Better question, why do email applications default to sending unencrypted e-mail in the first place? The default should be encryption turned on.
You can't default to something that requires a preliminary exchange of information. While you can encrypt the SMTP exchanges, the e-mail itself can only be meaningfully encrypted if the recipient transmits his key to the sender beforehand (using a mechanism that prevents a man in the middle attack on the key exchange).
If you don't claim in advertisements (including on the label of the object) that it has medical benefits, you can sell almost any vaguely-safe crap you want.
For fuck's sake, Slashdot: Not every scam is a Ponzi scheme. Not every situation is just like 1984. Not all science is about global warming. Not everything is about the free market.
Informing yourself about IPO rules is pretty unlikely. They're not exactly simple. On the other hand, not hiring a bevy of financial advisers and lawyers and then taking their advice? Pretty dumb.
a) No antivirus software was present on Diginotar's servers;
As per the XKCD, if this is a problem, you're already doing it wrong. Antivirus software won't save you against sophisticated attacks, only unsophisticated ones. CAs need to be safer than that.
b) 'the most critical servers' had malicious software infections;
Probably because of (c).
c) The software installed on the public web servers was outdated and not patched;
Seriously, everyone who runs a business should know not to do this.
and d) all servers were accessible by one user/password combination, which was 'not very strong and could easily be brute-forced.
Well, that's just stupid.
So (c) and (d) are the real problems, and they're pretty obviously problems.
Part of the reason is that they're legally barred from entering into other lines of business. It came hand-in-hand with the substantial legal protections they get.
Only that doing it on-duty would be more stupid. (It's fairly difficult to have a reasonably large group of cops go and do something on-duty without anyone else knowing about it.)
It seems pretty unlikely, since Apple would know that the story would get out and they already know that an iPhone prototype loose in the wild is pretty decent publicity, so it's a very stupid idea. Still, if they actually did it, I think it's likely that it will not be cheap at all, and I think they'll deserve everything they get for pulling such a stunt.
It probably even won't be cheap if it's Apple pulling a hoax. It seems a lot more likely that it's a blogger or other attention-seeker out to generate press for some reason. Hopefully they won't be hard on him.
Exactly. An experienced law enforcement officer would know how to do this a lot better than what was described. At the very least, they'd know that having a bunch of cops doing a "favor" off-duty for what will undoubtedly be at least a minor news story is a really stupid idea.
given that the cables were available very widely to (as I understand it) millions of US folks already. I simply don't believe that documents shared with 7 figures of people, security cleared or no, don't find their way to people who have an interest in such things.
You can't actually get access to those documents solely by virtue of having Secret or Top Secret clearance.
It can increase locally, temporarily, but a decrease in entropy here requires a larger entropy increase elsewhere in the universe. As we are part of the universe, if the universe's entropy is always-increasing, so must we eventually be stuck with a commensurate entropy increase.
Yes, it will take a ridiculously long time. Still, it's technically true that even pedantic definitions of "resources" are finite.
The universe as a whole is a single isolated system.
Alternately, the second law still applies if you consider the universe to consist of two interacting systems: your non-isolated system (e.g., Earth) and the rest of the Universe. Your system (Earth) can lose entropy as long as the rest of the Universe gains at least as much entropy.
Second law still applies -- it's just that you can probably manage for longer by harvesting free energy outside of Earth.
Quantum teleportation is a much more boring operating in quantum computing: it's the exchange operator, where the state of qbit A and the state of qbit B are swapped. This is a valid and boring procedure.
Further, you can make it destructive, since you can set either of the two qbits to the zero state. To set qbit A to zero, you measure qbit A, which puts it in either the state 0 or the state 1 (with probability depending on its original state). You then apply the controlled-not operator so that it's bit-flipped if and only if it is in the 1 state -- ensuring that it ends in state zero. Thus, you can move qbit A's state to qbit B and then destroy the value in qbit A.
You technically *can* copy the state of a qbit, but it has a nasty side effect. This is, essentially, the "no-cloning" theorem. If you copy the state of qbit A to qbit B, you end up with a A-B entangled system. As a result, if you measure qbit A and it collapses to a coherent state, qbit B always collapses to the same coherent state. "Cloning" (what a normal person would think of copying) is producing a system where qbits A and B have the same state but are not entangled. That turns out to be impossible.
(although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...)
That's funded by the NSF (rather than being an earmark) and cost half a million dollars. That means it's probably more expensive for Congress to spend time ensuring that it doesn't get funded than to do nothing.
But then, it's really just a talking point. It comes from a list put together by someone who hates the NSF and doesn't understand science. His list never includes what the intended or actual research results were, just whatever piece of information about the research can be used to inflame his supporters.
This is only true if "resources" is strictly the same as "matter", and note then that it's not really true. Not only do light gases and a small number of space exploration objects leave Earth forever, but radioactive elements are being converted (more or less irreversibly) into different elements.
Only the sum total of energy in the Universe is really conserved by conservation of energy (matter).
However, lots of resources aren't just matter -- from a physics perspective, both harnessable energy and particular chemical configurations are valuable resources.
Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, the total amount of harnessable energy (not just per capita) is always decreasing.
Most of the people who really would have benefited from bike helmets aren't around to say so.
Fortunately, that's not really relevant to the question of whether it's a reasonable risk to modify the orbit of an asteroid for the purposes of mining.
Nope. Windows Maximize keeps the window from overlapping the taskbar (if you don't have an autohide taskbar) and preserves the window chrome (close/min/max button, border). Zoom's behavior is a lot weirder. For large-window applications, it's the same as Maximize. For windows that don't benefit from being made larger than a certain amount, it expands them to this "ideal" size. Some evil applications (iTunes) modify the behavior of Zoom to be something less logical. C'est la vie. OS X full-screen suppresses window chrome and the taskbar. It really works almost the same (though with better window manager integration) as application-directed fullscreen, which is not an OS feature in Windows.
I'm confused what you're referring to. Both Windows and OS X have supported full-screen applications for programs that are explicitly written to be full-screen (e.g., games) for ages. Certainly on OS X, since the first version (and also on earlier versions of Mac OS).
The new OS X feature is to full-screen windows of arbitrary programs. It's slightly different from maximizing. Maximizing windows has been available in Windows for ages, but has also been available in OS X for ages (again, since the first version, and in earlier Mac OS as well). Are you referring to some other feature in Windows that is not maximizing and not program-explicit fullscreen?
Slashdot Mirror
Better question, why do email applications default to sending unencrypted e-mail in the first place? The default should be encryption turned on.
You can't default to something that requires a preliminary exchange of information. While you can encrypt the SMTP exchanges, the e-mail itself can only be meaningfully encrypted if the recipient transmits his key to the sender beforehand (using a mechanism that prevents a man in the middle attack on the key exchange).
Magnetic fields do no work.
If you don't claim in advertisements (including on the label of the object) that it has medical benefits, you can sell almost any vaguely-safe crap you want.
Not that I disagree, but the same can be said of a lot of services -- discount chains, social media platforms, etc.
and a kind of Ponzi scheme
For fuck's sake, Slashdot:
Not every scam is a Ponzi scheme.
Not every situation is just like 1984.
Not all science is about global warming.
Not everything is about the free market.
Groupon is not anything like a Ponzi scheme.
Informing yourself about IPO rules is pretty unlikely. They're not exactly simple. On the other hand, not hiring a bevy of financial advisers and lawyers and then taking their advice? Pretty dumb.
a) No antivirus software was present on Diginotar's servers;
As per the XKCD, if this is a problem, you're already doing it wrong. Antivirus software won't save you against sophisticated attacks, only unsophisticated ones. CAs need to be safer than that.
b) 'the most critical servers' had malicious software infections;
Probably because of (c).
c) The software installed on the public web servers was outdated and not patched;
Seriously, everyone who runs a business should know not to do this.
and d) all servers were accessible by one user/password combination, which was 'not very strong and could easily be brute-forced.
Well, that's just stupid.
So (c) and (d) are the real problems, and they're pretty obviously problems.
Well, more to the point, if you paid him $0 a year, you would have done absolutely nothing to fix their shortfalls.
Part of the reason is that they're legally barred from entering into other lines of business. It came hand-in-hand with the substantial legal protections they get.
Only that doing it on-duty would be more stupid. (It's fairly difficult to have a reasonably large group of cops go and do something on-duty without anyone else knowing about it.)
It seems pretty unlikely, since Apple would know that the story would get out and they already know that an iPhone prototype loose in the wild is pretty decent publicity, so it's a very stupid idea. Still, if they actually did it, I think it's likely that it will not be cheap at all, and I think they'll deserve everything they get for pulling such a stunt.
It probably even won't be cheap if it's Apple pulling a hoax. It seems a lot more likely that it's a blogger or other attention-seeker out to generate press for some reason. Hopefully they won't be hard on him.
Exactly. An experienced law enforcement officer would know how to do this a lot better than what was described. At the very least, they'd know that having a bunch of cops doing a "favor" off-duty for what will undoubtedly be at least a minor news story is a really stupid idea.
given that the cables were available very widely to (as I understand it) millions of US folks already. I simply don't believe that documents shared with 7 figures of people, security cleared or no, don't find their way to people who have an interest in such things.
You can't actually get access to those documents solely by virtue of having Secret or Top Secret clearance.
Only if you're in the state 1/sqrt(2) * ( |accurate> + |inaccurate> )
It can increase locally, temporarily, but a decrease in entropy here requires a larger entropy increase elsewhere in the universe. As we are part of the universe, if the universe's entropy is always-increasing, so must we eventually be stuck with a commensurate entropy increase.
Yes, it will take a ridiculously long time. Still, it's technically true that even pedantic definitions of "resources" are finite.
The universe as a whole is a single isolated system.
Alternately, the second law still applies if you consider the universe to consist of two interacting systems: your non-isolated system (e.g., Earth) and the rest of the Universe. Your system (Earth) can lose entropy as long as the rest of the Universe gains at least as much entropy.
Second law still applies -- it's just that you can probably manage for longer by harvesting free energy outside of Earth.
Quantum teleportation is a much more boring operating in quantum computing: it's the exchange operator, where the state of qbit A and the state of qbit B are swapped. This is a valid and boring procedure.
Further, you can make it destructive, since you can set either of the two qbits to the zero state. To set qbit A to zero, you measure qbit A, which puts it in either the state 0 or the state 1 (with probability depending on its original state). You then apply the controlled-not operator so that it's bit-flipped if and only if it is in the 1 state -- ensuring that it ends in state zero. Thus, you can move qbit A's state to qbit B and then destroy the value in qbit A.
You technically *can* copy the state of a qbit, but it has a nasty side effect. This is, essentially, the "no-cloning" theorem. If you copy the state of qbit A to qbit B, you end up with a A-B entangled system. As a result, if you measure qbit A and it collapses to a coherent state, qbit B always collapses to the same coherent state. "Cloning" (what a normal person would think of copying) is producing a system where qbits A and B have the same state but are not entangled. That turns out to be impossible.
Please do not make up quantum mechanics and pass it off as accurate.
(although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...)
That's funded by the NSF (rather than being an earmark) and cost half a million dollars. That means it's probably more expensive for Congress to spend time ensuring that it doesn't get funded than to do nothing.
But then, it's really just a talking point. It comes from a list put together by someone who hates the NSF and doesn't understand science. His list never includes what the intended or actual research results were, just whatever piece of information about the research can be used to inflame his supporters.
This is only true if "resources" is strictly the same as "matter", and note then that it's not really true. Not only do light gases and a small number of space exploration objects leave Earth forever, but radioactive elements are being converted (more or less irreversibly) into different elements.
Only the sum total of energy in the Universe is really conserved by conservation of energy (matter).
However, lots of resources aren't just matter -- from a physics perspective, both harnessable energy and particular chemical configurations are valuable resources.
Thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, the total amount of harnessable energy (not just per capita) is always decreasing.
Bike helmets didn't exist
Most of the people who really would have benefited from bike helmets aren't around to say so.
Fortunately, that's not really relevant to the question of whether it's a reasonable risk to modify the orbit of an asteroid for the purposes of mining.
As long as __does_program_halt__ has 3 states (true, false, unknown), that's pretty reasonable, though useless.
Nope. Windows Maximize keeps the window from overlapping the taskbar (if you don't have an autohide taskbar) and preserves the window chrome (close/min/max button, border). Zoom's behavior is a lot weirder. For large-window applications, it's the same as Maximize. For windows that don't benefit from being made larger than a certain amount, it expands them to this "ideal" size. Some evil applications (iTunes) modify the behavior of Zoom to be something less logical. C'est la vie. OS X full-screen suppresses window chrome and the taskbar. It really works almost the same (though with better window manager integration) as application-directed fullscreen, which is not an OS feature in Windows.
I'm pretty sure you were able to do this in OS 9 as well.
I'm confused what you're referring to. Both Windows and OS X have supported full-screen applications for programs that are explicitly written to be full-screen (e.g., games) for ages. Certainly on OS X, since the first version (and also on earlier versions of Mac OS).
The new OS X feature is to full-screen windows of arbitrary programs. It's slightly different from maximizing. Maximizing windows has been available in Windows for ages, but has also been available in OS X for ages (again, since the first version, and in earlier Mac OS as well). Are you referring to some other feature in Windows that is not maximizing and not program-explicit fullscreen?