Not true.
You can also play backups of games you legitimately own. This allows you to avoid buying the game anew when the disc is scratched. If you've got kids, you get this point.
Nope. Not true. The leading vehicle experiences no extra drag at all, thing is it -is- to some extent towing the vehicles behind it, but if it wasn't it would instead be towing the -air- along, to the same degree. (that air being dragged along is, afterall, the source of the saved fuel for the cars behind.
5 cars driving close together really do use less fuel in sum, compared to 5 individual cars. It's -not- just a question of redistributing the consumption, there's real savings.
Even if you don't consciously "understand" it, you do habitually clutch when braking to a stop. If you didn't, the engine would go out at every red-light.
It's not a stretch to imagine that if the engine got stuck at full throttle, you'd also brake-and-clutch, which happens to be the right thing to do anyway, whether you understand it or not.
Yes. And that's one of the 2 good reasons for -not- disengaging it.
If you disengage the engine, but keep it running, it's going to consume fuel for idling. Not a lot mind you, but more than zero. (my toyota drinks 1l/hour for idling) In contrast, whenever the rpm is above idle, and the throttle is released, consumption is literally -zero-.
The other reason is that the engine helps braking, particularily at high rpms. This saves brake-pad-wear and is *required* when driving long steep declines. You switch the car into a lower gear, and let the engine do most of the braking, adding just the last tiny bit with the brake-pedal.
If the engine disengaged, you'd have to brake a lot MORE, aside from the added wear, that's potentially dangerous, because the brakes could run so hot their efficiency decline severly.
Even if they don't disengage the engine, what's your number one instinct if your car goes fast, and you want it to go slow and/or stop ?
That's right: brake.
Which will infact work, cars tend to have brakes that are MUCH stronger than the engines, thus braking will generally stop a car, even if it's stuck at full throttle.
Not really. I think we all can agree that open and closed really *is* a continuum, and not a binary proposition. Some things are totally open, some are totally closed, and many are somewhere in between. That's just (imho) objectively true.
We probably all also agree that everything else being equal, more open is an advantage.
Now, where one can reasonably differ, is on the priorities. If program A is evaluated as superior to B on some issues, but inferior on open-ness, how much weight should be placed on what ?
Most people on Slashdot would probably say open-ness should be evaluated as important. And I agree. But it's nevertheless not -infinitely- important. I.e. there *are* situations where I'd be willing to go with a less open program or protocol, due to other major advantages. That's an individual choice, offcourse.
The info-content of longer english texts is even lower. Just try zipping a plain ascii text to get an UPPER bound on the info-content. It's been estimated at 1.5 - 2 bits per character.
This is disingenious. The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction. It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition, but a continuum where (and I quote)
Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
This very clearly doesn't claim that proprietary software is open. Infact it does the oposite, it says directly that it lies on a spectrum, where ONE end can be called "open", and this lies at the *other* end. It doesn't directly say what that other end is called, but a reasonable guess would be "closed".
Sports ain't unique as status-generator for teenaged males. It may be the most common one, but it's not the only one. Being real good on a cool instrument, for example, works fine.
No, nobody vares if you're a virtuoso on the violin. But if you can play guitar really well, you're in. And indirectly, anything which impresses girls makes you -in-, even if the other guys don't even know what it is.
I can pinpoint to the -minute- when my status permanently changed. It was in the shower, after sports. I was 16.
"Eivind has a hickey !" He went, intending to annoy me. "And you -don't-" I said. 5 seconds of silence. Loud laugther. Game over. Permanent change. The end.
If there's 277 candidates for change, and 6 alternatives for each candidate, you'd expect two random books to differ in 5/6 of those 277 words, or 230 of the words. If they differ in only 58, that implies that only about 30 of the words are changed in each book. Put differently, of the 277, 247 will use the original word, and 30 will use a chanegd word 58 differences implies that in 2 cases words where changed, but through random chance, the same words where changed to the same alternative, so it's undetectable.
Now to answer your question.
Messing with the 58 detectable differences, is enough to render the copy untracable. there's likely 2 more changed words that are undetectable (because the same change was made in both) but that doesn't matter, 2 identifiers left, each with 5 alternatives implies that this allows Amazon to narrow the field by a factor of 25 (5^2) -- so if they sold 25000 copies of this ebook, they know that the pirates are among -these- 1000 people.
Adding a third book to the mix, is enough to (on the average) remove 1.85 of these 2 identifiers, leaving them with 5^0.15 = 1.3 bits of information to identify you by -- good luck with that !
There's smarter schemes, but the short story is, comparing multiple watermarked books makes it possible to detect and remove the watermarks. You're gonna need more books the higher portion of words are changed.
True. But that's easier than you suppose. Remember that pirates have easy access to any number of copies of the work.
Given 5 copies of the same ebook from Amazon, it's trivial to see which words *differ* between those copies; those are the words you want to change, end of story.
I agree. Sometimes war is nessecary. But it's really bloody hard to see it as "nessecary" for USA to conduct on the order of 50 military operations abroad after WW-II. (some of which where called 'wars' and others where called 'operations', but all had American soldiers participating in armed combat on the territory of another country)
Offcourse the dog consumes resources. It consumes the food it eats (that food was produced somehow, then transported somehow, packaged somehow etc), you don't magically make that go away by cooking too much.
Typical western-pet-dogs also receive medical care, have various objects and so on. All of which consumes resources.
A dog probably consumes an amount of resources comparable to any other hobby with a similar price.
(price and consumption isn't identical measures, there's expensive things that pollute little, and cheap things that pollute a lot, but despite this it does tend to be a reasonable proxy-indicator in many cases)
The EU isn't a country. Different nations have different taxes. Some require VAT to be paid on books, and others don't. (here in Norway, there's no VAT on books, nor any other tax)
Atleast I don't know of -any- bank in Norway that doesn't use two-factor authenthication for online banking. Most of them even use bankID, a compatible system, that means you can authenthicate on 2 different banks using the same fnob. (YES, this means if you lose the fnob and password, both accounts are compromised)
The bank offering SMS-ed one-time-passwords as an alternative to that is Skandiabanken.
If you're in the US, I can't help you. I don't know what banks there use, sorry.
We've got tan-by-list too. But the tan's are on a credit-card-sized card, with the kind of film over them that you can scratch of with a coin or nail.
Makes it easy to carry on you, and stops people from photocopying the card, even if they could get hold of it for a minute. Sure, they could scratch of all the film, and THEN copy the card, but you'd notice that, hopefully. (atleast you'd have a chance of noticing it)
The point of two-factor authenthication is that when you need TWO factors, which are independent, it's a lot harder for a criminal to learn both than if you need only one.
To get into my account a criminal need to know my password AND intercept an SMS sent to my mobile phone.
This is a lot harder to do than *only* know my password. A keylogger or virus on my computer could conceivably steal my passwords and mail them to russia or wherever. It'd have a harder time doing that -AND- intercepting SMS-traffic to my mobile phone.
As I said, SMS by itself isn't impossible to intercept. But when you need to do that in -addition- to sniffing my password, the bar is raised significantly.
It's not a "usb-fob" it's a completely disconnected fob with a small lcd-display from which you read the one-time-pass and enter it into the login-form, using your eyes and fingers.
Sure, it could be sniffed on entry, that's where the "one-time" comes in, the info is useless, because next login, a different pass will be required.
A good thing judges aren't robots. Besides, pretty much -all- laws and rulings have exceptions for when there's a bloody good reason for doing the thing that's normally forbidden.
It's not normally allowed to use a baseball bat to crush the window of your neighbours car. If you do it to get him out of the locked wreck after an accident though, you're not merely in the green, but potentially a fucking hero.
True, but it doens't have to be that expensive to do right. My bank offers two different solutions for the second-factor. One is s crypto-key tokenthing that they send you to hang on your keychain. (so you log in with a password + a 5-digit security token from the gadget)
The other is, quite simply your mobile phone. You enter your username and password, if correct, they send you a SMS with a 5-char one-time-password, you enter this and are in.
Yes, it adds 10 seconds to the login-procedure, but it's a very efficient way of stopping keyloggers and malware from learning how to access your account. Even if they successfully snoop your password, that doesn't help them aslong as they can't ALSO intercept SMS-traffic to your cellphone. This isn't IMPOSSIBLE offcourse, but it sure as hell raises the bar.
The most common reason for restraining orders is harassment and/or abuse. It's a judge saying: You leave that person the hell alone, or face the consequences.
And a wink, a smile, or a wave sure as hell counts as communication in this context, as do calling the victim and hanging up after one ring and a million other ways of harassing someone.
The part which you're missing is that though a wink, or a poke, or a wave, doesn't by itself contain a lot of communication, if someone who has a history of harassing or abusing you, persist in showing up in your life, despite being ORDERED by a judge to stop doing that, it sure as hell is harassment. And the judge sure as hell is correct in slapping that kind of behaviour down with whatever punishment seems appropriate.
It sure as fucking hell is "communication" in the spirit of it.
Listen, it's very bloody simple: A judge ORDERED you to leave some person alone. Do NOT approach them. Do NOT contact them. Do NOT communicate with them in any way.
If you show up outside their house, and wave at them, or at their facebook-page and poke them, or send a SMS, or in any other way directly contacts the person you're -NOT- allowed to contact, you're in violation. It's completely mindboggling that this is even a question.
Now, if she claimed she didn't do it -- say someone else used her account, that's a different thing, and then it'd come down to evidence. But assuming she did, she's guilty as hell. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. You can also play backups of games you legitimately own. This allows you to avoid buying the game anew when the disc is scratched. If you've got kids, you get this point.
Nope. Not true. The leading vehicle experiences no extra drag at all, thing is it -is- to some extent towing the vehicles behind it, but if it wasn't it would instead be towing the -air- along, to the same degree. (that air being dragged along is, afterall, the source of the saved fuel for the cars behind.
5 cars driving close together really do use less fuel in sum, compared to 5 individual cars. It's -not- just a question of redistributing the consumption, there's real savings.
True. And it generalizes. The general rule is, you're 'allowed' to say things about majority-groups who are in power, that you can't say about others.
So, if you're adult, male, white, middle-class, christian, heterosexual, well-educated, you're fair game.
Whereas if you're a lesbian, jewish, old, female from Ghana, you can hardly be *described* without it being perceived as racism.
Even if you don't consciously "understand" it, you do habitually clutch when braking to a stop. If you didn't, the engine would go out at every red-light.
It's not a stretch to imagine that if the engine got stuck at full throttle, you'd also brake-and-clutch, which happens to be the right thing to do anyway, whether you understand it or not.
Yes. And that's one of the 2 good reasons for -not- disengaging it.
If you disengage the engine, but keep it running, it's going to consume fuel for idling. Not a lot mind you, but more than zero. (my toyota drinks 1l/hour for idling) In contrast, whenever the rpm is above idle, and the throttle is released, consumption is literally -zero-.
The other reason is that the engine helps braking, particularily at high rpms. This saves brake-pad-wear and is *required* when driving long steep declines. You switch the car into a lower gear, and let the engine do most of the braking, adding just the last tiny bit with the brake-pedal.
If the engine disengaged, you'd have to brake a lot MORE, aside from the added wear, that's potentially dangerous, because the brakes could run so hot their efficiency decline severly.
It will. But it won't kill you. It probably won't even destroy the engine, not immediately anyway.
It shouldn't take you a lot of seconds to ponder your way from "engine is being crazy" and to "now that I'm stopped anyway, let's turn it OFF"
Even if they don't disengage the engine, what's your number one instinct if your car goes fast, and you want it to go slow and/or stop ?
That's right: brake.
Which will infact work, cars tend to have brakes that are MUCH stronger than the engines, thus braking will generally stop a car, even if it's stuck at full throttle.
Not really. I think we all can agree that open and closed really *is* a continuum, and not a binary proposition. Some things are totally open, some are totally closed, and many are somewhere in between. That's just (imho) objectively true.
We probably all also agree that everything else being equal, more open is an advantage.
Now, where one can reasonably differ, is on the priorities. If program A is evaluated as superior to B on some issues, but inferior on open-ness, how much weight should be placed on what ?
Most people on Slashdot would probably say open-ness should be evaluated as important. And I agree. But it's nevertheless not -infinitely- important. I.e. there *are* situations where I'd be willing to go with a less open program or protocol, due to other major advantages. That's an individual choice, offcourse.
The info-content of longer english texts is even lower. Just try zipping a plain ascii text to get an UPPER bound on the info-content. It's been estimated at 1.5 - 2 bits per character.
This is disingenious. The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction. It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition, but a continuum where (and I quote)
Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
This very clearly doesn't claim that proprietary software is open. Infact it does the oposite, it says directly that it lies on a spectrum, where ONE end can be called "open", and this lies at the *other* end. It doesn't directly say what that other end is called, but a reasonable guess would be "closed".
Sports ain't unique as status-generator for teenaged males. It may be the most common one, but it's not the only one. Being real good on a cool instrument, for example, works fine.
No, nobody vares if you're a virtuoso on the violin. But if you can play guitar really well, you're in. And indirectly, anything which impresses girls makes you -in-, even if the other guys don't even know what it is.
I can pinpoint to the -minute- when my status permanently changed. It was in the shower, after sports. I was 16.
"Eivind has a hickey !" He went, intending to annoy me. "And you -don't-" I said. 5 seconds of silence. Loud laugther. Game over. Permanent change. The end.
If there's 277 candidates for change, and 6 alternatives for each candidate, you'd expect two random books to differ in 5/6 of those 277 words, or 230 of the words. If they differ in only 58, that implies that only about 30 of the words are changed in each book. Put differently, of the 277, 247 will use the original word, and 30 will use a chanegd word 58 differences implies that in 2 cases words where changed, but through random chance, the same words where changed to the same alternative, so it's undetectable.
Now to answer your question.
Messing with the 58 detectable differences, is enough to render the copy untracable. there's likely 2 more changed words that are undetectable (because the same change was made in both) but that doesn't matter, 2 identifiers left, each with 5 alternatives implies that this allows Amazon to narrow the field by a factor of 25 (5^2) -- so if they sold 25000 copies of this ebook, they know that the pirates are among -these- 1000 people.
Adding a third book to the mix, is enough to (on the average) remove 1.85 of these 2 identifiers, leaving them with 5^0.15 = 1.3 bits of information to identify you by -- good luck with that !
There's smarter schemes, but the short story is, comparing multiple watermarked books makes it possible to detect and remove the watermarks. You're gonna need more books the higher portion of words are changed.
True. But that's easier than you suppose. Remember that pirates have easy access to any number of copies of the work.
Given 5 copies of the same ebook from Amazon, it's trivial to see which words *differ* between those copies; those are the words you want to change, end of story.
I agree. Sometimes war is nessecary. But it's really bloody hard to see it as "nessecary" for USA to conduct on the order of 50 military operations abroad after WW-II. (some of which where called 'wars' and others where called 'operations', but all had American soldiers participating in armed combat on the territory of another country)
Some wars are nessecary, but not all wars are.
Offcourse the dog consumes resources. It consumes the food it eats (that food was produced somehow, then transported somehow, packaged somehow etc), you don't magically make that go away by cooking too much.
Typical western-pet-dogs also receive medical care, have various objects and so on. All of which consumes resources.
A dog probably consumes an amount of resources comparable to any other hobby with a similar price.
(price and consumption isn't identical measures, there's expensive things that pollute little, and cheap things that pollute a lot, but despite this it does tend to be a reasonable proxy-indicator in many cases)
The EU isn't a country. Different nations have different taxes. Some require VAT to be paid on books, and others don't. (here in Norway, there's no VAT on books, nor any other tax)
Any :-)
Atleast I don't know of -any- bank in Norway that doesn't use two-factor authenthication for online banking. Most of them even use bankID, a compatible system, that means you can authenthicate on 2 different banks using the same fnob. (YES, this means if you lose the fnob and password, both accounts are compromised)
The bank offering SMS-ed one-time-passwords as an alternative to that is Skandiabanken.
If you're in the US, I can't help you. I don't know what banks there use, sorry.
We've got tan-by-list too. But the tan's are on a credit-card-sized card, with the kind of film over them that you can scratch of with a coin or nail.
Makes it easy to carry on you, and stops people from photocopying the card, even if they could get hold of it for a minute. Sure, they could scratch of all the film, and THEN copy the card, but you'd notice that, hopefully. (atleast you'd have a chance of noticing it)
The point of two-factor authenthication is that when you need TWO factors, which are independent, it's a lot harder for a criminal to learn both than if you need only one.
To get into my account a criminal need to know my password AND intercept an SMS sent to my mobile phone.
This is a lot harder to do than *only* know my password. A keylogger or virus on my computer could conceivably steal my passwords and mail them to russia or wherever. It'd have a harder time doing that -AND- intercepting SMS-traffic to my mobile phone.
As I said, SMS by itself isn't impossible to intercept. But when you need to do that in -addition- to sniffing my password, the bar is raised significantly.
It's not a "usb-fob" it's a completely disconnected fob with a small lcd-display from which you read the one-time-pass and enter it into the login-form, using your eyes and fingers.
Sure, it could be sniffed on entry, that's where the "one-time" comes in, the info is useless, because next login, a different pass will be required.
You can spend a fortune defending yourself against any number of accusations, despite being completely innocent.
That sucks, but isn't spesific to this or similar cases.
A good thing judges aren't robots. Besides, pretty much -all- laws and rulings have exceptions for when there's a bloody good reason for doing the thing that's normally forbidden.
It's not normally allowed to use a baseball bat to crush the window of your neighbours car. If you do it to get him out of the locked wreck after an accident though, you're not merely in the green, but potentially a fucking hero.
True, but it doens't have to be that expensive to do right. My bank offers two different solutions for the second-factor. One is s crypto-key tokenthing that they send you to hang on your keychain. (so you log in with a password + a 5-digit security token from the gadget)
The other is, quite simply your mobile phone. You enter your username and password, if correct, they send you a SMS with a 5-char one-time-password, you enter this and are in.
Yes, it adds 10 seconds to the login-procedure, but it's a very efficient way of stopping keyloggers and malware from learning how to access your account. Even if they successfully snoop your password, that doesn't help them aslong as they can't ALSO intercept SMS-traffic to your cellphone. This isn't IMPOSSIBLE offcourse, but it sure as hell raises the bar.
The most common reason for restraining orders is harassment and/or abuse. It's a judge saying: You leave that person the hell alone, or face the consequences.
And a wink, a smile, or a wave sure as hell counts as communication in this context, as do calling the victim and hanging up after one ring and a million other ways of harassing someone.
The part which you're missing is that though a wink, or a poke, or a wave, doesn't by itself contain a lot of communication, if someone who has a history of harassing or abusing you, persist in showing up in your life, despite being ORDERED by a judge to stop doing that, it sure as hell is harassment. And the judge sure as hell is correct in slapping that kind of behaviour down with whatever punishment seems appropriate.
It sure as fucking hell is "communication" in the spirit of it.
Listen, it's very bloody simple: A judge ORDERED you to leave some person alone. Do NOT approach them. Do NOT contact them. Do NOT communicate with them in any way.
If you show up outside their house, and wave at them, or at their facebook-page and poke them, or send a SMS, or in any other way directly contacts the person you're -NOT- allowed to contact, you're in violation. It's completely mindboggling that this is even a question.
Now, if she claimed she didn't do it -- say someone else used her account, that's a different thing, and then it'd come down to evidence. But assuming she did, she's guilty as hell. End of story.