Radiation might work. Tests have shown that rats already tend to avoid radioactive areas. (Unlike cockroaches, which have eaten the insulation in the inside of nuclear reactors.)
OTOH, I'm not sure how strong that tendency is. My guess is that it's based somehow on the same mechanism that caused them to avoid lighted areas, and that can be overridden if they feel like it...though they usually don't. But I'm also guessing that the avoidance of radioactivity is a lot lower than the avoidance of light, because light is easier to detect. As far as I know, no detailed studies were done, the effect was just noted as one characteristic.
Arsenic doesn't act that rapidly, and the dose needs to be low enough that it acts as a cumulative poison. So that's a bad suggestion, unless it's something that tastes foul enough to rodents that they already avoid it.
Strychnine might work, but that has a bitter taste, and I'm not sure that rats can taste bitter. (If they could, I think they'd avoid warfarin.)
Butyl mercaptan might work. You'd need to encapsulate it, but it might not only drive the rats away, but also give you a quick warning that something's been chewing on your wires. OTOH, I'm not sure how much volume you'd need.
Probably the best answer is a thing cooked up by the CIA in the 1960's or 70's (if it works as reported in Life magazine). They're supposed to have come up with a variation of LSD that gives mice a guaranteed bad trip. They've even already tested it on a close relative of rats. (They also tested it on cats, the picture of a cat reeling back in terror from a mouse was quite unusual.) Since LSD works in extremely small quantities, this should be easy to blend into the wire, though again you'd want to encapsulate it, this time to stabilize the molecule.
No, I was looking for gLinux, but the link you gave said it adds some features and removes some features, without being very specific about either (though it did say some of the added features are to improve security). This doesn't imply to me that it's a "general purpose Linux distribution". It all depends on what's removed, which is totally unspecified.
Well, it actually also depends on what's available to optionally be installed, but I haven't seen *anything* about that. Presumably they have some selection of add-on packages for different use cases...but that's a guess. They *could* even allow installation from Debian repositories, but I really doubt that.
You're correct, it *does* say that. But this is Google, and for all of me their "in-house Linux desktop" might be essentially a web server page. After all, that's what most of their users see. There must be *some* reason they are holding this as "internal use only", and the easy explanation is that it's highly specialized in some way. (Otherwise, why bother.)
Presumably there are camera images. Even if the car wasn't in autonomous mode they'd probably be running. (If they weren't, then I would echo your suspicions.)
It's an area of San Francisco south of Market street https://www.google.com/maps/pl... It's got a few areas in it that are rather impacted by gentrification.
It's a distro for internal use only, so it doesn't matter. To me it's not even clear that it's a general purpose distribution, so its not using systemd wouldn't mean anything.
You're assuming a target. If they are targeting smart phones, most of the upstream packages don't have a big impact, and a lot of them don't have ANY impact. If they are targeting IoT devices, there's even less effect.
It's not clear to me that they are developing a general purpose distribution. I only did a tiny bit of search for it, but I didn't find anything that mentioned it, so my guess is that this "gLinux" is for some internal use...and that could be pretty specialized.
Also, I notice that gLinux isn't listed at Distrowatch http://www.distrowatch.com/ . It may be based on Debian testing, but it doesn't seem to be publicly available. This causes me to wonder what the differences are. They're within their rights, of course. but... And, of course, perhaps it's just too new to be listed on Distrowatch.
When they first started out their announcement said they intended to become a working replacement for Windows95. I was quite disappointed when they started tracking MSWindows versions rather than finishing compatibility.
When I talked to the ReactOS people (admittedly over a decade ago, now) they said if it wouldn't run under Wine, not to expect it to run under ReactOS.
"have" is a homonym for "halve", i.e., be divided in half. I usually try to pronounce if slightly differently, if I choose to use it, but I believe that to actually be as incorrect as pronouncing the "t" in "often".
Aren't you going to say *why* someone should be interested in that book? If I've ever heard of the authors before, I don't remember it. And you don't even mention what language they are going to want you to use, already published books that I know of recommend: Lisp Java C C++ Erlang Snobal IPL Basic... I'm sure there are others, but that's all I can remember. Some I even have copies of. Few were very good.
Well, it's reasonable to worry, what with permafrost melting and such. But Canada has a lot of space north of where the trees are currently growing, so I'm not seriously worried about *that*.
OTOH, the summary pointed the finger at "not enough water", and people have been irrigating from before records started being kept. So unless the report was mis-summarized the headline is blatantly inflammatory.
Well, it's clearly not bricked, but my inclination would be to install debian mate on the machine. After making good backups. And it sounds like you need to boot from a live-cd to even make backups.
OTOH, some people have said that after several re-boots the system settles down. Wouldn't know myself, as I don't do Windows.
Is it an AMD box or an Intel box? If it's AMD, then you're probably safe just rolling back the upgrade (can you?). Spectre isn't anywhere nearly as dangerous as Meltdown...yet.
O, and bricked means the machine won't reboot without a hardware intervention...and not just the power switch. It basically means the machines new highest use is as a doorstop, but that's usually been hyperbole.
Actually, it's quite parseable if you enable homonym detection. I suspect, however, that it's quite wrong. Were I moderating, I'd be inclined to rate it funny.
I never signed up for cable. The cable company wanted to sell TV, not internet access, so I wasn't interested. I eventually got ISDN, though I was actually too far from the station (I found out later) and it should never have been sold to me. Still, it was a lot better than dial-up...and went over the same phone lines.
So your argument is, AFAIKT, wrong. Cable was put in for those people who wanted cable-TV, not for the internet. The entire design of the cable system was designed to optimize broadcasting. In fact, IIRC, at first you had to have a phone connection with your cable to allow signals to go back from your receiving set to the transmitting station, so it would know what channel to deliver.
Actually, the further you go into the past, the more privacy you had. This was largely due to economics, of course. But in 1960 only draft age males had to carry an ID card, and nobody carried a phone. You could open a bank account with no proof of identity, etc.
Before WWII nobody had to carry an ID card. Before 1910 almost nobody carried *any* government issued ID. Etc. (I may have gotten a couple of the dates a bit wrong, but it's about right. I'm not certain, e.g., that soldiers didn't carry official IDs during the Civil War: 1865.)
It was about the time of the Civil War that Hollerith invented his card (now the IBM card) to store data for the census. Go back before than and all government record keeping was via hand written entries. Family Bibles were considered as authoritative and official records...though that might be slightly earlier.
And, as I said, the reasons were all basically economic. But you need to figure in utility as well. The manpower required to retrieve records as quickly as a modern system would have been impossibly exorbitant. And it would also require an additional army of clerks to record the data in multiple copies and to verify that it had been recorded properly, etc. Totally impossible, but it can be condensed into an economic impossibility. It would have required more than the entire population of the country to manage the record keeping for the country. The problem probably scales O(2^n) when you have people doing the record keeping rather than machines. (I.e., it works fine for a small village.)
OK. I think there's a fair chance that Kaspersky is spying for Russia, at least occasionally. Now ask me about AT&T, or someone else, because it's not like that makes them different from any other company. Russia spying on me is a less direct threat than some US agency doing so.
It's quite appropriate to say than on US classified work should be done on any device running Kaspersky software. But I doubt than any British or Japanese company should trust software from the US.
I'm not at all sure that all your assertions are correct. It's possible, however, but partially because China has a larger population than anyone else. But it's worth remembering that the US imprisons a greater percentage of it's population than anyone else.
Republicans vs Democrats? I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.
I *don't* welcome them. But I sort of expect them. The "sort of" is because it's a timing thing whether the "Chinese overlords" arrive first or the "AI overlords" arrive first. By my estimate there's a better than even chance that the "AI overlords" will arrive first...of course, if the "AI overlords" arrive in China first, then they may be the same thing.
The good thing is if things happen that way it's quite likely that war will not result. The Chinese certainly don't want that, it's bad for profits. And no well designed AI will want war. So there's a good chance this will be another (relatively) peaceful transition of power, as was that between Britain and the US. (Well, WWII wasn't exactly peaceful, but it also wasn't Britain vs. the US. So I'm not counting that, even though it certainly hastened the transition.)
Slashdot Mirror
Radiation might work. Tests have shown that rats already tend to avoid radioactive areas. (Unlike cockroaches, which have eaten the insulation in the inside of nuclear reactors.)
OTOH, I'm not sure how strong that tendency is. My guess is that it's based somehow on the same mechanism that caused them to avoid lighted areas, and that can be overridden if they feel like it...though they usually don't. But I'm also guessing that the avoidance of radioactivity is a lot lower than the avoidance of light, because light is easier to detect. As far as I know, no detailed studies were done, the effect was just noted as one characteristic.
Arsenic doesn't act that rapidly, and the dose needs to be low enough that it acts as a cumulative poison. So that's a bad suggestion, unless it's something that tastes foul enough to rodents that they already avoid it.
Strychnine might work, but that has a bitter taste, and I'm not sure that rats can taste bitter. (If they could, I think they'd avoid warfarin.)
Butyl mercaptan might work. You'd need to encapsulate it, but it might not only drive the rats away, but also give you a quick warning that something's been chewing on your wires. OTOH, I'm not sure how much volume you'd need.
Probably the best answer is a thing cooked up by the CIA in the 1960's or 70's (if it works as reported in Life magazine). They're supposed to have come up with a variation of LSD that gives mice a guaranteed bad trip. They've even already tested it on a close relative of rats. (They also tested it on cats, the picture of a cat reeling back in terror from a mouse was quite unusual.) Since LSD works in extremely small quantities, this should be easy to blend into the wire, though again you'd want to encapsulate it, this time to stabilize the molecule.
No, I was looking for gLinux, but the link you gave said it adds some features and removes some features, without being very specific about either (though it did say some of the added features are to improve security). This doesn't imply to me that it's a "general purpose Linux distribution". It all depends on what's removed, which is totally unspecified.
Well, it actually also depends on what's available to optionally be installed, but I haven't seen *anything* about that. Presumably they have some selection of add-on packages for different use cases...but that's a guess. They *could* even allow installation from Debian repositories, but I really doubt that.
You're correct, it *does* say that. But this is Google, and for all of me their "in-house Linux desktop" might be essentially a web server page. After all, that's what most of their users see. There must be *some* reason they are holding this as "internal use only", and the easy explanation is that it's highly specialized in some way. (Otherwise, why bother.)
Presumably there are camera images. Even if the car wasn't in autonomous mode they'd probably be running. (If they weren't, then I would echo your suspicions.)
It's a bit more dangerous to do it with a horse drawn carriage. The horse is likely to step on you, and the driver carries a horse-whip.
It's an area of San Francisco south of Market street https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
It's got a few areas in it that are rather impacted by gentrification.
It's a distro for internal use only, so it doesn't matter. To me it's not even clear that it's a general purpose distribution, so its not using systemd wouldn't mean anything.
You're assuming a target. If they are targeting smart phones, most of the upstream packages don't have a big impact, and a lot of them don't have ANY impact. If they are targeting IoT devices, there's even less effect.
It's not clear to me that they are developing a general purpose distribution. I only did a tiny bit of search for it, but I didn't find anything that mentioned it, so my guess is that this "gLinux" is for some internal use...and that could be pretty specialized.
Also, I notice that gLinux isn't listed at Distrowatch http://www.distrowatch.com/ . It may be based on Debian testing, but it doesn't seem to be publicly available. This causes me to wonder what the differences are. They're within their rights, of course. but ...
And, of course, perhaps it's just too new to be listed on Distrowatch.
When they first started out their announcement said they intended to become a working replacement for Windows95. I was quite disappointed when they started tracking MSWindows versions rather than finishing compatibility.
When I talked to the ReactOS people (admittedly over a decade ago, now) they said if it wouldn't run under Wine, not to expect it to run under ReactOS.
But it still won't reliably run MSWind95/98 programs. It'll run some of them, but not others.
"have" is a homonym for "halve", i.e., be divided in half. I usually try to pronounce if slightly differently, if I choose to use it, but I believe that to actually be as incorrect as pronouncing the "t" in "often".
Doesn't work. There are lots of bad ways to do most things, so picking the apparent opposite of one bad way won't usually lead you to a good one.
They also made a good keyboard, and a decent mouse. Once upon a time.
Aren't you going to say *why* someone should be interested in that book? If I've ever heard of the authors before, I don't remember it. And you don't even mention what language they are going to want you to use, already published books that I know of recommend: ... I'm sure there are others, but that's all I can remember. Some I even have copies of. Few were very good.
Lisp
Java
C
C++
Erlang
Snobal
IPL
Basic
Well, it's reasonable to worry, what with permafrost melting and such. But Canada has a lot of space north of where the trees are currently growing, so I'm not seriously worried about *that*.
OTOH, the summary pointed the finger at "not enough water", and people have been irrigating from before records started being kept. So unless the report was mis-summarized the headline is blatantly inflammatory.
Well, it's clearly not bricked, but my inclination would be to install debian mate on the machine. After making good backups. And it sounds like you need to boot from a live-cd to even make backups.
OTOH, some people have said that after several re-boots the system settles down. Wouldn't know myself, as I don't do Windows.
Is it an AMD box or an Intel box? If it's AMD, then you're probably safe just rolling back the upgrade (can you?). Spectre isn't anywhere nearly as dangerous as Meltdown...yet.
O, and bricked means the machine won't reboot without a hardware intervention...and not just the power switch. It basically means the machines new highest use is as a doorstop, but that's usually been hyperbole.
Actually, it's quite parseable if you enable homonym detection. I suspect, however, that it's quite wrong. Were I moderating, I'd be inclined to rate it funny.
I never signed up for cable. The cable company wanted to sell TV, not internet access, so I wasn't interested. I eventually got ISDN, though I was actually too far from the station (I found out later) and it should never have been sold to me. Still, it was a lot better than dial-up...and went over the same phone lines.
So your argument is, AFAIKT, wrong. Cable was put in for those people who wanted cable-TV, not for the internet. The entire design of the cable system was designed to optimize broadcasting. In fact, IIRC, at first you had to have a phone connection with your cable to allow signals to go back from your receiving set to the transmitting station, so it would know what channel to deliver.
Actually, the further you go into the past, the more privacy you had. This was largely due to economics, of course. But in 1960 only draft age males had to carry an ID card, and nobody carried a phone. You could open a bank account with no proof of identity, etc.
Before WWII nobody had to carry an ID card. Before 1910 almost nobody carried *any* government issued ID. Etc.
(I may have gotten a couple of the dates a bit wrong, but it's about right. I'm not certain, e.g., that soldiers didn't carry official IDs during the Civil War: 1865.)
It was about the time of the Civil War that Hollerith invented his card (now the IBM card) to store data for the census. Go back before than and all government record keeping was via hand written entries. Family Bibles were considered as authoritative and official records...though that might be slightly earlier.
And, as I said, the reasons were all basically economic. But you need to figure in utility as well. The manpower required to retrieve records as quickly as a modern system would have been impossibly exorbitant. And it would also require an additional army of clerks to record the data in multiple copies and to verify that it had been recorded properly, etc. Totally impossible, but it can be condensed into an economic impossibility. It would have required more than the entire population of the country to manage the record keeping for the country. The problem probably scales O(2^n) when you have people doing the record keeping rather than machines. (I.e., it works fine for a small village.)
OK. I think there's a fair chance that Kaspersky is spying for Russia, at least occasionally. Now ask me about AT&T, or someone else, because it's not like that makes them different from any other company. Russia spying on me is a less direct threat than some US agency doing so.
It's quite appropriate to say than on US classified work should be done on any device running Kaspersky software. But I doubt than any British or Japanese company should trust software from the US.
I'm not at all sure that all your assertions are correct. It's possible, however, but partially because China has a larger population than anyone else. But it's worth remembering that the US imprisons a greater percentage of it's population than anyone else.
Republicans vs Democrats? I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.
I *don't* welcome them. But I sort of expect them. The "sort of" is because it's a timing thing whether the "Chinese overlords" arrive first or the "AI overlords" arrive first. By my estimate there's a better than even chance that the "AI overlords" will arrive first...of course, if the "AI overlords" arrive in China first, then they may be the same thing.
The good thing is if things happen that way it's quite likely that war will not result. The Chinese certainly don't want that, it's bad for profits. And no well designed AI will want war. So there's a good chance this will be another (relatively) peaceful transition of power, as was that between Britain and the US. (Well, WWII wasn't exactly peaceful, but it also wasn't Britain vs. the US. So I'm not counting that, even though it certainly hastened the transition.)