"lunar dust"? You mean dirt? There's no air on the moon, so all ths "dust" will just stay on the ground unless it is disturbed (in which case it will drop back down just as fast as a hammer would because there's no air to keep it buoyant).
I didn't think you could tag someone's name to a photo f they weren't on facebook. Otherwise the aforementioned setting of being able to review tags is worthless as one could tag you ithiu your ok by using a deliberately misspelled form of your name that still may obviously refer to you (and just look like an honest typo)
One, the vulnerability is such that after the fact there is no indication that the lock was ever hacked. If somebody has used this hack on a lock, there is no way for the owner or anyone else to tell that somebody has bypassed it (as there would be with a physically broken lock, for instance).
Two the hack did not require access to abnormally sophisticated skills or tools (arduino's can be purchased, retail, by anybody, and used by anybody, even if they do not know how to how to program, any more than it requires unusually specific skills or tools to... say, use a word processor, or build ikea furniture).
Three, the port did not require any special tools to access. It was accessible from the outside of the unit, and was common port type, so the type of plug that fits it are cheap and easily to find.
In a nutshell, once the means of bypassing this vulnerability became widely known, Onity locks became about as practical a means of security as those which might put its assembly hardware (of common type) access on the the same side of the door as that which is supposed to need some sort of key or pass code to enter.
What business did somebody else have posting it there? Should they not have been required to divulge that they were going to do that before you were involved in the transaction in the first place?
Also, I am concerned about what other users give to facebook about me.
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
Walk backwards for several miles from a crack in the rock. Some future explorer will follow that trail and think I disappeared.
Mars has an atmosphere... and the winds can sometimes get to be quite strong. There is every chance that any footprints you try to leave would simply get eroded to invisibility by martian weather in a few year's time.
My point is that I'm pretty sure it's not possible to do without leaving evidence behind that some activity (not necessarily what) has occurred on the system that the owner (in absentia) wouldn't be able to account for.
I was assuming a situation where the person leaves their laptop on, logged in, but at a password-locked screen saver. Simply turning it off and rebooting from a usb disk or some such thing would always leave evidence that the computer had been rebooted (since they will no longer be logged in when they return).
They might not leave behind evidence of exactly what they did... but they'd *DEFINITELY* leave behind evidence that something happened.
That only appeared to confirm the existence of such a trojan... it gave no indication how such a trojan could be installed by somebody else, without having a valid login on the machine, and without turning the computer off (since turning it off would leave indication that it had been tampered with, had it been left on and at a password-locked screensaver).
If you shut off the computer, then there's going to be indication that the computer has been tampered with, since it was left on a password-locked screensaver.
I expect it gets around it by not actually explicitly transmitting what it hears or sees to anyone else... but instead uses local software to infer what ads would be appropriate for the context, and then pull those advertisements down.
References please. Specifically, show how it is possible to install a keylogger on a Linux workstation without the administrator knowing something was up if they had left their computer with a password-locked screensaver on.
Actually, no.... the 80 million user-minutes is correct. What I had typed incorrectly was the number of users, which was supposed to be 8 million. I inadvertently typed 80.
Nonetheless, the significant figure error was not my key objection... it was equating user-minutes to actual minutes as a means of ascertaining the implausibility for everybody to read the EULA that was my primary objection.
I wasn't questioning the net cost. However, the article appears to argue that the net cost somehow has a mathematical implication to reflect the likelihood that people are reading the EULA. Effectively, it appears to synonymize "man-years" with "years", and this results from failing to do dimensional analysis on the figures being worked with.
It is that flawed assumption I have been trying to point out.
Actually, the article *DID* mention a working period of 24 hours a day... and mentioned a total of 1552 years as a result... a full order of magnitude different than my calculation. It then proceeded to factor that into a typical work day and gave a result based on that as well.
But the primary thrust of my comment was not so much on the significant figure error, as it was on the actually logical error of multiplying the number of downloads times the time spent reading and directly equating that to how long it would actually take to read. The article implies that it is mathematically absurd to spend that amount of time in one day and concludes that people do not read the EULA on that basis. This is a false premise, however, because it equates man-years to years, when the two are not the same. man-years can be divided across multiple people 8,000,000 per day, in this case... which means any one person still does not have to ever spend more than 10 minutes reading said EULA. Something that is easy to accomplish, contrary to the article's implication.
I'm not suggesting that people *DO* read EULA's... only that the premise on which the article appeared to rest was flawed.
Good catch.... I made a typo, above... I meant to type 8 million users, not 80 million. I was thinking of 80 million user-minutes when I typed that, which is the source of the typo.
Nonetheless, the reasoning above is still valid, and their ignoring of the fact that it is 80 million USER-minutes, not 80 million minutes, is still valid.
I'm not suggesting that the cumulative figure isn't that large. I am merely pointing out that the article has ignored dimensional analysis, evidently equating man-years per day to actual years per day to suggest it's absurd to think it is even mathematically possible for that many people to read the EULA.
And again, I'm not suggesting that they do... only pointing out the flawed math, and showing that it's actually *highly* possible.
It's possible I made a significant figure error myself, as I accused the article of doing, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I'm calling them more on the notion for ignoring the fact their long period should have actually been man-years, and not simply years, however... and when you divide that across 8 million people, it's still only 10 minutes per person, which is hardly the mathematical absurdity implied by the article.
Not that I believe that many people actually read the EULA.... I'm just pointing out the fallacy that the article seems to rest its premise on.
Fair enough... I am suggesting, however, that for somebody that has *already* accomplished interstellar travel, and actually reached our solar system from another one, would probably have no difficultly keeping up to something moving at 10.5 miles per second.
I don't doubt that a good majority of people do simply click the check-box, and ignore the EULA...
The article then goes to use some creative math to imply that it must be virtually impossible to accomplish by assuming it takes 10 minutes to read, multiplying that by 8 million downloads per day, and then converting that to years, saying that it works out to 1522 years
However... this is wrong.
It's bad math. Bad in the sense that it ignored significant figures, and bad as anyone who respects dimensional analysis can affirm.
10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.
The number of minutes per year can be easily calculated by multipying 60 times 24 times 365.25 = 525,960 minutes per year.
If we divide 80,000,000 user-minutes per day by 525,960 minutes per year, the result is in man-years per day, and is roughly 152.1. This figure is a full order of magnitude less than the figure they claimed. It's obvious that they slipped up on a decimal point somewhere.
However... 152.1 man-years is not the same thing as 152.1 years. And since that's still being split across 8 million people, it ends up still coming out to that same old 10 minutes per person. Many of them would simply have to be happening simultaneously, of course.
Again, however, I'm not suggesting that many people actually read the EULA or even that most people read it... only pointing out that the apparent absurdity that it could not reasonably happen is actually a deduction based on a fallacy.
80 million minutes works out to This sounds like a lot... but remember, again... that's split across 8 million people, so each one of them would still only take 10 minutes to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
... support Slackware.
"lunar dust"? You mean dirt? There's no air on the moon, so all ths "dust" will just stay on the ground unless it is disturbed (in which case it will drop back down just as fast as a hammer would because there's no air to keep it buoyant).
I didn't think you could tag someone's name to a photo f they weren't on facebook. Otherwise the aforementioned setting of being able to review tags is worthless as one could tag you ithiu your ok by using a deliberately misspelled form of your name that still may obviously refer to you (and just look like an honest typo)
One, the vulnerability is such that after the fact there is no indication that the lock was ever hacked. If somebody has used this hack on a lock, there is no way for the owner or anyone else to tell that somebody has bypassed it (as there would be with a physically broken lock, for instance).
Two the hack did not require access to abnormally sophisticated skills or tools (arduino's can be purchased, retail, by anybody, and used by anybody, even if they do not know how to how to program, any more than it requires unusually specific skills or tools to... say, use a word processor, or build ikea furniture).
Three, the port did not require any special tools to access. It was accessible from the outside of the unit, and was common port type, so the type of plug that fits it are cheap and easily to find.
In a nutshell, once the means of bypassing this vulnerability became widely known, Onity locks became about as practical a means of security as those which might put its assembly hardware (of common type) access on the the same side of the door as that which is supposed to need some sort of key or pass code to enter.
I expect that this is the reason for the large amount being sued for, and a way they will likely argue that the review has caused "irreparable harm"
Doesn't facebook allow you to specifiy that you have to approve tags with your name before they are publicly visible?
What business did somebody else have posting it there? Should they not have been required to divulge that they were going to do that before you were involved in the transaction in the first place?
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
Then why would you need them to forget it?
... make me think of Redjac?
Mars has an atmosphere... and the winds can sometimes get to be quite strong. There is every chance that any footprints you try to leave would simply get eroded to invisibility by martian weather in a few year's time.
I was assuming a situation where the person leaves their laptop on, logged in, but at a password-locked screen saver. Simply turning it off and rebooting from a usb disk or some such thing would always leave evidence that the computer had been rebooted (since they will no longer be logged in when they return).
They might not leave behind evidence of exactly what they did... but they'd *DEFINITELY* leave behind evidence that something happened.
That only appeared to confirm the existence of such a trojan... it gave no indication how such a trojan could be installed by somebody else, without having a valid login on the machine, and without turning the computer off (since turning it off would leave indication that it had been tampered with, had it been left on and at a password-locked screensaver).
If you shut off the computer, then there's going to be indication that the computer has been tampered with, since it was left on a password-locked screensaver.
Let me guess.... you're under 25, right?
I mean, if you really think that a decade is going to make that much difference....
I expect it gets around it by not actually explicitly transmitting what it hears or sees to anyone else... but instead uses local software to infer what ads would be appropriate for the context, and then pull those advertisements down.
References please. Specifically, show how it is possible to install a keylogger on a Linux workstation without the administrator knowing something was up if they had left their computer with a password-locked screensaver on.
Nonetheless, the significant figure error was not my key objection... it was equating user-minutes to actual minutes as a means of ascertaining the implausibility for everybody to read the EULA that was my primary objection.
I wasn't questioning the net cost. However, the article appears to argue that the net cost somehow has a mathematical implication to reflect the likelihood that people are reading the EULA. Effectively, it appears to synonymize "man-years" with "years", and this results from failing to do dimensional analysis on the figures being worked with.
It is that flawed assumption I have been trying to point out.
Actually, the article *DID* mention a working period of 24 hours a day... and mentioned a total of 1552 years as a result... a full order of magnitude different than my calculation. It then proceeded to factor that into a typical work day and gave a result based on that as well.
But the primary thrust of my comment was not so much on the significant figure error, as it was on the actually logical error of multiplying the number of downloads times the time spent reading and directly equating that to how long it would actually take to read. The article implies that it is mathematically absurd to spend that amount of time in one day and concludes that people do not read the EULA on that basis. This is a false premise, however, because it equates man-years to years, when the two are not the same. man-years can be divided across multiple people 8,000,000 per day, in this case... which means any one person still does not have to ever spend more than 10 minutes reading said EULA. Something that is easy to accomplish, contrary to the article's implication.
I'm not suggesting that people *DO* read EULA's... only that the premise on which the article appeared to rest was flawed.
Nonetheless, the reasoning above is still valid, and their ignoring of the fact that it is 80 million USER-minutes, not 80 million minutes, is still valid.
And again, I'm not suggesting that they do... only pointing out the flawed math, and showing that it's actually *highly* possible.
Not that I believe that many people actually read the EULA.... I'm just pointing out the fallacy that the article seems to rest its premise on.
Fair enough... I am suggesting, however, that for somebody that has *already* accomplished interstellar travel, and actually reached our solar system from another one, would probably have no difficultly keeping up to something moving at 10.5 miles per second.
The article then goes to use some creative math to imply that it must be virtually impossible to accomplish by assuming it takes 10 minutes to read, multiplying that by 8 million downloads per day, and then converting that to years, saying that it works out to 1522 years
However... this is wrong.
It's bad math. Bad in the sense that it ignored significant figures, and bad as anyone who respects dimensional analysis can affirm.
10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.
The number of minutes per year can be easily calculated by multipying 60 times 24 times 365.25 = 525,960 minutes per year.
If we divide 80,000,000 user-minutes per day by 525,960 minutes per year, the result is in man-years per day, and is roughly 152.1. This figure is a full order of magnitude less than the figure they claimed. It's obvious that they slipped up on a decimal point somewhere.
However... 152.1 man-years is not the same thing as 152.1 years. And since that's still being split across 8 million people, it ends up still coming out to that same old 10 minutes per person. Many of them would simply have to be happening simultaneously, of course.
Again, however, I'm not suggesting that many people actually read the EULA or even that most people read it... only pointing out that the apparent absurdity that it could not reasonably happen is actually a deduction based on a fallacy. 80 million minutes works out to This sounds like a lot... but remember, again... that's split across 8 million people, so each one of them would still only take 10 minutes to read it.