It's is short for it is or it has. This is a 100% rule. It cannot be used for anything else. If you cannot expand it's to it is or it has, then it is wrong.
The only reason not to do would be if you knew someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Or worse, if you didn't know someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Not telling the sysadmins of the world that their systems are potentially at risk is a far worse crime than telling the attackers that they assuredly are.
...a mobile phone capable of receiving SMS messages...
I have yet to see an implementation of 2-factor authentication that uses this method; only poorly written articles by journalists who have misunderstood what they've read, and repetition of said articles by misinformed slashdot commenters.
Where were you that you were using 10baseT ethernet in the 80s?
Although it technically existed, the standard wasn't published until 1990. I personally didn't have any interaction with it until around 1992.
I have never seen with my own eyes anyone using 10baseT over Cat 3 cabling. I've heard rumors, but never seen it. In my experience, prior to the introduction of Cat 5 most people who were using 10baseT were doing so over coaxial cable.
Cat 5 cabling wasn't introduced until 1991 or 1992, and wasn't widely available for commercial use until sometime in the mid 90s.
"While the headset is light and fits well, the player can't wear glasses under the current design. If you move the display further from your head you lose field of view. There are things they can do with sharpness in the software, or they can create adjustable optics that remove the need for glasses, but those are problems that will be solved in the retail version. "Astigmatism I could correct for with a fragment program," Carmack told me without skipping a beat. This is the world we live in; your vision problems can be solved in software."
if biometrics are used to back up the assertion of the username...
Biometrics is intended to replace the username, not "back it up".
... in a supplied username/password combo (in 2-factor authentication)...
Username/password combinations are NOT 2-factor authentication. 2-factor authentication is more along the line of the OP's first two examples of something you have plus something you know. For instance, my gmail account is secured using Google's 2-factor implementation and my smartphone:
We can't call it stealing while simultaneously taking the stance that copying MP3s (or any other data) isn't stealing because the original data has not been lost to the original owner.
If you believe that you can be in a society and not affect other members of your society (especially the young, impressionable ones, and the ones that aren't so happy with their status quo), then you've been sober and plain ignorant way too long.
There, fixed it proper. Argument remains the same.
You are the man. Best 99 cents I've ever spent in my life.
I bought it a week or two ago, and not many nights have gone by that I haven't played it at least for a little while sitting at the bar waiting for friends to show up.
I have to admit though, the one thing I don't like about it is the graphics. The lack of ASCII definitely makes the game feel oddly different even though the mechanics are the same.
Now go make me a NetHack port... I'll pay triple for it!
The problem (annoyance really) with this is twofold:
1. Your Labels list on the left hand side of Gmail becomes bigger than necessary. I want to see Clients and Friends on the quickpick list there, but I don't want to see Joe, Mark, and Betty.
2. You cannot "drill down" through your labels as you can with folders, because there is no hierarchy.
-Tommy
P.S. I use my labels as the parent described, and keep my inbox empty of all items unless they require attention. I just wish they had a heirarchy.
Provinical or not, he should have realized that Will Robinson was not a reference to himself, seeing as he had just failed to login, and therefore could not be identified at all.
I asked the class why they chose a square structure to build their tower in. One particularly energetic imp told me it was clearly the most stable. I corrected him and said that actually a dome is a more stable structure. But he persisted and asked why were 99% of buildings made in a square formation. I really didn't have an answer... so I kind of filibustered.
I can't help but wonder what answer you were expecting to your own question that wouldn't have provided the answer to the student's exact same question.
'Infinera has bonded 10 parallel 10 Gb/s channels into one logical flow while maintaining packet ordering at the receiver,' bridging 100-Gbps ethernet over 10 10-Gbps optical WAN links.
So what's preventing them from taking 10 of these newly created 100GbE channels, applying the same technique, and producing 1TbE?
Why must an addiction to content be seen as an addiction to the medium by which that content is conveyed?
In the 80s, when 900 numbers were at their peak, and you regulary heard and saw reports of people being addicted to paying for phone sex, they never called it "telephone addiction".
I find it really hard to believe that "More than 8% of those surveyed said they hid internet use from family, friends and employers" actually applies to using the internet, but is much more likely that they are hiding what they are using the internet for (porn, video games, downloading music, etc.)
It is this fundamental misunderstanding of the internet as being content rather than the means by which content is conveyed that seems to be the main source of all this mislead reporting and "research".
Worse, it is causing a lot of misdiagnosis of people with real and obvious problems, which is in turn preventing them from getting proper help.
So, IOW, killing in self-defense, killing in the heat of passion, and killing in a deliberately planned retribution for the victim having looked at you wrong 20 years earlier, all ought to be treated the same, since intent and other similar subjective factors are the only differences?
They shouldn't be treated differently because of intent, they should be treated differently because of the situation. Killing in self-defense is situationally different than the other two (which should probably be treated the same), assuming that there is sufficient evidence that there was good reason to believe you were in danger. But attempting to legislate by claiming to know what a person was thinking is simply unreasonable.
On a tangent, many people think that killing in the heat of passion (or similar temporary insanity situations) is somehow more forgivable than pre-meditated murder. I would argue the opposite, that people who are incapable of keeping such emotions in control are more of a danger to society, and possibly deserve more severe punishments as a deterrent to others who might "lose control".
I wouldn't want to see any ridiculous attempts at legislating it though.
Slashdot Mirror
It's is short for it is or it has. This is a 100% rule. It cannot be used for anything else. If you cannot expand it's to it is or it has, then it is wrong.
Its
Its is like his and her.
Read more at http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/its_its.htm#ofYKtpWvWVT8w4VO.99
The only reason not to do would be if you knew someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Or worse, if you didn't know someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Not telling the sysadmins of the world that their systems are potentially at risk is a far worse crime than telling the attackers that they assuredly are.
...a mobile phone capable of receiving SMS messages...
I have yet to see an implementation of 2-factor authentication that uses this method; only poorly written articles by journalists who have misunderstood what they've read, and repetition of said articles by misinformed slashdot commenters.
Can you provide evidence of one that does?
That's called 10base2 when you run it on coax.
Correct. Good catch. It has been a long time.
I've seen 10baseT run on cat3.
Was it in the 80s?
-Tommy
Where were you that you were using 10baseT ethernet in the 80s?
Although it technically existed, the standard wasn't published until 1990. I personally didn't have any interaction with it until around 1992.
I have never seen with my own eyes anyone using 10baseT over Cat 3 cabling. I've heard rumors, but never seen it. In my experience, prior to the introduction of Cat 5 most people who were using 10baseT were doing so over coaxial cable.
Cat 5 cabling wasn't introduced until 1991 or 1992, and wasn't widely available for commercial use until sometime in the mid 90s.
-Tommy
Impossible? Care to explain why?
Carmack seems to think otherwise:
"While the headset is light and fits well, the player can't wear glasses under the current design. If you move the display further from your head you lose field of view. There are things they can do with sharpness in the software, or they can create adjustable optics that remove the need for glasses, but those are problems that will be solved in the retail version. "Astigmatism I could correct for with a fragment program," Carmack told me without skipping a beat. This is the world we live in; your vision problems can be solved in software."
From:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/behind-the-scenes-with-the-oculus-rift-the-hardware-that-could-change-the-w
And I just realized that you ARE the OP.
Imaginary mod points back at ya.
if biometrics are used to back up the assertion of the username ...
Biometrics is intended to replace the username, not "back it up".
Username/password combinations are NOT 2-factor authentication. 2-factor authentication is more along the line of the OP's first two examples of something you have plus something you know. For instance, my gmail account is secured using Google's 2-factor implementation and my smartphone:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in-security-for-your.html
... they feel a little more like authentication than identification to me.
Hopefully this is no longer the case.
Biometrics are not and should not be used for authentication at all, they fall under the category of identification.
Good article on the differences between Identification, Authentication, and Authorization here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512578.aspx
There is even a section which addresses biometrics specifically.
What are you suggesting it is a euphemism for?
We can't call it stealing while simultaneously taking the stance that copying MP3s (or any other data) isn't stealing because the original data has not been lost to the original owner.
I think what you're saying doesn't apply to Pi, because Pi is not random.
My understanding is that it is infinite, and it never repeats. Wouldn't it therefore have to contain every possible pattern?
You should maybe re-read the quote because it implies exactly what you said.
It does not say, "Don't memorize something that is in a book."
Without building a framework of knowledge to begin with, you would not know how or where to look up what you don't need to memorize.
If you believe that you can be in a society and not affect other members of your society (especially the young, impressionable ones, and the ones that aren't so happy with their status quo), then you've been sober and plain ignorant way too long.
There, fixed it proper. Argument remains the same.
-Tommy
You are the man. Best 99 cents I've ever spent in my life.
I bought it a week or two ago, and not many nights have gone by that I haven't played it at least for a little while sitting at the bar waiting for friends to show up.
I have to admit though, the one thing I don't like about it is the graphics. The lack of ASCII definitely makes the game feel oddly different even though the mechanics are the same.
Now go make me a NetHack port... I'll pay triple for it!
-Tommy
The problem (annoyance really) with this is twofold:
1. Your Labels list on the left hand side of Gmail becomes bigger than necessary. I want to see Clients and Friends on the quickpick list there, but I don't want to see Joe, Mark, and Betty.
2. You cannot "drill down" through your labels as you can with folders, because there is no hierarchy.
-Tommy
P.S. I use my labels as the parent described, and keep my inbox empty of all items unless they require attention. I just wish they had a heirarchy.
Provinical or not, he should have realized that Will Robinson was not a reference to himself, seeing as he had just failed to login , and therefore could not be identified at all.
So, something happened 6 years ago, and nobody knew what it was.
They still don't.
Where's the fucking news?
-Tommy
So, since I won't eat any of the animals in existence, you're going to eat three times as many animals as there are in existence?
Good luck with that.
-Tommy
As far as I can tell, the software industry to this day has never learned this.
-Tommy
I can't help but wonder what answer you were expecting to your own question that wouldn't have provided the answer to the student's exact same question.
-Tommy
The award for "Best Troll" in 2007 is going to be a tough competition.
-Tommy
So what's preventing them from taking 10 of these newly created 100GbE channels, applying the same technique, and producing 1TbE?
-Tommy
In the 80s, when 900 numbers were at their peak, and you regulary heard and saw reports of people being addicted to paying for phone sex, they never called it "telephone addiction".
I find it really hard to believe that "More than 8% of those surveyed said they hid internet use from family, friends and employers" actually applies to using the internet, but is much more likely that they are hiding what they are using the internet for (porn, video games, downloading music, etc.)
It is this fundamental misunderstanding of the internet as being content rather than the means by which content is conveyed that seems to be the main source of all this mislead reporting and "research".
Worse, it is causing a lot of misdiagnosis of people with real and obvious problems, which is in turn preventing them from getting proper help.
-Tommy
They shouldn't be treated differently because of intent, they should be treated differently because of the situation. Killing in self-defense is situationally different than the other two (which should probably be treated the same), assuming that there is sufficient evidence that there was good reason to believe you were in danger. But attempting to legislate by claiming to know what a person was thinking is simply unreasonable.
On a tangent, many people think that killing in the heat of passion (or similar temporary insanity situations) is somehow more forgivable than pre-meditated murder. I would argue the opposite, that people who are incapable of keeping such emotions in control are more of a danger to society, and possibly deserve more severe punishments as a deterrent to others who might "lose control".
I wouldn't want to see any ridiculous attempts at legislating it though.
-Tommy
P.S. IANAL