Both incompetence and malice are fairly reasonable things to be concerned about: - incompetence: there are an ever-increasing number of devices with Wifi connections out in the wild. It is really not that far-fetched to accept that there is a possibility that one of them might interact in a dangerous way with her pacemaker via Wifi. - malice: there are hundreds of cases each year of people harming patients by interfering with their treatment / medical devices. In Britain, some of the most notorious cases include the Stepping Hill deaths last year (insulin tampering) and Harold Shipman (diamorphine ODs), but there are many many other cases. And for the *manufacturer*, I'd certainly think there is a real need to secure the devices against malicious attack. I'm sure there'll be a lot of dignitaries/high-value targets with pacemakers fitted, and it would be pretty trivial for a state agency to create the relevant attack, and the end result would be difficult to distinguish from natural death. So while this lady may not have anyone after her, it's almost certain that some other recipients do...
Jesus Christ on a bike, I know this is a US site but you are all being just a teensy bit US-centric here. I'm pretty sure that, what with the article appearing on a.com.au site, she's Australian. And therefore different rules may apply
There *used* to be a time when people were educated enough to know the difference between enquiry and inquiry. I shan't attempt to teach you; I shall merely point out that it is not about US vs UK usage; and that the correct term in this instance is inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
If you're a very clever GP earning 100k+, I'm sure you're bright enough to find a way to note the information in a sensitive and diplomatic manner...most GPs I work with are more than capable of doing this
I guess the economic incentives are there for someone to package this knowledge and sell on to car thieves, or to run a ring of them, but honestly, it still seems pretty damned unlikely.
Really? You thought it was good? I thought it was a bit far-fetched, tbh. It's not that it was describing impossible threats, just that they were somewhat implausible. For example, they described the CD threat in action as follows: "Consequently, an adversary might deliver malicious input by encoding it onto a CD or as a song file and using social engineering to convince the user to play it. Alternatively, she might compromise the user’s phone or iPod out of band and install software onto it that attacks the car’s media system when connected."
What are the possible circumstances when person A is going to do something nasty to person B by: i) befriending them ii) learning enough tech to be able to encode a piece of malicious code and embed it in a WMA or other file on a CD iii) giving them a CD and convincing them to play it in their car iv) having an attack work that is sufficiently distant in mode and in time that person B doesn't recognise that it was person A who did it ?
I guess spies / covert agents might want to do this. But in day-to-day life, surely the vast majority of people with malintent will pick a simpler attack?
You're missing the problem. It's not "I'm confused by how to plug this wire in"; it's "I've got a big messy tangle of wires at the back of these boxes and they don't even properly fit in my cabinet"
Not for you and not for me, but for some people, a tangle of cables is a pain in the bum. Not a question of being luddites, but -- for example, of having a cabinet with not much space in it.
Nope. You've got 4: 1. A power cable for each device 2. The aerial cable 3. The HDMI cable
An AIO uses 2: 1. The power cable 2. The aerial cable
That's enough to make the difference for some folks, particularly if you bear in mind that they may well have other devices to connect: set-top boxes and blu-ray players, for example.
As someone else has said, it's 40 minutes, not 20. And obviously, that's far from the only benefit of HS2 -- self-evidently, it's a huge increase in capacity. Capacity is much more important than speed.
Incidentally, re "everyone" -- I took my cue their from your OP, in which you appeared to mean the same thing, ie all 7bn of us. (A 100sq mile pool of algae, if you will)
Well, you did say "fossil fuels". Not "fossil fuels or their equivalents based on technology that doesn't exist at anything remotely like the scale required as yet"
I hope you're right that advanced algae farming can supply endless biodiesel, but we're quite a long way from having cracked that particular nut at the moment.
Oh, and by "everyone", I didn't just mean everyone in the US. I meant, well, everyone: all 7bn of us.
The straight answer to your ridiculous question is that both drivers and non-drivers pay general taxation, the income from which is used to pay for oil wars, asthma treatment (in the UK) etc etc. Yet these costs have been incurred through the actions of drivers alone. How difficult can this be to understand?
I hate to break this to you, but "some way to continuously produce fossil fuels sufficient for our transportation needs" does not exist if we aspire to US-levels of consumption for everyone on a sustained basis. There were never enough dinosaurs, and they ain't making any more.
1. no-one is planning on removing all CO2, just some of it 2. CO2 can kill you, as well as keep you alive. the same is true for O2, a point made rather wonderfully in a book by RAH that you ought to read called "have space suit, will travel". Concentrations and context matter
Or cut down the trees and use the wood for making furniture and houses. That locks up the CO2 for a decent amount of time -- tens to hundreds of years.
That's a pretty snarky remark when you're being deliberately obtuse and missing his point on purpose. He was clearly saying that some of the costs associated with driving are socialised (ie paid for through general taxation) and that if they were privatised (ie paid for through petrol prices) or at the very least if the taxation was wholly in the form of a petrol consumption tax and other road user fees as opposed to those kinds of taxes plus general taxation, drivers would be a lot less keen on driving. And this is clearly true. We in the UK are talking about just this issue at the moment with rail transport -- what proportion of the burden should be funded via user fees (ie tickets) and what through taxation.
The "he" and the "we" are not identical. Privatise gains, socialise losses => some people better off at the expense of others. This is as true for drivers as it is for banks.
The summary is more than usually dreadful. This was a thoughtful interview with the guy that designed the Alice in Wonderland app, ie someone who knows what he's talking about. And he's right.
Cool! Can you say a bit more about what apps they use? Are they custom-coded or off-the-shelf? And what are the use-cases: do you have a fully-fledged EMR up-and-running? Are you a primary care or secondary care center (or something else, eg integrated care)? I have a professional interest in all this!
1. There's nothing inherent in an e-book that prevents it from having an index; by contrast, a paper book obviously cannot have a search function 2. *Why* is a well-designed index better than search? The only possible benefit I can see is that the index may lead you more quickly to the main points at which a topic is covered in a book, rather than some of the more tangential references. But given that searches tend to show you the search-word in context, I'm not sure this is a true advantage anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Both incompetence and malice are fairly reasonable things to be concerned about:
- incompetence: there are an ever-increasing number of devices with Wifi connections out in the wild. It is really not that far-fetched to accept that there is a possibility that one of them might interact in a dangerous way with her pacemaker via Wifi.
- malice: there are hundreds of cases each year of people harming patients by interfering with their treatment / medical devices. In Britain, some of the most notorious cases include the Stepping Hill deaths last year (insulin tampering) and Harold Shipman (diamorphine ODs), but there are many many other cases. And for the *manufacturer*, I'd certainly think there is a real need to secure the devices against malicious attack. I'm sure there'll be a lot of dignitaries/high-value targets with pacemakers fitted, and it would be pretty trivial for a state agency to create the relevant attack, and the end result would be difficult to distinguish from natural death. So while this lady may not have anyone after her, it's almost certain that some other recipients do...
Jesus Christ on a bike, I know this is a US site but you are all being just a teensy bit US-centric here. I'm pretty sure that, what with the article appearing on a .com.au site, she's Australian. And therefore different rules may apply
There *used* to be a time when people were educated enough to know the difference between enquiry and inquiry. I shan't attempt to teach you; I shall merely point out that it is not about US vs UK usage; and that the correct term in this instance is inquiry:
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
If you're a very clever GP earning 100k+, I'm sure you're bright enough to find a way to note the information in a sensitive and diplomatic manner...most GPs I work with are more than capable of doing this
But you don't need to use a CD to steal a car....
I guess the economic incentives are there for someone to package this knowledge and sell on to car thieves, or to run a ring of them, but honestly, it still seems pretty damned unlikely.
Really? You thought it was good? I thought it was a bit far-fetched, tbh. It's not that it was describing impossible threats, just that they were somewhat implausible. For example, they described the CD threat in action as follows:
"Consequently, an adversary might deliver malicious input by encoding it onto a CD or as a song file and using social engineering to convince the user to play it.
Alternatively, she might compromise the user’s phone or iPod out of band and install software onto it that attacks the car’s media system when connected."
What are the possible circumstances when person A is going to do something nasty to person B by:
i) befriending them
ii) learning enough tech to be able to encode a piece of malicious code and embed it in a WMA or other file on a CD
iii) giving them a CD and convincing them to play it in their car
iv) having an attack work that is sufficiently distant in mode and in time that person B doesn't recognise that it was person A who did it
?
I guess spies / covert agents might want to do this. But in day-to-day life, surely the vast majority of people with malintent will pick a simpler attack?
You're missing the problem. It's not "I'm confused by how to plug this wire in"; it's "I've got a big messy tangle of wires at the back of these boxes and they don't even properly fit in my cabinet"
Not for you and not for me, but for some people, a tangle of cables is a pain in the bum. Not a question of being luddites, but -- for example, of having a cabinet with not much space in it.
Eh? Content creation and distribution is separate from hardware development.
The iPlayer may have taken a long time but it still got to market before all the other players from the commercial companies
Nope. You've got 4:
1. A power cable for each device
2. The aerial cable
3. The HDMI cable
An AIO uses 2:
1. The power cable
2. The aerial cable
That's enough to make the difference for some folks, particularly if you bear in mind that they may well have other devices to connect: set-top boxes and blu-ray players, for example.
Wow, it was so throwaway that I didn't spot it until I re-read just now.
A written constitution really would be quite a nice thing to have....
Erm. Is there a large Afghan community in Bristol, then?
A resort style city? What, like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham?
As someone else has said, it's 40 minutes, not 20. And obviously, that's far from the only benefit of HS2 -- self-evidently, it's a huge increase in capacity. Capacity is much more important than speed.
Incidentally, re "everyone" -- I took my cue their from your OP, in which you appeared to mean the same thing, ie all 7bn of us. (A 100sq mile pool of algae, if you will)
Well, you did say "fossil fuels". Not "fossil fuels or their equivalents based on technology that doesn't exist at anything remotely like the scale required as yet"
I hope you're right that advanced algae farming can supply endless biodiesel, but we're quite a long way from having cracked that particular nut at the moment.
Oh, and by "everyone", I didn't just mean everyone in the US. I meant, well, everyone: all 7bn of us.
Oh christ-on-a-bike....
The straight answer to your ridiculous question is that both drivers and non-drivers pay general taxation, the income from which is used to pay for oil wars, asthma treatment (in the UK) etc etc. Yet these costs have been incurred through the actions of drivers alone. How difficult can this be to understand?
I hate to break this to you, but "some way to continuously produce fossil fuels sufficient for our transportation needs" does not exist if we aspire to US-levels of consumption for everyone on a sustained basis. There were never enough dinosaurs, and they ain't making any more.
"removing a gas essential to all life on earth"
and you title your post "idiocy"
sheesh
1. no-one is planning on removing all CO2, just some of it
2. CO2 can kill you, as well as keep you alive. the same is true for O2, a point made rather wonderfully in a book by RAH that you ought to read called "have space suit, will travel". Concentrations and context matter
Or cut down the trees and use the wood for making furniture and houses. That locks up the CO2 for a decent amount of time -- tens to hundreds of years.
That's a pretty snarky remark when you're being deliberately obtuse and missing his point on purpose. He was clearly saying that some of the costs associated with driving are socialised (ie paid for through general taxation) and that if they were privatised (ie paid for through petrol prices) or at the very least if the taxation was wholly in the form of a petrol consumption tax and other road user fees as opposed to those kinds of taxes plus general taxation, drivers would be a lot less keen on driving. And this is clearly true. We in the UK are talking about just this issue at the moment with rail transport -- what proportion of the burden should be funded via user fees (ie tickets) and what through taxation.
The "he" and the "we" are not identical. Privatise gains, socialise losses => some people better off at the expense of others. This is as true for drivers as it is for banks.
The summary is more than usually dreadful. This was a thoughtful interview with the guy that designed the Alice in Wonderland app, ie someone who knows what he's talking about. And he's right.
Cool! Can you say a bit more about what apps they use? Are they custom-coded or off-the-shelf? And what are the use-cases: do you have a fully-fledged EMR up-and-running? Are you a primary care or secondary care center (or something else, eg integrated care)? I have a professional interest in all this!
1. There's nothing inherent in an e-book that prevents it from having an index; by contrast, a paper book obviously cannot have a search function
2. *Why* is a well-designed index better than search? The only possible benefit I can see is that the index may lead you more quickly to the main points at which a topic is covered in a book, rather than some of the more tangential references. But given that searches tend to show you the search-word in context, I'm not sure this is a true advantage anyway.