Please no. I don't want my bank to constantly interfere with my transactions. It has caused me quite sufficient problems already when traveling abroad, and suddenly the bank decides me spending money during my vacation looked suspicious and blocked my visa card. It's great fun being thousands of miles from home and not being able to access your own damn money.
The guy is a moron - someone would have found a way to trick him out of his money sooner or later. Sorry, but he was warned against everything he did to make that possible - he should bare the costs and learn from it.
Actually German banks generally use reasonable security. In this case, in order to make a transfer the customer needed to login to the bank site first, and then for each transaction he would need to enter a one-time TAN (transaction number). They give the customer a card with valid TANs beforehand.
Most German banks would go one further and do a challenge/response system. So the customer would have a sheet with numbered TANs and be prompted for a specific one. Many offer an mTAN (mobile TAN) system where the TAN is sent via SMS to the customer's cell phone.
In this case the customer was willing to enter 10 TANs (which under normal circumstances the bank's web site would *never* ask for - it's one number per transaction). Even if they had used the numbered TAN system - the attacker would probably have managed to get that customer to enter the numbers as well. Only mTAN would have prevented this.
Heck, even the unruly fat passenger who wants 30 bottles of vodka and is having the loud argument with the stewardess would be a lot nicer if he knew that there were 300 armed people on-board.
Because drunk people are well-known for behaving in a rational manner when agitated? He'd be armed too and much more likely to start a gun fight than any rational citizen.
It's like that car-analogy about having a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel -- people would drive more reasonably if the probability was much higher that they wouldn't even survive a fender-bender.
Which is wrong. Basically cars used to be built like that in the 50s - it wasn't exactly a spike, but in accidents the steering wheel would come apart when a body hit it, and what was left would act like a spike.
US engineers improved that design, and as a result fatalities dropped significantly. Sure - some people might feel safer due to that improved design and take more risks, but that's outweighed by majority who don't and still profit from the safer designs. Certainly the effect you refer to exists, but the technical safety improvements more than compensate for it.
All these guys want to do is not to be that fall guy.
So what's stopping the TSA agent to ask the whole family to go into a separate room, give them time to calm the child and when she was recovered and feeling save, do the pat down with the child holding the grandmother's hand. Just for example? Like a normal human being would?
Abusing the child doesn't save any time, and it doesn't improve security. As for the retards choosing to abuse the child: they deserve the crap they get.
There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child.
Never mind "no reason" - they need to be punished for that, it's child abuse.
Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there.
Man, my daughter cries just because I leave for work. These guys must be total and and utter retards. Whoever came up with that procedure, and whoever is willing to follow it must be fired immediately. And it really shouldn't end there, there should be punishment for behavior like that.
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
Why should I care if my eBook is multi-platform if I'm only ever going to read it on one platform?
Are you absolutely certain you will only use one platform, and will only buy books from one supplier for the next twenty years? You don't think within this time frame some new device will come out - similar to e.g. the iPad did - and you'll get this device and will want to have the content you already paid for available on it?
Don't you think at the speed new devices are developed these days, some company will introduce something to the market with an entirely new display technology - much better than e-ink, super-amoled and retina display together? Are you sure it will be your currently preferred vendor who'll pioneer that new device?
They split the company - e.g. the semiconductor division is now Freescale, so you hear less of them because they are now a smaller company. Also Motorola is being bought by Google for the patents - they probably want to show they are worth it.
Well, let's say you want to make a calculation like this:
y =( a+b ) - c*8 + e/2 (operand size is 74 bits, for division we ignore the remainder, values are such that there is no overflow)
Building specialized hardware you can do that in a single clock cycle at basically negligible costs. Serializing this into a CPU, execution takes a lot longer and implementation (i.e. the CPU cost) is relatively expensive. Just reading from flash typically takes several clock cycles on an SOC. (High speed flash is still slow in comparison to ordinary logic.)
Let's say you have a few hundred expressions like in the example - if you don't mind adding more adders and subtractors you can run all of these in parallel if you use custom hardware.
It will do the usual what every single one of these tools do: it will tell you that the printf statement is not supported.
I don't remember how many of these bullshit claims I've heard in my career as an ASIC designer. Basically C is not a language suitable to describe chips, so none of these tools will work outside the niche they are intended for (DSP mostly, and yes they are good for that).
C is closely mapped to the workings of a CPU, and it does a fine job for that. However if you write an algorithm which - e.g. allocates memory (pretty trivial for C isn't it?) you need to have that memory physically available on the chip. It's not a good idea to write an algorithm which allocates a lot of that, because your chip will become expensive. So you need to carefully think about the max amount.
Also hardware is inherently parallel - every little piece can run independently. Using C you have just about no tools to make use of that. It is after all a language which is supposed to run optimally on a CPU, and that executes instructions sequencially. The compiler may take advantage of the fact that your algorithm runs better with three multiplier units rather than one, and will probably give you that. However ultimately: either you know what you have in mind when you write the algorithm, or at best you'll get a choice between crap performance or high cost.
Now let's say you want a multi-core SOC sharing the same Flash memory and resetting itself if the operating voltage falls below a certain threshold. How do you describe that in C? It's possible, but it's not possible in the way you write software, and once it comes to writing C in that manner, you'll find it's not particularly suitable for the task. (Surprise, that's not what it's intended for - it's supposed to be executed by systems like that, not to build the systems.)
This is usually the point where the "synthesize your C algorithm to an SOC" folkd start to add custom extensions. And this is also the point where you find that there are already specialized languages available for SOCs which understand what a signal is, which support gate-level simulation and clock-domain crossings which have tools available for doing logic equivalence checking, which are portable between tool vendors and are IEEE standardized. Why not use one which already works instead of going back to what we had decades ago? Because "synthesize your C algorithm" makes a great marketing slide.
Well it should be a US responsibility, because the US is an extremely rich country. If there are no better jobs in the US than staffing call centers, then something is going very wrong and that needs to be addressed within the US. Having low-level workers fight over scraps is not an acceptable situation.
Capitalism is fine as long as it provides reasonable opportunities for basically everyone (of course some people can't be helped, that's understood). If capitalism does not manage to provide that, then it needs to be reigned-in. I don't have a problem with a few people becoming absurdly rich - good for them. However if that's only possible by everybody else becoming poor - well then the system needs to be changed to avoid that.
AOL does that still exist? It looks like we Slashdotters are old now. I think the current procedure is to create a facebook group "People who are no longer my spouse" and invite them.
If there is not enough demand to make it worthwhile, then maybe not every university needs a CS department? There is not exactly a lot of computer-related industry in Florida.
So they lose all their users from Germany to dailymotion.com, clipfish.de and so on. And GEMA will simply move on to sue the next biggest competitor until it finds one who will accept the deal.
German users will get used to using a different site and forget about the whole thing eventually. Besides the Pirateparty is already set to take >10% of the vote in Germany, it seems unlikely that disabling youtube would help them grow even faster than that.
GEMA doesn't care if it's not 100% correct for the fee calculation, they can live with the small loss because they think it still earns them a lot more money.
They only want 100% accuracy for the upload filter because they know that can't be done, and they want to force Google to agree to the per-view calculation.
Too much of a hassle really. Vacationing in Canada is definitely an option though.
Last time I went to Singapore the immigration agent said "welcome to Singapore" and offered me candy. Singapore has it's own problems, but that was damn civilized.
On the other hand, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't want the government to know how much money I have in the bank
I don't see why they should have the right to know that. It's my money, I earned it, I saved it. Nobody else needs to know how much it is - just me and the bank. Excepted if there was reasonable suspicion of me being involved in a crime and a warrant issued by a judge.
Of course taxes should be paid on interest, but that ought to be collected by the bank directly, the existing exceptions on paying taxes on interest are silly anyway.
Me too. I used to live in the US, have lots of friends there still - some even with nice houses and pools in great vacation areas. I used to go regularly, but I'm staying away now. I've avoided all business trips to the US as well. (Travel is sometimes required in my job, but not that required that I couldn't weasel my way out of it if I really don't want to. ) For quite a while too - starting sometime during Bush's first term and now well into his third. (Yeah I know...)
I don't believe the US is worse than China or whatever.
Nor am I imagining I'm achieving something via a boycott or something like that - I simply don't want to go anymore. I miss going diving with my friends in FL, and I would love to go with my wife and see some broadway shows in NYC and of course my wife would want to visit her sister in California. I miss the US, but... I just don't want to go anymore.
Bias means to have a specific world view, and then consciously or consciously interpreting what you see according to that world view. That can make you miss certain things, it can make you overemphasize something which might not actually as important as you think etc. While nobody can be completely free of bias, we can strive to report things as objectively as we can and minimize the effect. That might not be perfect but it's honest and ethical.
Being paid to write something is not bias. If you are honest about it, then you basically represent your client and give them the opportunity to present their view to the public - that can still be ethical depending on the methods you use. If you hide the fact that you are paid to represent something on behalf of your client, then there is no way you are acting ethically anymore.
This isn't an opinion piece by the Sun though - it's the "Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection". You discount what they say at your peril...
I agree, there's the ones who actually go by what the book says
I think there is basically nobody who does that - they all cherry-pick. Some focus on the nice parts trying to be better people and some focus on the backwards parts justifying the hatred and fear they already have. E.g. you find few Christians who justify their hate of homosexuality on the bible and then also follow the dietary laws and argue for slavery.
In any case nobody gets their morality from their holy books - no matter what religious background, most people come to the same conclusions when they consider fundamental moral dilemmas.
UMaple was after all making money from software written by MapleStory, without their permission
So what? If the users legally obtained the software, they don't owe MapleStory any further income.
ObCarAnalogy: If you buy a car you don't need to have it serviced by the manufacturer, you don't need to buy fuel from them and you can get your tires elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Please no. I don't want my bank to constantly interfere with my transactions. It has caused me quite sufficient problems already when traveling abroad, and suddenly the bank decides me spending money during my vacation looked suspicious and blocked my visa card. It's great fun being thousands of miles from home and not being able to access your own damn money.
The guy is a moron - someone would have found a way to trick him out of his money sooner or later. Sorry, but he was warned against everything he did to make that possible - he should bare the costs and learn from it.
Actually German banks generally use reasonable security. In this case, in order to make a transfer the customer needed to login to the bank site first, and then for each transaction he would need to enter a one-time TAN (transaction number). They give the customer a card with valid TANs beforehand.
Most German banks would go one further and do a challenge/response system. So the customer would have a sheet with numbered TANs and be prompted for a specific one. Many offer an mTAN (mobile TAN) system where the TAN is sent via SMS to the customer's cell phone.
In this case the customer was willing to enter 10 TANs (which under normal circumstances the bank's web site would *never* ask for - it's one number per transaction). Even if they had used the numbered TAN system - the attacker would probably have managed to get that customer to enter the numbers as well. Only mTAN would have prevented this.
I think the court made the right decision there.
Heck, even the unruly fat passenger who wants 30 bottles of vodka and is having the loud argument with the stewardess would be a lot nicer if he knew that there were 300 armed people on-board.
Because drunk people are well-known for behaving in a rational manner when agitated? He'd be armed too and much more likely to start a gun fight than any rational citizen.
It's like that car-analogy about having a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel -- people would drive more reasonably if the probability was much higher that they wouldn't even survive a fender-bender.
Which is wrong. Basically cars used to be built like that in the 50s - it wasn't exactly a spike, but in accidents the steering wheel would come apart when a body hit it, and what was left would act like a spike.
US engineers improved that design, and as a result fatalities dropped significantly. Sure - some people might feel safer due to that improved design and take more risks, but that's outweighed by majority who don't and still profit from the safer designs. Certainly the effect you refer to exists, but the technical safety improvements more than compensate for it.
All these guys want to do is not to be that fall guy.
So what's stopping the TSA agent to ask the whole family to go into a separate room, give them time to calm the child and when she was recovered and feeling save, do the pat down with the child holding the grandmother's hand. Just for example? Like a normal human being would?
Abusing the child doesn't save any time, and it doesn't improve security. As for the retards choosing to abuse the child: they deserve the crap they get.
Here is the classic: Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.
There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child.
Never mind "no reason" - they need to be punished for that, it's child abuse.
Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there.
Man, my daughter cries just because I leave for work. These guys must be total and and utter retards. Whoever came up with that procedure, and whoever is willing to follow it must be fired immediately. And it really shouldn't end there, there should be punishment for behavior like that.
Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
Why should I care if my eBook is multi-platform if I'm only ever going to read it on one platform?
Are you absolutely certain you will only use one platform, and will only buy books from one supplier for the next twenty years? You don't think within this time frame some new device will come out - similar to e.g. the iPad did - and you'll get this device and will want to have the content you already paid for available on it?
Don't you think at the speed new devices are developed these days, some company will introduce something to the market with an entirely new display technology - much better than e-ink, super-amoled and retina display together? Are you sure it will be your currently preferred vendor who'll pioneer that new device?
They split the company - e.g. the semiconductor division is now Freescale, so you hear less of them because they are now a smaller company. Also Motorola is being bought by Google for the patents - they probably want to show they are worth it.
Well, let's say you want to make a calculation like this:
y =( a+b ) - c*8 + e/2 (operand size is 74 bits, for division we ignore the remainder, values are such that there is no overflow)
Building specialized hardware you can do that in a single clock cycle at basically negligible costs. Serializing this into a CPU, execution takes a lot longer and implementation (i.e. the CPU cost) is relatively expensive. Just reading from flash typically takes several clock cycles on an SOC. (High speed flash is still slow in comparison to ordinary logic.)
Let's say you have a few hundred expressions like in the example - if you don't mind adding more adders and subtractors you can run all of these in parallel if you use custom hardware.
It will do the usual what every single one of these tools do: it will tell you that the printf statement is not supported.
I don't remember how many of these bullshit claims I've heard in my career as an ASIC designer. Basically C is not a language suitable to describe chips, so none of these tools will work outside the niche they are intended for (DSP mostly, and yes they are good for that).
C is closely mapped to the workings of a CPU, and it does a fine job for that. However if you write an algorithm which - e.g. allocates memory (pretty trivial for C isn't it?) you need to have that memory physically available on the chip. It's not a good idea to write an algorithm which allocates a lot of that, because your chip will become expensive. So you need to carefully think about the max amount.
Also hardware is inherently parallel - every little piece can run independently. Using C you have just about no tools to make use of that. It is after all a language which is supposed to run optimally on a CPU, and that executes instructions sequencially. The compiler may take advantage of the fact that your algorithm runs better with three multiplier units rather than one, and will probably give you that. However ultimately: either you know what you have in mind when you write the algorithm, or at best you'll get a choice between crap performance or high cost.
Now let's say you want a multi-core SOC sharing the same Flash memory and resetting itself if the operating voltage falls below a certain threshold. How do you describe that in C? It's possible, but it's not possible in the way you write software, and once it comes to writing C in that manner, you'll find it's not particularly suitable for the task. (Surprise, that's not what it's intended for - it's supposed to be executed by systems like that, not to build the systems.)
This is usually the point where the "synthesize your C algorithm to an SOC" folkd start to add custom extensions. And this is also the point where you find that there are already specialized languages available for SOCs which understand what a signal is, which support gate-level simulation and clock-domain crossings which have tools available for doing logic equivalence checking, which are portable between tool vendors and are IEEE standardized. Why not use one which already works instead of going back to what we had decades ago? Because "synthesize your C algorithm" makes a great marketing slide.
Well it should be a US responsibility, because the US is an extremely rich country. If there are no better jobs in the US than staffing call centers, then something is going very wrong and that needs to be addressed within the US. Having low-level workers fight over scraps is not an acceptable situation.
Capitalism is fine as long as it provides reasonable opportunities for basically everyone (of course some people can't be helped, that's understood). If capitalism does not manage to provide that, then it needs to be reigned-in. I don't have a problem with a few people becoming absurdly rich - good for them. However if that's only possible by everybody else becoming poor - well then the system needs to be changed to avoid that.
like being dumped over AOL Instant Messenger.
AOL does that still exist? It looks like we Slashdotters are old now. I think the current procedure is to create a facebook group "People who are no longer my spouse" and invite them.
Perhaps at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Miami.
If there is not enough demand to make it worthwhile, then maybe not every university needs a CS department? There is not exactly a lot of computer-related industry in Florida.
So they lose all their users from Germany to dailymotion.com, clipfish.de and so on. And GEMA will simply move on to sue the next biggest competitor until it finds one who will accept the deal.
German users will get used to using a different site and forget about the whole thing eventually. Besides the Pirateparty is already set to take >10% of the vote in Germany, it seems unlikely that disabling youtube would help them grow even faster than that.
GEMA doesn't care if it's not 100% correct for the fee calculation, they can live with the small loss because they think it still earns them a lot more money.
They only want 100% accuracy for the upload filter because they know that can't be done, and they want to force Google to agree to the per-view calculation.
Too much of a hassle really. Vacationing in Canada is definitely an option though.
Last time I went to Singapore the immigration agent said "welcome to Singapore" and offered me candy. Singapore has it's own problems, but that was damn civilized.
On the other hand, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't want the government to know how much money I have in the bank
I don't see why they should have the right to know that. It's my money, I earned it, I saved it. Nobody else needs to know how much it is - just me and the bank. Excepted if there was reasonable suspicion of me being involved in a crime and a warrant issued by a judge.
Of course taxes should be paid on interest, but that ought to be collected by the bank directly, the existing exceptions on paying taxes on interest are silly anyway.
Me too. I used to live in the US, have lots of friends there still - some even with nice houses and pools in great vacation areas. I used to go regularly, but I'm staying away now. I've avoided all business trips to the US as well. (Travel is sometimes required in my job, but not that required that I couldn't weasel my way out of it if I really don't want to. ) For quite a while too - starting sometime during Bush's first term and now well into his third. (Yeah I know ...)
I don't believe the US is worse than China or whatever. Nor am I imagining I'm achieving something via a boycott or something like that - I simply don't want to go anymore. I miss going diving with my friends in FL, and I would love to go with my wife and see some broadway shows in NYC and of course my wife would want to visit her sister in California. I miss the US, but ... I just don't want to go anymore.
Bias means to have a specific world view, and then consciously or consciously interpreting what you see according to that world view. That can make you miss certain things, it can make you overemphasize something which might not actually as important as you think etc. While nobody can be completely free of bias, we can strive to report things as objectively as we can and minimize the effect. That might not be perfect but it's honest and ethical.
Being paid to write something is not bias. If you are honest about it, then you basically represent your client and give them the opportunity to present their view to the public - that can still be ethical depending on the methods you use. If you hide the fact that you are paid to represent something on behalf of your client, then there is no way you are acting ethically anymore.
That would mean you entered a contract with the car manufacturer. It's not the problem of the petrol station though - they don't have such a contract.
This isn't an opinion piece by the Sun though - it's the "Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection". You discount what they say at your peril ...
I agree, there's the ones who actually go by what the book says
I think there is basically nobody who does that - they all cherry-pick. Some focus on the nice parts trying to be better people and some focus on the backwards parts justifying the hatred and fear they already have. E.g. you find few Christians who justify their hate of homosexuality on the bible and then also follow the dietary laws and argue for slavery.
In any case nobody gets their morality from their holy books - no matter what religious background, most people come to the same conclusions when they consider fundamental moral dilemmas.
UMaple was after all making money from software written by MapleStory, without their permission
So what? If the users legally obtained the software, they don't owe MapleStory any further income.
ObCarAnalogy: If you buy a car you don't need to have it serviced by the manufacturer, you don't need to buy fuel from them and you can get your tires elsewhere.
They have already built it, they've spend a lot on marketing, they are now even losing money on a sale. There is nothing left to try.
They made the wrong decision, they need to try and reverse it while they still have some capital left.