Saying that they don't have to bound to what they said in (virtual) writing because people didnt actually read the policy does not excuse Northwest, or others, from their obligations.
Along these lines, I might not read the policy but find out about its content from other sources, like a privacy website or something like Consumer Reports. I might be better informed through third-party sources who have more expertise and time to devote to the task than me.
And on the new trusted computing architecture machines, attempting to compile any program crashes the machine (well, and sends notification to the police).
Do you know how nice it is to take your iBook, Vaio, whatever, down to the local park and have free high-speed WiFi access? Thanks to these people (and others!), some day you will.
With the incredible power provided to us by modern CPU's, efficiency is just about completely irrelevant for 99% of non-game applications. Think... when was the last time you thought "This word processor just doesn't respond to my keypresses fast enough." or "AIM takes way too long to open a new IM window."? The reason why these programs aren't getting "faster" (as the article complains) is because there is no way to do so. They spend 99.9% of their time waiting for user input already.
Nowadays the OS and other libraries provide common media services, like video and audio playback, so even processor-intensive things are mostly outside application code.
When Apple moved from 68K to PowerPC processors, they added a 68K emulator to run old apps. Many of them run just fine because they call the OS to do most significant operations, which run in native PowerPC. I think that Microsoft had an issue where their newer PowerPC-native word processor ran slower than the older 68K version because PowerPC code is larger on average and was taxing the cache.
It might be that in the future interpreted application code runs faster because it places less of a burden on the cache. I/O isn't keeping up with CPU speeds.
Assuming the primary goal is performance, the blunt reality is that about 90% of the code is irrelevant as to impacting that performance. Any screweys in that code, particularly trying to "improve" performance, will have indirect deletorious effects on that performance.
Performance can be improved only by changes to a small portion of the code, but correctness can be disturbed by changes to any secion of code. Thus, when optimizing one wants to change only that code responsible for performance, and as little as possible.
So I went w/ this model and it's had great payoffs--when I need a particular login, I click on an alias to my main password (Pastor) file, enter the file's password to decrypt it, look for what I need (it alphabetizes), and I'm all set--meanwhile, there's absolutely no risk of security--I love it.
So by having a single password, you gain security?
...to keep Windows users from realizing they're seeing the blue-screen-of-death for the nth time. "I don't know what it is about Windows, but I can tell it when I see it."
Come on! These backdoors provide a convenient excuse when you're charged with breaking the law by accessing illegal content over your connection. If the vendor told you of their presence, you wouldn't be able to use them as a defense. Er wait, if you didn't know of them... hmmm...
Something I've always wondered: just how resistant are these HDs to (physical) shocks?
Halve the size of a hard drive (halve each dimension) and its mass becomes 1/8 of its original, while cross-sections of internal components become 1/4 of what they were. Strength is determined by cross-section, thus every component's strength-to-load ratio is doubled.
Of course, small drives aren't exact scaled-down versions of larger drives.
For instance, your phrase could be "Jack and Jill went up the hill", so your password would be, "JJW!TH". Then you add a number to it that you can remember, for instance, the last four of your phone number reversed. So JJW!TH9834. Now throw in something unique from each site you visit. Take Google, perhaps Jack and Jill don't go up the hill, they go to Google: JJW!TGGL9834.
How about using passwords which look like normal addresses of things? This gives them built-in steganographic qualities, so way they can be written along with other addresses of the same type and won't stand out if you happen to be on a machine with keystroke logging. Examples include phone numbers, website addresses, e-mail-like usernames (remember, they can be made-up).
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that they don't have to bound to what they said in (virtual) writing because people didnt actually read the policy does not excuse Northwest, or others, from their obligations.
Along these lines, I might not read the policy but find out about its content from other sources, like a privacy website or something like Consumer Reports. I might be better informed through third-party sources who have more expertise and time to devote to the task than me.
Seller information
lingjr (255)
Feedback Score: 255
What a fitting feedback score too, just waiting to roll over.
And on the new trusted computing architecture machines, attempting to compile any program crashes the machine (well, and sends notification to the police).
Do you know how nice it is to take your iBook, Vaio, whatever, down to the local park and have free high-speed WiFi access? Thanks to these people (and others!), some day you will.
How much nicer to leave the junk at home.
With the incredible power provided to us by modern CPU's, efficiency is just about completely irrelevant for 99% of non-game applications. Think... when was the last time you thought "This word processor just doesn't respond to my keypresses fast enough." or "AIM takes way too long to open a new IM window."? The reason why these programs aren't getting "faster" (as the article complains) is because there is no way to do so. They spend 99.9% of their time waiting for user input already.
Nowadays the OS and other libraries provide common media services, like video and audio playback, so even processor-intensive things are mostly outside application code.
When Apple moved from 68K to PowerPC processors, they added a 68K emulator to run old apps. Many of them run just fine because they call the OS to do most significant operations, which run in native PowerPC. I think that Microsoft had an issue where their newer PowerPC-native word processor ran slower than the older 68K version because PowerPC code is larger on average and was taxing the cache.
It might be that in the future interpreted application code runs faster because it places less of a burden on the cache. I/O isn't keeping up with CPU speeds.
Assuming the primary goal is performance, the blunt reality is that about 90% of the code is irrelevant as to impacting that performance. Any screweys in that code, particularly trying to "improve" performance, will have indirect deletorious effects on that performance.
Performance can be improved only by changes to a small portion of the code, but correctness can be disturbed by changes to any secion of code. Thus, when optimizing one wants to change only that code responsible for performance, and as little as possible.
Perhaps there's money to be made in performing this sort of destructive service for banks and other entities handling sensitive customer information.
Maybe, but there's definitely money to be made in performing apparent destructive services on sensitive data...
Stop, timothy... we've heard this joke before. In fact, you seem to post this same story every nine months or so.
So... Slashdot is like those hard drives, with old data still hanging around to come across if you're bored.
It's so convenient to make notes in source code. Isn't that what our computers are for, to manage our data? Compare this
with the verbose
Oh man, I need to pay my electric bill...
Of course, I've used the same password for years and nobody's figured it out yet.
Or maybe you've used the same password for years and haven't figured out that somebody else has.
So I went w/ this model and it's had great payoffs--when I need a particular login, I click on an alias to my main password (Pastor) file, enter the file's password to decrypt it, look for what I need (it alphabetizes), and I'm all set--meanwhile, there's absolutely no risk of security--I love it.
So by having a single password, you gain security?
WHAT IS CAPS LOCK? THANKS.
If I can hear it, I can copy it.
Aha! That's the solution: make it impossible to hear! Boss will surely compensate me well for this...
...to keep Windows users from realizing they're seeing the blue-screen-of-death for the nth time. "I don't know what it is about Windows, but I can tell it when I see it."
Come on! These backdoors provide a convenient excuse when you're charged with breaking the law by accessing illegal content over your connection. If the vendor told you of their presence, you wouldn't be able to use them as a defense. Er wait, if you didn't know of them... hmmm...
"The FBI announced today that TCBY (The Country's Best Yogurt) has been shut down until further notice under section 817 of the PATRIOT Act."
So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?
The more that we try to "fight" bacteria the more our civilization becomes prone to simple infection.
Oh no! Is there a way we can stop this "simple infection"?
Something I've always wondered: just how resistant are these HDs to (physical) shocks?
Halve the size of a hard drive (halve each dimension) and its mass becomes 1/8 of its original, while cross-sections of internal components become 1/4 of what they were. Strength is determined by cross-section, thus every component's strength-to-load ratio is doubled.
Of course, small drives aren't exact scaled-down versions of larger drives.
For instance, your phrase could be "Jack and Jill went up the hill", so your password would be, "JJW!TH". Then you add a number to it that you can remember, for instance, the last four of your phone number reversed. So JJW!TH9834. Now throw in something unique from each site you visit. Take Google, perhaps Jack and Jill don't go up the hill, they go to Google: JJW!TGGL9834.
How about using passwords which look like normal addresses of things? This gives them built-in steganographic qualities, so way they can be written along with other addresses of the same type and won't stand out if you happen to be on a machine with keystroke logging. Examples include phone numbers, website addresses, e-mail-like usernames (remember, they can be made-up).
Yeah and then someone will hack it to show a different message than you entered (you'd only notice if you waved it to yourself or in a mirror).
There is also a wikipedia article about the Colossus computer , perhaps more relevant.
It only matches the speed of a modern PC at the single task it was designed for.
Yeah, they're still trying to figure out how to make it crash as often.
This thing runs Windows 98 with a scan of the original boombox' front panel as background image.
Running Windows is a good way to make it go "boom!"
Yeah, all those dogs in a RAID array... sure to run fast.
Unfortunately when a member craps out it's a little messier to rectify...
imagine penthouse printed out in this size format....
It's their new response to piracy: make the images so large that it's easier to just buy the magazine.