at the Asterisk console output?
If it works on video there's no reason to rewrite stuff that's already written on the board.
See the "problem" if everything is on the copies and the presenter isn't very interesting (or interactive), there's not much point listening to the presenter. But that's not really a big problem since the student can go back and look at the copies.
Some presenters on the other hand, put all the background and required stuff on the slides, but then go on to recount interesting and insightful anecdotes. That makes them worth staying awake for.
The only problem I see is if students are bored they might be more likely to become disruptive or distract other students (snore too loudly then everyone starts giggling etc).
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can see, Microsoft are only using infection stats from their removal tool (MSRT).
There is correlation for some countries but not for China.
So it'll be interesting to know why PCs in China that use Windows Update tend to have less infection than the US (or world average) ones that use Windows Update as compared to other countries with alleged similar Windows piracy rates.
How's that offtopic? Dogs have speech difficulties, and most just want to play games ;).
What might also be good is some device for dogs (ddr dance pads + computer + software), and some training for humans, so that people stop trying to get their dogs to do stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM
I suspect many dogs can talk to us if we just give them a device to do so something like what Stephen Hawking uses might be useful (with a cut down vocab).
A huge part of perception is done in the brain, I found the McGurk effect rather interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPtc8BVdJk
No matter what I know and try, I still hear the sound that's not there when I look at it...
Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPtc8BVdJk
The McGurk effect. No white noise required.
> You lose power that way but you lose complexity as well,
> At most they may have a one shot last ditch friction brake.
You're not going to lose much complexity if you still keep a friction brake. I'm not even sure that a "one shot last ditch" friction brake is going to be simpler than normal friction brakes.
Stopping a 1000kg car travelling at 100kph within 3 seconds means dumping/transferring 128 kilowatts. The faster the stop the more energy has to be dumped. Until they start to be able to take in the max wattage, they're going to have to keep using friction brakes. In comparsion Prius electric motors do about 73kW output - I'm not sure how fast their batteries can be charged (I see no mention of capacitors that can store 400kJ in 3 or more seconds for the Prius ).
The problem is dumping that much power into a battery quickly.
Don't they dump the power into capacitors first then send it to the battery in controlled doses?
Above a certain height (or weight) it's not so comfy when she sits on your lap :).
;).
But yeah, most ladies have a thing for "guy must be taller than me"[1]. Go explain that rabid feminists
[1] and not too skinny.
If it's too cheap and abundant, the whole earth might start to glow due to waste heat. People would be using lots of energy and having to pumping the waste heat skywards.
But most people might be on space colonies before that scenario becomes likely.
1) The children will take some characteristics from their dads as well.
2) A few generations of people doing what you say and you might have a breed of humans more likely to rape.
> In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is. With electronic voting, ,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.
But where's your proof that fraud is harder? All I see is they have to bribe fewer people.
So far a number of Brazilians keep claiming that fraud is harder, but provide no proof at all. Just because reports of fraud are down does not mean fraud is harder or rarer - it could mean that fraud is harder to detect (which is normal for most electronic voting systems out there).
If there is no _effective_ penalty for offering bribes to counters like your father (e.g. nothing good happens even if your dad reports it, and maybe even bad stuff could happen), I don't see why an electronic system would make things better.
Unless perhaps the Brazilian election system is as verifiable as the system mentioned in the video I linked to ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s ). However even in that case, the voters could be bribed to lie and say stuff has been tampered with when they haven't.
In the Canadian and other systems, the counters count the paper votes in the _open_ in front of observers. In my country (Malaysia) the vote counters lift up the paper ballot to show it to observers. So far I think in my country the cheating probably comes mainly from postal votes. So there's a limit to the amount of rigging they can do (the ruling party actually lost control of a few states in the last election - they sure pissed off enough people). Of course there's gerrymandering too.
Carmack's plan is to build a spacecraft to take him to Mars so that further research can be done - especially on interdimensional travel.
People who think sidetalking is OK, are more likely to think that face-palming is a cool variation of "high-fiving".
Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?
Most electronic voting systems are bad at a very important requirement:
Convincing the loser (and enough of his supporters) that he lost.
The system doesn't just have to work correctly, it has to be accepted as working correctly (enough).
With various fancy cryptography and systems it is possible to have an electronic system that is anonymous, verifiable and reasonably secure (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s for ideas on how this could be done), but as far as I can tell, they're not going for such systems.
So why not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.
That paper based system may take a bit more time, but it scales reasonably well - the more voters there are, the more volunteers there should be for counting. I'm assuming that it's not a case where too many of the citizens either can't count or are too lazy to do so.
That saying doesn't apply if the loans are in US dollars (which is likely, if the US side has any clue).
1) Because unlike the man you lend 1 million dollars to, the US Gov can "print" US dollars (as in legally create them). If direct "printing" is a bit too crude and unbecoming, the US Gov could ask the US Federal Reserve to lend it money (with some cushy terms of course). BTW go google for Federal Reserve trillions (and youtube search too).
2) The US Gov can "print" money (within reason) without turning into a Zimbabwe because many countries in the world hold billions (or trillions) of US dollars that they need to buy oil, grain, CPUs. In Zimbabwe when Mugabe prints money, the Zimbawe citizens become poorer, and the rest of the world just laughs. Inflation is just another way for Mugabe to tax his own people. Whereas when the US Gov prints money, the US Gov doesn't just tax its own citizens it taxes the rest of the world! If the US Gov hands enough of the printed money to the US citizens, they aren't too screwed (they'd be like Mugabe's cronies in Zimbabwe).
So see the trillions of dollars the USA owes China in that light.
And realize how ignorant so many people are when they say "Oh no, we owe China trillions, we're in deep shit, and it's all because of their evil currency manipulation" or keep talking about how good things would be if the US went back to the gold standard.
Then also realize why Iran selling oil in Euro (and creating this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse ) is bad for the USA. BTW Iraq also sold oil in Euro shortly before it got "regime changed" (then naturally it went back to selling oil in USD).
The USA needs everyone to use its "tokens" to buy and sell stuff.
Yes the USA got crappy Chinese goods in return for those "tokens", but hey the Chinese might have got crappy tokens too ;).
And that's why US Gov officials soon shut up about China's currency manipulation. It's a bit like Mutually Assured Financial Destruction. It's in both parties interest to keep the show going and the balls in the air as long as possible.
But they work so well for the rich. The rich don't really need stuff like Social Security and Medicare.
Good thing for them the poorer people keep voting the "right way".
Enemy? Who has done more damage to the USA over the past few years? The US Gov or China?
> If my maps go away, I'm lost.
That reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW1SXDgZieE
Perhaps in the future Google will launch "Google Life Navigation Beta" ;).
If lots of people start using Google's free stuff, there'd be fewer people visiting: https://buy.garmin.com/shop/buymaps.do
And giving Garmin lots of $$$.
Garmin making an android device just shows that the Garmin bosses aren't in denial of what's going to happen to Garmin. It doesn't mean they have nothing to worry about.
The problem is there is currently no way for Starbucks/Hyatt/etc to provide WiFi security to their customers/guests, so that:
1) their customers can't see each other's traffic.
2) their customers don't have to enter pesky WPA passwords.
It's not important what the original point of WiFi security was, after all WiFi security was broken from scratch, so it's not like the WiFi designers were a good authority on what is good or best.
Secondly, just because you can plug your network cable into a hotel room's network jack doesn't mean you can see traffic from other guests. In many Visitor Based Networks stuff like Cisco's "port security" is used on the switches.
And nowadays very many WiFi networks are built specifically for visitors to use. So the problem I state is real, is common and there is no good solution at the moment.
If I run one of those networks and want to provide a decent service to my guests I can't. I don't have to feel responsible for the privacy of a guest's traffic beyond my network, but within my network I might want to do my best. If a guest walks out of the hotel and to some mall and get mugged there, nobody usually blames the hotel. But if they get mugged in the hotel even if it's not the hotel's fault - it's not good for the hotel.
Trying to get the "average user" to use end to end encryption for everything at Star Bucks is not a realistic answer to the problem - since not all the popular sites in the world support encryption. So that's way more ridiculous or "pie in the sky" than what I'm asking for. Go ahead try https://www.google.com/ you'll get redirected at best.
> and most browsers let you permanently trust a self-signed certificate for a single site. That means that you will get the a notification when the certificate changes.
That is why self-signed certs can actually be safer than CA signed certs when popular browsers have 20 to 40+ different CA certs installed. Which was my point. Hence I suggested "ssh style".
Try to get some perspective here before calling people nasty names. He didn't change their wifi password or other stuff. He didn't change the password to their printer either ( I know someone who has done that).
He just printed a note to them on the _shared_ printer. If they intentionally shared the printer then he has done nothing wrong. If they aren't intentionally sharing the printer, then sure from legalistic PoV he's done something wrong.
But I personally think what he did was not harmful to others. On the other hand it is rather risky to him after all he could get into big trouble for that given the state of "computer misuse laws" and the lack of understanding of IT stuff amongst the general public and cops. "Oh noes, the evil neighbour hacked my printer! Call the cops!".
Judging from the posts, he's a lot more polite than you are, even if he really is a "worthless piece of shit".
But how do you know they are intentionally sharing their internet connection?
And how do you know they aren't intentionally sharing their printer?
Because people don't normally share their printer? If that's the case, then it's a good thing he told them right? I don't think he printed an entire book.
Can we please have a way to have secure _anonymous_ WiFi access?
Something like https/TLS? With https you don't need to give everyone passphrases or have them share the same passphrase. And the users can't decipher each other's traffic. Can we have something like that for WiFi please?
Combine it with something like ssh method: "WARNING! The AP's public key fingerprint has changed!". Then that's good enough, make the CA stuff optional.
Because, the CA system on browsers doesn't really improve security that much since there are tons of CAs bundled with browsers. And if one screws up and signs microsoft.com/somebank.com for the bad guy the browsers don't give a warning that the cert has changed, even if the original cert had years left before expiry. Whereas the SSH method will give you a warning.
> Nice...where do I send the Guiness?
It'll probably get stolen on its way to Malaysia... ;)
> But the question remains, were you elite enough to simply listen to the tones, or did you hold it up to a VoIP phone and look at the Asterisk console output?
Neither :).
I uploaded the relevant bit to: http://www.dialabc.com/sound/detect/
There's also this: http://www.zeebar.com/tkddt/ (but didn't work so well on the sample).
I could probably learn it, but I'm just too lazy to sit down and practice deciphering DTMF tones.
4271200 :)
> It even works on video !
If it works on video there's no reason to rewrite stuff that's already written on the board.
See the "problem" if everything is on the copies and the presenter isn't very interesting (or interactive), there's not much point listening to the presenter. But that's not really a big problem since the student can go back and look at the copies.
Some presenters on the other hand, put all the background and required stuff on the slides, but then go on to recount interesting and insightful anecdotes. That makes them worth staying awake for.
The only problem I see is if students are bored they might be more likely to become disruptive or distract other students (snore too loudly then everyone starts giggling etc).