Sure, you can have hurricanes with hot, humid weather, or you can have hurricanes with humid, hot weather.
I moved to Florida from the SF Bay Area a few years ago. I have yet to see a hurricane. The area that I live in hasn't seen a hurricane since something like 1994. That's only 5 years more recently than the Loma Prieta earthquake. The weather is usually in the high 70's or low 80's during the spring and fall. Most of the summer the weather hangs out around 92 degrees. Some summer days are nicer here than in the Bay Area (like when you have a high pressure system over the Sierra Nevada mountains). During the winter you might see some high 20's a few times, but it usually hangs out around 60-70 degrees. This is in North Florida.
...Any such devices like this would be removed from any car I buy...
Agreed! But the key work here is 'buy' - the implication being you buy it outright, and are the owner.
On the other hand, if you are financing through the dealer, the RO (registered owner) is the dealer, not you.
If you look at the Spireon tracking company's site, it states the purpose of the tracker:
"Like auto dealers, vehicle finance companies are turning to GPS vehicle tracking in order to offer loans to subprime buyers while minimizing their risk."
No, if you finance a car then the financier is the lien holder, not the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no way in hell that any financial institution would want to be the registered owner for Joe Blow's vehicle. The bank could be held liable if Joe Blow drove drunk and killed a school bus full of children or something insane like that.
it should ALWAYS be that the person sitting is in charge of making sure it is down.
Men sit down to poop, i don't hear them ever argue about who left the seat up, they just check before sitting.
common sense?
Hmmm. I get pissed at girlfriends when they come over and leave the seat down but the lid up. I hate staring into the gaping maw of the toilet bowl every time I need to walk into the bathroom. Furthermore, at a previous home, someone put a cabinet above the toilet. Can't tell you how many times I accidentally dropped something into the bowl from the cabinet shelf. Now the seat and the lid are second nature to me.
Ulbricht was not very smart. He bought fake IDs off his own website and had them shipped to his actual home address. The IDs were intercepted in the mail. and this clued the FBI in on his activities. Then he managed his servers using a direct VPN connection. Once the FBI traced the VPN endpoint he was done. They coerced the hosting company to allow them access and they could collect all the information they needed to build a case from that point on.
I imagine this Defcon guy did something similarly dumb.
To do this right:
1. Find a VM hosting company offshore that accepts bitcoins and doesn't ask for identity.
2. Buy some bitcoins, use one of the many tumbler services to wash them, and pay for the services that way
3. Never manage or otherwise connect to your VM directly. Always use TOR. SSH works great over TOR.
4. Don't buy shit off your own website and have it shipped to your damn house.
Just finished reading the affidavit from the FBI. This guy was a dumbass. He used a gmail account to pay for the VPS service and used his home internet connection to connect to the gmail account. He used his own, hotel, and relatives internet connections to connect to the hosting provider without any sort of anonymizing service. The FBI used either an undercover agent or a confidential informant to eventually find the VPS provider. From there, he was quite easy to track. The FBI had been watching the guy for months. The affidavit suggested it was an undercover agent that was hired as a staff member on the website that lead to this case being cracked open.
The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.
Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.
While I don't doubt the intentions of Bill and others who want to try and people alive, sadly this is natures way of making sure the world doesn't get overcrowded. It's a sad fact but people NEED to die.
Are you volunteering to be the first to die for your cause? Or did you just mean that other people sh
Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.
The CIA has been using British intelligence to spy on US citizens since they were first banned from spying on citizens in 1976.
When banks started to issue VISA/MasterCard credit cards in my country (one of the ex-commie countries) some 15 years ago...
Basically, if someone swiped your card, you were screwed - hopefully you had a sufficiently low withdrawal/payment limit on the card, otherwise your account could have been completely emptied.
Not defending CurrentC here (can be pretty much even worse), but the illusion that a credit card is somehow more secure is really that - an illusion...
Maybe in your country credit card security is an illusion, but in the United States (where this battle is currently set to take place), it is not. If I use my ATM card at a store and my account gets stolen, I'm screwed. The bank does not have to give me back my money until after it concludes its investigation. With a credit card, the bank has to credit my account the disputed amount. All of the consumer protections are geared towards credit cards. CurrentC wants you to use your bank account in an EFT so that the retailers do not have to pay the credit card transaction fees. CurrentC provides zero advantage to consumers, and nothing but disadvantages over CC and Apple Pay. CurrentC will lose because it only benefits retailers. Unless they completely stop accepting credit card, no one will bother with CurrentC. And if they stopped accepting cards, then Amazon would be quite happy to take even more market share from brick and mortar retailers.
Obstructing VIN = Violation of the law, possible Ticket.
Sufficient probable cause for police to force entry into the vehicle to investigate.
That explains something. I am in the UK and have an American car. The VIN is visible in the windscreen, the first car I have ever known like that, and it puzzled me why. I thought perhaps to save opening the bonnet (sorry, hood) to quote it when ordering spare parts?
I know of no jurisdiction in the US that requires you to physically change license plates every year. In Florida, the license plate is owned by a person and can be registered with another car when the plate owner sells or transfers a car. In California, the plate is tied to the car and they will not issue you a new plate unless you buy a car that has been taken by lien, drug forfeiture, etc. We just have stickers that you put on the plate to show you've paid the fees for the year.
Perhaps because, in the USA, don't you physically change the licence plate every year? In the UK the licence plate is permanent and is all that the police nornally need to know. You could physically and illegally change the number plate for a false one, but so you could change my VIN in the windscreen - only looks like a strip of metal stamped with the characters.
Waiting 15 years is a better deal than everybody else gets. Everybody else gets to wait indefinitely; most have to realize a loss before it can be claimed. In other words, if you overpay for an asset you don't get to claim a loss until you sell that asset to somebody else.
No. He already paid for the team. So he has already realized the loss. The question is whether its a short term loss, or not. Either way, if you or I were to purchase a home and then sell it for a loss, we could choose to do the exact same thing: amortize the lost money over the course of many years. As a homeowner you're given the option of realizing the loss in a single tax year, an option he did not have with this loss. The only difference between this and a homeowner who loses money is the scale. The fact that most homeowners cannot afford to lose that kind of money is a separate issue having to do with wealth distribution.
"Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable" - bzzzt! This implies that they display the discomfort instead of internalizing, brooding and acting on it later. The dongle incident is a good example of your statement not working.
The victim in the dongle incident was unusually sensitive. That is why a key element in such cases is that the personal has to externalize their discomfort and tell the perpetrator that they are uncomfortable in the situation. If someone is unusually sensitive then the onus is on them to let people know. If you're doing or saying something that is questionable, it should be obvious, based on the person's reaction, whether you should stop.
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome.
No, you missed the point that the "victim" defines both of those conditions subjectively.
In any reasonable jurisdiction, harassment IS subjective to the receiver of the attention, but they must notify the culprit that they do not appreciate their attention. Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable with their behavior, and modify their behavior towards that person accordingly. Where it becomes tricky is when the harasser is in a position of authority. A subordinate may not feel like they can say no. In that case, it is up to others to determine whether or not it was reasonable for the harasser to know that their behavior was unappreciated.
If one tells it like it is puffery is fraud just as a salesman's soap is fraud. If a product is desireable enough no sales efforts are required. The reason that we have marketing and sales is that most products really are not desireable at all.
How do I know what a product does without sales or marketing? Someone has to know about it in order for word of mouth to take effect. And what is word of mouth but a viral marketing campaign? I agree that most products are average or mediocre, but to say that sales and marketing is completely useless on a desirable product is naivety at its finest.
My point is that you can't depend on the language to protect you. I'm not saying you should ignore good technology choices because you know better than those crazy compiler people. But I do not believe that it is possible to create something that is completely unhackable. Perhaps you can create something that is non-trivial to exploit, or that is unexploitable using known techniques, but that doesn't mean that you can create a software/hardware combination that is completely foolproof. There will always be risk associated with any device that is network accessible.
Tattoos can be damaged or destroyed. People can get your password when they video tape you undressing at a department store changing room, or even by implanting hidden cameras in your home. But I supposed if someone went to those efforts to get your pacemaker password, they would find some way to kill you.
Anything computerized with a network connection can (and most likely WILL) be hacked...
Not if you take appropriate precautions, like using a safe programming language.
Last I checked, programming languages are designed and implemented by human beings. Even if a programming language can decrease your attack surface, there could still be an exploit associated with the interpreter/compiler or a mistake in implementation of the language. When an omniscient being develops your language and its corresponding dev tools, I would say you may have a meaningful point.
I agree with you. Just wanted to say that it is natural for men and women to have different strengths and weaknesses (I mean this in a general way). I think it's a good thing. The real key is how they are treated, and how they treat others. Equality is a two way street. Men and women both need to accept that they, as individuals, have weaknesses and strengths and just get on with enjoying life.
I would argue that women are genetically predisposed to perform some tasks better than men, while the same is true for men as well. I know none of my girlfriends ever got me pregnant, or even given me a pregnancy scare!
It's a shame they differ. But let's face it, actually having Foo.bar and foo.bar, or worse still Foo.bar and Foo.BAR in the same directory is a silly thing to do.
I agree that it is not a best practice, but I have dealt with this issue before. Usually caused by someone who doesn't realize that they're dealing with a case-sensitive filesystem.
Downgrading an OS by a major version is asking to break it. The upgrade scripts will normally change various datafile formats and contents. That's not a reversible process unless there are equivalent scripts to go the other way. And what OS developer is going to put the same development and testing effort into going backwards?
Thats not to say that you can't in GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux lets you tinker with most things. But it generally offers no protection from breaking everything when you do so.
Of course the right thing to do regardless of platform is to make sure you do a complete backup before upgrading, so you can go back to that if you want to.
Go ahead and try to wipe the entire drive and then install an older version of MacOS. Put in a new drive and try to install an older version. They change something - I don't know if its in the SMC or something, but it will give you an error. I do not mean downgrading the OS on top of an existing install. I mean a fresh install of an older OS.
My Mac has been set up to be case insensitive. LS, GrEp, cAT, TAIl all behave as if they had been typed lowercase.
So? Why is this an issue?
Linux filesystems are, by default, case sensitive. I can have Foo.bar and foo.bar in the same directory. If my source control is set up properly, I can see and work with both files properly on Linux but not on Mac OS. You can use a case-sensitive filesystem in MacOS, but last time I tried the OS itself was very buggy and unpredictable when dealing with files. Perhaps this has been fixed since 10.8, I don't know, but the general rule of thumb is to NOT use a case-sensitive FS on MacOS.
These Ars OSX reviews have always been really impressive things, full of technical examination and as you can see, very long to write...
It made more sense to me back when you had to pay for an upgrade though, so you could see if it was worth getting. Now that it's free, the need for long technical examination seems to diminish...
That said I hope they keep doing them because it is nice to have a deep technical examination of what is new.
Apple makes it very difficult for the average person to downgrade after you upgrade OS. If you try and run, for instance, the Mavericks installer after having upgraded to Yosemite, it will fail and tell you to install a newer version of OS X. There may or may not be a way around this, I've never tried.
Slashdot Mirror
Weather wise - I mean - you can have your pick.
Sure, you can have hurricanes with hot, humid weather, or you can have hurricanes with humid, hot weather.
I moved to Florida from the SF Bay Area a few years ago. I have yet to see a hurricane. The area that I live in hasn't seen a hurricane since something like 1994. That's only 5 years more recently than the Loma Prieta earthquake. The weather is usually in the high 70's or low 80's during the spring and fall. Most of the summer the weather hangs out around 92 degrees. Some summer days are nicer here than in the Bay Area (like when you have a high pressure system over the Sierra Nevada mountains). During the winter you might see some high 20's a few times, but it usually hangs out around 60-70 degrees. This is in North Florida.
...Any such devices like this would be removed from any car I buy...
Agreed! But the key work here is 'buy' - the implication being you buy it outright, and are the owner.
On the other hand, if you are financing through the dealer, the RO (registered owner) is the dealer, not you.
If you look at the Spireon tracking company's site, it states the purpose of the tracker:
"Like auto dealers, vehicle finance companies are turning to GPS vehicle tracking in order to offer loans to subprime buyers while minimizing their risk."
No, if you finance a car then the financier is the lien holder, not the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no way in hell that any financial institution would want to be the registered owner for Joe Blow's vehicle. The bank could be held liable if Joe Blow drove drunk and killed a school bus full of children or something insane like that.
it should ALWAYS be that the person sitting is in charge of making sure it is down.
Men sit down to poop, i don't hear them ever argue about who left the seat up, they just check before sitting.
common sense?
Hmmm. I get pissed at girlfriends when they come over and leave the seat down but the lid up. I hate staring into the gaping maw of the toilet bowl every time I need to walk into the bathroom. Furthermore, at a previous home, someone put a cabinet above the toilet. Can't tell you how many times I accidentally dropped something into the bowl from the cabinet shelf. Now the seat and the lid are second nature to me.
It's completely possible.
Ulbricht was not very smart. He bought fake IDs off his own website and had them shipped to his actual home address. The IDs were intercepted in the mail. and this clued the FBI in on his activities. Then he managed his servers using a direct VPN connection. Once the FBI traced the VPN endpoint he was done. They coerced the hosting company to allow them access and they could collect all the information they needed to build a case from that point on.
I imagine this Defcon guy did something similarly dumb.
To do this right:
1. Find a VM hosting company offshore that accepts bitcoins and doesn't ask for identity. 2. Buy some bitcoins, use one of the many tumbler services to wash them, and pay for the services that way 3. Never manage or otherwise connect to your VM directly. Always use TOR. SSH works great over TOR. 4. Don't buy shit off your own website and have it shipped to your damn house.
Just finished reading the affidavit from the FBI. This guy was a dumbass. He used a gmail account to pay for the VPS service and used his home internet connection to connect to the gmail account. He used his own, hotel, and relatives internet connections to connect to the hosting provider without any sort of anonymizing service. The FBI used either an undercover agent or a confidential informant to eventually find the VPS provider. From there, he was quite easy to track. The FBI had been watching the guy for months. The affidavit suggested it was an undercover agent that was hired as a staff member on the website that lead to this case being cracked open.
The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.
Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.
While I don't doubt the intentions of Bill and others who want to try and people alive, sadly this is natures way of making sure the world doesn't get overcrowded. It's a sad fact but people NEED to die.
Are you volunteering to be the first to die for your cause? Or did you just mean that other people sh
Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.
The CIA has been using British intelligence to spy on US citizens since they were first banned from spying on citizens in 1976.
When banks started to issue VISA/MasterCard credit cards in my country (one of the ex-commie countries) some 15 years ago...
Basically, if someone swiped your card, you were screwed - hopefully you had a sufficiently low withdrawal/payment limit on the card, otherwise your account could have been completely emptied.
Not defending CurrentC here (can be pretty much even worse), but the illusion that a credit card is somehow more secure is really that - an illusion ...
Maybe in your country credit card security is an illusion, but in the United States (where this battle is currently set to take place), it is not. If I use my ATM card at a store and my account gets stolen, I'm screwed. The bank does not have to give me back my money until after it concludes its investigation. With a credit card, the bank has to credit my account the disputed amount. All of the consumer protections are geared towards credit cards. CurrentC wants you to use your bank account in an EFT so that the retailers do not have to pay the credit card transaction fees. CurrentC provides zero advantage to consumers, and nothing but disadvantages over CC and Apple Pay. CurrentC will lose because it only benefits retailers. Unless they completely stop accepting credit card, no one will bother with CurrentC. And if they stopped accepting cards, then Amazon would be quite happy to take even more market share from brick and mortar retailers.
Not sure what happened there... sorry for the messed up quote. User error I am sure.
Keep your VIN number covered up.
Obstructing VIN = Violation of the law, possible Ticket.
Sufficient probable cause for police to force entry into the vehicle to investigate.
That explains something. I am in the UK and have an American car. The VIN is visible in the windscreen, the first car I have ever known like that, and it puzzled me why. I thought perhaps to save opening the bonnet (sorry, hood) to quote it when ordering spare parts?
I know of no jurisdiction in the US that requires you to physically change license plates every year. In Florida, the license plate is owned by a person and can be registered with another car when the plate owner sells or transfers a car. In California, the plate is tied to the car and they will not issue you a new plate unless you buy a car that has been taken by lien, drug forfeiture, etc. We just have stickers that you put on the plate to show you've paid the fees for the year.
Perhaps because, in the USA, don't you physically change the licence plate every year? In the UK the licence plate is permanent and is all that the police nornally need to know. You could physically and illegally change the number plate for a false one, but so you could change my VIN in the windscreen - only looks like a strip of metal stamped with the characters.
Waiting 15 years is a better deal than everybody else gets. Everybody else gets to wait indefinitely; most have to realize a loss before it can be claimed. In other words, if you overpay for an asset you don't get to claim a loss until you sell that asset to somebody else.
No. He already paid for the team. So he has already realized the loss. The question is whether its a short term loss, or not. Either way, if you or I were to purchase a home and then sell it for a loss, we could choose to do the exact same thing: amortize the lost money over the course of many years. As a homeowner you're given the option of realizing the loss in a single tax year, an option he did not have with this loss. The only difference between this and a homeowner who loses money is the scale. The fact that most homeowners cannot afford to lose that kind of money is a separate issue having to do with wealth distribution.
"Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable" - bzzzt! This implies that they display the discomfort instead of internalizing, brooding and acting on it later. The dongle incident is a good example of your statement not working.
The victim in the dongle incident was unusually sensitive. That is why a key element in such cases is that the personal has to externalize their discomfort and tell the perpetrator that they are uncomfortable in the situation. If someone is unusually sensitive then the onus is on them to let people know. If you're doing or saying something that is questionable, it should be obvious, based on the person's reaction, whether you should stop.
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome. No, you missed the point that the "victim" defines both of those conditions subjectively.
In any reasonable jurisdiction, harassment IS subjective to the receiver of the attention, but they must notify the culprit that they do not appreciate their attention. Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable with their behavior, and modify their behavior towards that person accordingly. Where it becomes tricky is when the harasser is in a position of authority. A subordinate may not feel like they can say no. In that case, it is up to others to determine whether or not it was reasonable for the harasser to know that their behavior was unappreciated.
If one tells it like it is puffery is fraud just as a salesman's soap is fraud. If a product is desireable enough no sales efforts are required. The reason that we have marketing and sales is that most products really are not desireable at all.
How do I know what a product does without sales or marketing? Someone has to know about it in order for word of mouth to take effect. And what is word of mouth but a viral marketing campaign? I agree that most products are average or mediocre, but to say that sales and marketing is completely useless on a desirable product is naivety at its finest.
My point is that you can't depend on the language to protect you. I'm not saying you should ignore good technology choices because you know better than those crazy compiler people. But I do not believe that it is possible to create something that is completely unhackable. Perhaps you can create something that is non-trivial to exploit, or that is unexploitable using known techniques, but that doesn't mean that you can create a software/hardware combination that is completely foolproof. There will always be risk associated with any device that is network accessible.
Isn't galosh a shoe? I think you meant goulash...but not entirely sure...
I think he meant gulag. The AC has no retirement plan, and so was planning to retire to "Club Fed" so to speak.
Tattoos can be damaged or destroyed. People can get your password when they video tape you undressing at a department store changing room, or even by implanting hidden cameras in your home. But I supposed if someone went to those efforts to get your pacemaker password, they would find some way to kill you.
Not if you take appropriate precautions, like using a safe programming language.
Last I checked, programming languages are designed and implemented by human beings. Even if a programming language can decrease your attack surface, there could still be an exploit associated with the interpreter/compiler or a mistake in implementation of the language. When an omniscient being develops your language and its corresponding dev tools, I would say you may have a meaningful point.
And if you already have third party apps enabled for some reason?
I agree with you. Just wanted to say that it is natural for men and women to have different strengths and weaknesses (I mean this in a general way). I think it's a good thing. The real key is how they are treated, and how they treat others. Equality is a two way street. Men and women both need to accept that they, as individuals, have weaknesses and strengths and just get on with enjoying life.
I would argue that women are genetically predisposed to perform some tasks better than men, while the same is true for men as well. I know none of my girlfriends ever got me pregnant, or even given me a pregnancy scare!
It's a shame they differ. But let's face it, actually having Foo.bar and foo.bar, or worse still Foo.bar and Foo.BAR in the same directory is a silly thing to do.
I agree that it is not a best practice, but I have dealt with this issue before. Usually caused by someone who doesn't realize that they're dealing with a case-sensitive filesystem.
Downgrading an OS by a major version is asking to break it. The upgrade scripts will normally change various datafile formats and contents. That's not a reversible process unless there are equivalent scripts to go the other way. And what OS developer is going to put the same development and testing effort into going backwards?
Thats not to say that you can't in GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux lets you tinker with most things. But it generally offers no protection from breaking everything when you do so.
Of course the right thing to do regardless of platform is to make sure you do a complete backup before upgrading, so you can go back to that if you want to.
Go ahead and try to wipe the entire drive and then install an older version of MacOS. Put in a new drive and try to install an older version. They change something - I don't know if its in the SMC or something, but it will give you an error. I do not mean downgrading the OS on top of an existing install. I mean a fresh install of an older OS.
My Mac has been set up to be case insensitive. LS, GrEp, cAT, TAIl all behave as if they had been typed lowercase.
So? Why is this an issue?
Linux filesystems are, by default, case sensitive. I can have Foo.bar and foo.bar in the same directory. If my source control is set up properly, I can see and work with both files properly on Linux but not on Mac OS. You can use a case-sensitive filesystem in MacOS, but last time I tried the OS itself was very buggy and unpredictable when dealing with files. Perhaps this has been fixed since 10.8, I don't know, but the general rule of thumb is to NOT use a case-sensitive FS on MacOS.
These Ars OSX reviews have always been really impressive things, full of technical examination and as you can see, very long to write...
It made more sense to me back when you had to pay for an upgrade though, so you could see if it was worth getting. Now that it's free, the need for long technical examination seems to diminish...
That said I hope they keep doing them because it is nice to have a deep technical examination of what is new.
Apple makes it very difficult for the average person to downgrade after you upgrade OS. If you try and run, for instance, the Mavericks installer after having upgraded to Yosemite, it will fail and tell you to install a newer version of OS X. There may or may not be a way around this, I've never tried.