Rewriting arbitrary stuff on your screen is possible for any virus without "infesting" the GPU. You own the OS, so you can force the GPU to paint anything you want without running specialized code on it. Actually, simply changing the contents of your screen was all what most old DOS-virii did. The interesting part is the "hiding from detection" part, not the "yet another way to write stuff on the screen" part.
The classic home-user response regarding computer security: "I don't have data a hacker would want! LOL"
Well, they can't use your room as a bot-net to send SPAM out, but they might have sex in your bed.
There is a slight difference: I have exactly 3 roommates, and I have a certain trust in their social behaviour (and even IF they had sex in my bed, the damage would be pretty negligable. I sleep in hotel beds quite fine, where probably countless people had sex). On the internet, there are lots of malevolent people, who have a motivation to hack as much computers as they can, so I know not to trust the net.
Second that. Miele is one of the last german appliances manufacturer who are still producing in Germany and were not bought out by some cheap Whirl***-alike company. Prepare to pay a little more than usual, though.
I live in an appartment with 3 roommates who are not close friends, who often bring over people, and I don't lock my bedroom dor at all, even when I'm not at home (which is usually 4 days a week). I've been living that way for 5 years now, with changing roommates, and never missed anything. (Granted, I haven't anything of value in my room)
Short answer: 3G sucks for internet access. tlhIngan below has a more detailed explanation what happens when a phone dares to use data service.
Longer answer: Mobile telcos love to control the data flow. And when they designed data for 3G, they had more a "walled garden" concept in mind (which would have all services inside the operator network.) As they tried to include "internet" in their 3G design, they tried to keep all the control they have on their voice network. The result was a mind-boggingly complex architecture (that's also responsible for the huge latency data communication had in the first years of 3G). They tried to fix and patch up some of the flaws, but still, using that fancy 3G network for simple things like "permanent TCP connection to whereever" is more complex than any innocent bystander might imagine.
This is true only in a certain limited instance. This instance is only for a god that does not interfere with the world around us and, for all intents and purposes, does not affect it. The Christian god (and the Abrahamic god in general) does not follow this routine. The holy texts of these religions (and the followers themselves) all agree on one thing: God interferes with the day to day lives of his people.
Therefore - the absence of proof that this is the case is proof that the Abrahamic god does not exist. While obviously this cannot be taken as absolute proof against the existence of the god, to say that there is no proof is just as wrong.
Playing advocatus diabolus here (or in this case, advocatus dei?): There are plenty of people who will testify to have seen some "involvement" of their god. None of those acts are scientifically testable, and only seen by "believers", but you could argue that a god only shows himself to "true believers". In that case no atheist would ever see any proof of existance for a god, but "true believers" would (more or less frequently) see direct involvement of their god. So in conclusion, you can not disprove any god, even an involved one.
Following that logic, the world was flat until Galileo stated otherwise.
While I agree with the rest your post, the middle ages were not quite as dark as you think. It was pretty well known at the time of Galileo, that he earth was not flat. Actually that was known since the time of the greeks (and Eratosthenes even calculated the diameter pretty accurately in about 300 BC). Aristoteles was a proponent of a spherical earth, and Aristoteles was *the* most known philosopher during the middle ages, and much of his philosophy blended into christianity so a spherical earth was never really disputed by the Christianity. Actually, many of the struggles between scientists and the church in the middle ages was because the scientists contradicted Aristoteles, which was pretty close to sacrileg.
Galileo proposed a heliocentric system instead of the old earth-centric system, which got him into trouble with the church. (And he didn't invent the system, he merely defended the arguments made by Copernicus and backed those claims with actual observations, which makes him the father of modern astronomy.)
Road accidents per capita are not a good measure, because US citicens usually drive more (because the distances are usually greater in the US, and because the German public transportation system is better). And you should only count the accidents on motorways, because only there removing the speed limit makes sense. Accounting for that, the traffic fatality rate in the US on motorways per vehicle kilometer is about twice as high as in Germany.
The proposal is stupid. It is either safe to drive fast (i.e. the roads support the street, and laws like "left lane is only for passing" are in effect), than there is no argument for a speed limit at all. Or it is not safe to drive that fast, than is should be prohibited (and paying 25$ does not make it any more safe).
The main problem with paying for a speeding permit is that driving fast is only safe, if it is expected. If you are on the german Autobahn, where a big fraction of the casr drive fast, everybody expects fast cars and drives accordingly. If everybody is driving 55mph (or whatever the speed limit is in that state), and one single car drives 150mph, nobody will expect such a fast car.
Funnily enough, German Autobahn have about 1/2 the fatality rate of the US motorways [source]. While there are many countries in Europe with a lower fatality rate, most have a much smaller traffic density. (The exceptions beeing Switzerland, UK and the Netherlands)
Having said that - I'm pretty sure that there were larger roads that weren't part of the Autobaun that didn't have a limit. These tended to go for quite awhile without a town, were multiple lanes, and involved long stretches with clear views. But again - it's possible I just don't remember the law that well.
The actual law is: Outside of towns the general speed limit is 100 km/h. Autobahnen, roads that have at least two lanes per direction, and roads that have the directions divided by a median strip do not have a general speed limit.
On the Autobahn I allways have a free hand, even with manual transmission. Usually you can drive all speeds from 80 km/h up in the highest possible gear, and you only need to swith gears if there is some kind of traffic jam or you want some faster acceleration than the highest gear can provide at lower speeds. (Usually I have that "free" hand on my wheel, because at higher speeds I like the added security of beeing able to use both hands in case of unexpected obstacles)
Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are.
They are indeed demanding the driver's full attention (but driving should ALLWAYS take the drivers full attention. Dividing your attention between driving and something else is stupid at any speed) but they are definately far from beeing dangerous. Germany's Autobahns have a traffic fatality rate of 2.2 per billion km driven, the US fatality rate is 4.5 (data from june 2010, [source]).
except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go
The traffic density is higher than on US freeways, and most of the traffic jams originate in bottle necks like road works. In some cases the roads simply don't have enough capacity, especially the east-west routes (after 1990, Germany quickly transitioned from beeing the border country at the iron courtain to the major transit country for all trade between east and west Europe.). The speed limit has nothing to do with trafic jams.
did I mention that there's barely a highway segment in Germany that's really straight; I've heard that this is actually on purpose, but I'm not certain
That's not on purpose, that is because germany is heavily populated. You simply can't build a motorway in a straight line if you have some town every few kilometers.
While the prison system is definately a failure, GPS devices can also not reach all goals the prisons were intended to serve. Of the tree common goals of punishment (deterrence, protection of citizens, re-education), the current prison system fails (hard) at re-education. GPS will fail at protection (and probably at deterrance).
Actually quantum crypto requires Bob to communicate with Alice over an authenticated channel anyways (e.g. to check which polarisation filter was used for each measurement, and to check for eavesdropper). This channel can trivially be used to signal failures and/or attacs. (However, quantum crypto does not tell you where to find a perfectly secure authenticated channel)
No it doesn't – it just makes the software more expensive to write. It's entirely possible to write software that has key properties proved to be correct and bug free,
It's not only the software. There's a lot of hardware involved, most of which could have bugs of some kind (e.g. for this hack you'd have to prove that your sensor can reliably detect that it's still in "quantum mode"). And after you have proven a lot of properties off all your hard- and software, you'll have to prove that all those properties are actually sufficient for achieving perfect security.
Slashdot Mirror
Rewriting arbitrary stuff on your screen is possible for any virus without "infesting" the GPU. You own the OS, so you can force the GPU to paint anything you want without running specialized code on it. Actually, simply changing the contents of your screen was all what most old DOS-virii did. The interesting part is the "hiding from detection" part, not the "yet another way to write stuff on the screen" part.
The classic home-user response regarding computer security: "I don't have data a hacker would want! LOL"
Well, they can't use your room as a bot-net to send SPAM out, but they might have sex in your bed.
There is a slight difference: I have exactly 3 roommates, and I have a certain trust in their social behaviour (and even IF they had sex in my bed, the damage would be pretty negligable. I sleep in hotel beds quite fine, where probably countless people had sex). On the internet, there are lots of malevolent people, who have a motivation to hack as much computers as they can, so I know not to trust the net.
do they eat their own babies there?
You jest, but when my wife spend one year in a US high school, she was (seriously) asked if we had running water in Europe.
How's "Miele" for a start?
Second that. Miele is one of the last german appliances manufacturer who are still producing in Germany and were not bought out by some cheap Whirl***-alike company. Prepare to pay a little more than usual, though.
I live in an appartment with 3 roommates who are not close friends, who often bring over people, and I don't lock my bedroom dor at all, even when I'm not at home (which is usually 4 days a week). I've been living that way for 5 years now, with changing roommates, and never missed anything. (Granted, I haven't anything of value in my room)
I prefer having an unlocked bedroom door, owning no gun, and living in a town where I don't need to fear intruders at all.
With a scalpel?
The obvious difference is: Those drugs are illegal outside the plane, too. Shurikens are legal to own in the countries involved in that incident.
Short answer: 3G sucks for internet access. tlhIngan below has a more detailed explanation what happens when a phone dares to use data service.
Longer answer: Mobile telcos love to control the data flow. And when they designed data for 3G, they had more a "walled garden" concept in mind (which would have all services inside the operator network.) As they tried to include "internet" in their 3G design, they tried to keep all the control they have on their voice network. The result was a mind-boggingly complex architecture (that's also responsible for the huge latency data communication had in the first years of 3G). They tried to fix and patch up some of the flaws, but still, using that fancy 3G network for simple things like "permanent TCP connection to whereever" is more complex than any innocent bystander might imagine.
This is true only in a certain limited instance. This instance is only for a god that does not interfere with the world around us and, for all intents and purposes, does not affect it. The Christian god (and the Abrahamic god in general) does not follow this routine. The holy texts of these religions (and the followers themselves) all agree on one thing: God interferes with the day to day lives of his people.
Therefore - the absence of proof that this is the case is proof that the Abrahamic god does not exist. While obviously this cannot be taken as absolute proof against the existence of the god, to say that there is no proof is just as wrong.
Playing advocatus diabolus here (or in this case, advocatus dei?): There are plenty of people who will testify to have seen some "involvement" of their god. None of those acts are scientifically testable, and only seen by "believers", but you could argue that a god only shows himself to "true believers". In that case no atheist would ever see any proof of existance for a god, but "true believers" would (more or less frequently) see direct involvement of their god. So in conclusion, you can not disprove any god, even an involved one.
That sounded more likes peach wreck ignition
Which basically shows that a trial probably would have been even more expensive.
Following that logic, the world was flat until Galileo stated otherwise.
While I agree with the rest your post, the middle ages were not quite as dark as you think. It was pretty well known at the time of Galileo, that he earth was not flat. Actually that was known since the time of the greeks (and Eratosthenes even calculated the diameter pretty accurately in about 300 BC). Aristoteles was a proponent of a spherical earth, and Aristoteles was *the* most known philosopher during the middle ages, and much of his philosophy blended into christianity so a spherical earth was never really disputed by the Christianity. Actually, many of the struggles between scientists and the church in the middle ages was because the scientists contradicted Aristoteles, which was pretty close to sacrileg.
Galileo proposed a heliocentric system instead of the old earth-centric system, which got him into trouble with the church. (And he didn't invent the system, he merely defended the arguments made by Copernicus and backed those claims with actual observations, which makes him the father of modern astronomy.)
Not to defend the decision, but Elop is from the Office division, so you can hardly blame him for Microsoft's failure in the mobile market.
Road accidents per capita are not a good measure, because US citicens usually drive more (because the distances are usually greater in the US, and because the German public transportation system is better). And you should only count the accidents on motorways, because only there removing the speed limit makes sense. Accounting for that, the traffic fatality rate in the US on motorways per vehicle kilometer is about twice as high as in Germany.
The proposal is stupid. It is either safe to drive fast (i.e. the roads support the street, and laws like "left lane is only for passing" are in effect), than there is no argument for a speed limit at all. Or it is not safe to drive that fast, than is should be prohibited (and paying 25$ does not make it any more safe).
The main problem with paying for a speeding permit is that driving fast is only safe, if it is expected. If you are on the german Autobahn, where a big fraction of the casr drive fast, everybody expects fast cars and drives accordingly. If everybody is driving 55mph (or whatever the speed limit is in that state), and one single car drives 150mph, nobody will expect such a fast car.
Funnily enough, German Autobahn have about 1/2 the fatality rate of the US motorways [source]. While there are many countries in Europe with a lower fatality rate, most have a much smaller traffic density. (The exceptions beeing Switzerland, UK and the Netherlands)
Having said that - I'm pretty sure that there were larger roads that weren't part of the Autobaun that didn't have a limit. These tended to go for quite awhile without a town, were multiple lanes, and involved long stretches with clear views. But again - it's possible I just don't remember the law that well.
The actual law is: Outside of towns the general speed limit is 100 km/h. Autobahnen, roads that have at least two lanes per direction, and roads that have the directions divided by a median strip do not have a general speed limit.
On the Autobahn I allways have a free hand, even with manual transmission. Usually you can drive all speeds from 80 km/h up in the highest possible gear, and you only need to swith gears if there is some kind of traffic jam or you want some faster acceleration than the highest gear can provide at lower speeds. (Usually I have that "free" hand on my wheel, because at higher speeds I like the added security of beeing able to use both hands in case of unexpected obstacles)
Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are.
They are indeed demanding the driver's full attention (but driving should ALLWAYS take the drivers full attention. Dividing your attention between driving and something else is stupid at any speed) but they are definately far from beeing dangerous. Germany's Autobahns have a traffic fatality rate of 2.2 per billion km driven, the US fatality rate is 4.5 (data from june 2010, [source]).
except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go
The traffic density is higher than on US freeways, and most of the traffic jams originate in bottle necks like road works. In some cases the roads simply don't have enough capacity, especially the east-west routes (after 1990, Germany quickly transitioned from beeing the border country at the iron courtain to the major transit country for all trade between east and west Europe.). The speed limit has nothing to do with trafic jams.
did I mention that there's barely a highway segment in Germany that's really straight; I've heard that this is actually on purpose, but I'm not certain
That's not on purpose, that is because germany is heavily populated. You simply can't build a motorway in a straight line if you have some town every few kilometers.
Nice house, but I'd fear it's haunted by the ghosts of the countless unicorns he had to kill to keep SCOX un-dead for so long.
While the prison system is definately a failure, GPS devices can also not reach all goals the prisons were intended to serve. Of the tree common goals of punishment (deterrence, protection of citizens, re-education), the current prison system fails (hard) at re-education. GPS will fail at protection (and probably at deterrance).
No such thing as bad publicity!
I hear that one a lot. I guess Toyota (just to name a random example that got quite a bit of bad pulicity recently) would disagree.
Actually quantum crypto requires Bob to communicate with Alice over an authenticated channel anyways (e.g. to check which polarisation filter was used for each measurement, and to check for eavesdropper). This channel can trivially be used to signal failures and/or attacs. (However, quantum crypto does not tell you where to find a perfectly secure authenticated channel)
No it doesn't – it just makes the software more expensive to write. It's entirely possible to write software that has key properties proved to be correct and bug free,
It's not only the software. There's a lot of hardware involved, most of which could have bugs of some kind (e.g. for this hack you'd have to prove that your sensor can reliably detect that it's still in "quantum mode"). And after you have proven a lot of properties off all your hard- and software, you'll have to prove that all those properties are actually sufficient for achieving perfect security.