Passing the Turing test, when it comes to contests like these, has mostly changed from an attempt to create artificial intelligence into an attempt to convincingly simulate human stupidity.
This "hack" requires user-level privileges. "User-level" means equivalent to a non-administrator running a.exe file.
Chrome resides in the user folder rather than the Program Files folder. This is by design: a non-administrator user can install and update Chrome, without the installer/updater having to ask for administrator privileges.
In other words, if user-level code can update Chrome, user-level code can just as easily mess with Chrome itself. Or, for that matter, encrypt the user's data files using long encryption keys, then pop up messages telling the user "pay us $50 and we'll give you the encryption key to get your data back". Yes, that's a problem, and the problem is users who run executable files that they shouldn't. While non-administrator users shouldn't have the ability to hose their OS, they can easily hose their data. Since Chrome resides (by design) in their "data", obviously they can hose Chrome. This is no surprise.
Furthermore, web pages shouldn't be able to get user-level privileges. They'd first have to break out of the browser's sandbox. So this isn't actually remote code execution, unless there's some way to remotely execute user-level code already. And when one of those leaks is found, you bet it's a critical bug and they'll immediately start writing a patch for it.
Both this "leak" and the "floodgates" are already protected by what already protects the user from any random.exe file found on the web: the browser's sandbox, and the user himself.
17 is completely legal in most states, by the way. The only thing she cannot do is consent to model for pornographic materials, because that's a Federal law and requires models to be 18. The age of consent for engaging in consensual sexual activities is either 16 or 17 in the majority of the US. As long as you don't take any pictures of her that could be considered pornographic, the Feds will have absolutely nothing against you.
Salt contains 39% sodium and 61% chlorine by weight. 100% sodium is a dangerous metal which explodes in a reaction with water that produces hydrogen gas, lye, and lots of heat. Elemental chlorine is a deadly green gas that forms hydrochloric acid when it hits moisture, such as in your lungs if it's inhaled.
It's not a compound, it's a molecule. That mercury isn't just running around free.
You've heard of that experiment with iron filings and powdered sulfur, yes? The one where you mix them, then separate them with a magnet, then mix them again and heat them over a Bunsen burner? And then it no longer sticks to your magnet, because you've turned that iron and sulfur into iron sulfide, FeS. Unlike iron, it's non-magnetic and doesn't conduct electricity; unlike sulfur, it won't burn. In general, it doesn't resemble either iron or sulfur.
Same thing here. It's not mercury, it's a molecule containing mercury. It's not at all the same.
I did a stumble around Google and gathered the following.
Mercury in the coal burned annually by power plants in the US: 75 T Mercury released by coal-burning power plants in the US, annually: 50 T Percent of power used for lighting: 10% CFL energy use: 1/3 as much as incandescent
Note first of all that we're already filtering out 25 T of mercury from ever entering the environment. That's great.
So we can presently blame 5 T of mercury on lighting. If we replaced every light bulb in the country overnight with CFLs, which use 1/3 as much energy, we could reduce that to about 1.7 T. Then power plants would only be releasing about 46.7 T of mercury per year.
Net gain so far from switching to CFLs: 3.3 T less mercury in the environment. Not as impressive as the 25 T we saved by improving filtration at the power plants, but any little bit helps, right?
CFLs sold per year: 300 million Incandescents sold per year: 1.2 billion Life expectancy of CFLs: 5x longer than incandescent
For simplicity again, assume 0% CFL use at some starting point, and assume that's not going to change the 1.5 billion bulbs sold per year very much. If we assume that CFLs will, in fact, last 5x longer than incandescents, we're still looking at 300 million CFLs sold per year.
Mercury in an average CFL: 5 mg
5 mg times 300 million is 1.65 T.
Exactly half the mercury we saved per year by lowering our energy use, we'll be sticking in our light fixtures every year. I'm not even going to count the instant whammy of replacing every bulb in the country overnight - it's just 1.65 T per year once things settle down. So which is better - 3.3 T more mercury in the environment or 1.65 T more in our living spaces?
And then there's the issue of disposing of the bulbs properly. Granted, broken bulbs are not really even an issue at all - the danger from the broken glass is greater than the danger from the mercury.
Personally, I think we'd be better off sticking with incandescent or, better yet, switching to LED lighting. Meanwhile, the EPA is already tightening the screws on power plants to get them to reduce mercury emissions. They're already filtering out about 25 T of mercury per year, and new regulations are being considered that would require them to lower emissions even further.
tl;dr, catch more of the mercury at the power plant and dispose of it safely, and let's not put it in our houses if we can help it.
Of course, the other possibility is that traffic at those intersections just tends to be heavy and traffic intending to turn left needs to get in the left lane early to avoid blocking everything up by trying to merge left too late.
It just seems pretty obvious. Particularly since you said the left lane isn't a left-turn-only lane. Probably had problems with dimwitted drivers thinking the left turn was left-turn-only and they could turn left from the right lane, so they put up signs. I'll admit that I don't recall ever having seen one myself.
Or, more recently "Left lane for left turn". Apparently this does not mean "Left lane must turn left". Perhaps they are informing us that left turns are not allowed from the right lane?
Yes. There are streets where you can turn left from the right lane. That isn't one of them. Hence the sign.
Case 4: A male boss fired his female secretary because he thought she was too ugly, and replaced her with a woman who, in his opinion, was much prettier.... Is the employer guilty of sex discrimination? The answer is no if the bias displayed by the boss was directed at appearance, not sex. Appearance is not a protected classification. The answer is yes if the appearance standard were being applied only to women; that is, the company fired women but not men on the basis of their looks.
That's not a bad idea, actually, but you're basically talking about a flywheel, of the sort they'd use to keep a hospital on-line through a power outage*. And damn, we're talking a lot of kinetic energy stored in those things... they're usually buried underground because you really don't want one of them getting lose. But maybe that's mostly just hype. Supposedly they're supposed to turn into the biggest ever hairball if they come lose, to waste all that energy really fast and preventing them doing severe damage to much other than themselves. Still - I don't think you'd want one of them on a train.
*dunno what the energy requirements would be, really, but I still figure it's got to be large to keep a fairly massive train upright if the track's not level.
No, they took the information (which included her real, non-fake, non-screen name)... and once they had her real name, they did a public records search.
Whether or not the fact that her screen name was not her real name should have been considered confidential, or whether her real name should have been confidential, is less black-and-white.
The Internet Archive has a variety of snapshots of her profile page... and sometime between 22 Oct 2007 and 08 Jan 2009, her date of birth changed from 16 Jul 1978 to 16 Jul 1971.
Her Facebook profile and website's contact page list her permanent residence in LA... but the voicemail number on her contact page has a Houston area code, 713.
if IMDB was able to find this lady's age, surely there are many other sources on the Internet able to do the same thing
According to her complaint, they'd need her real name, not her Americanized name, and she's kept her real name a closely-guarded secret. Except it's on her credit card, which she used to pay for IMDbPro.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever I said "I'm hungry", my dad would reply "nice to meet you, hungry".
Guess my dad would make a pretty bad AI.
Passing the Turing test, when it comes to contests like these, has mostly changed from an attempt to create artificial intelligence into an attempt to convincingly simulate human stupidity.
Mary Jane and my body don't get along
I'm curious... what do you mean by that?
Am I missing something?
Yes. The default download directory is not Chrome's default working directory.
This "hack" requires user-level privileges. "User-level" means equivalent to a non-administrator running a .exe file.
Chrome resides in the user folder rather than the Program Files folder. This is by design: a non-administrator user can install and update Chrome, without the installer/updater having to ask for administrator privileges.
In other words, if user-level code can update Chrome, user-level code can just as easily mess with Chrome itself. Or, for that matter, encrypt the user's data files using long encryption keys, then pop up messages telling the user "pay us $50 and we'll give you the encryption key to get your data back". Yes, that's a problem, and the problem is users who run executable files that they shouldn't. While non-administrator users shouldn't have the ability to hose their OS, they can easily hose their data. Since Chrome resides (by design) in their "data", obviously they can hose Chrome. This is no surprise.
Furthermore, web pages shouldn't be able to get user-level privileges. They'd first have to break out of the browser's sandbox. So this isn't actually remote code execution, unless there's some way to remotely execute user-level code already. And when one of those leaks is found, you bet it's a critical bug and they'll immediately start writing a patch for it.
Both this "leak" and the "floodgates" are already protected by what already protects the user from any random .exe file found on the web: the browser's sandbox, and the user himself.
Um, if you have access server-side you'd just have it ping you over the regular 'net and log its IP address when the ping comes in.
17 is completely legal in most states, by the way. The only thing she cannot do is consent to model for pornographic materials, because that's a Federal law and requires models to be 18. The age of consent for engaging in consensual sexual activities is either 16 or 17 in the majority of the US. As long as you don't take any pictures of her that could be considered pornographic, the Feds will have absolutely nothing against you.
A DDoS attack ... removes accountability
That mistaken belief is exactly what gets script kiddies arrested.
No. I pitch them in the garbage, like anyone else.
I know, I'm a terrible person.
Salt contains 39% sodium and 61% chlorine by weight. 100% sodium is a dangerous metal which explodes in a reaction with water that produces hydrogen gas, lye, and lots of heat. Elemental chlorine is a deadly green gas that forms hydrochloric acid when it hits moisture, such as in your lungs if it's inhaled.
It's not a compound, it's a molecule. That mercury isn't just running around free.
You've heard of that experiment with iron filings and powdered sulfur, yes? The one where you mix them, then separate them with a magnet, then mix them again and heat them over a Bunsen burner? And then it no longer sticks to your magnet, because you've turned that iron and sulfur into iron sulfide, FeS. Unlike iron, it's non-magnetic and doesn't conduct electricity; unlike sulfur, it won't burn. In general, it doesn't resemble either iron or sulfur.
Same thing here. It's not mercury, it's a molecule containing mercury. It's not at all the same.
I did a stumble around Google and gathered the following.
Mercury in the coal burned annually by power plants in the US: 75 T
Mercury released by coal-burning power plants in the US, annually: 50 T
Percent of power used for lighting: 10%
CFL energy use: 1/3 as much as incandescent
Note first of all that we're already filtering out 25 T of mercury from ever entering the environment. That's great.
So we can presently blame 5 T of mercury on lighting. If we replaced every light bulb in the country overnight with CFLs, which use 1/3 as much energy, we could reduce that to about 1.7 T. Then power plants would only be releasing about 46.7 T of mercury per year.
Net gain so far from switching to CFLs: 3.3 T less mercury in the environment. Not as impressive as the 25 T we saved by improving filtration at the power plants, but any little bit helps, right?
CFLs sold per year: 300 million
Incandescents sold per year: 1.2 billion
Life expectancy of CFLs: 5x longer than incandescent
For simplicity again, assume 0% CFL use at some starting point, and assume that's not going to change the 1.5 billion bulbs sold per year very much. If we assume that CFLs will, in fact, last 5x longer than incandescents, we're still looking at 300 million CFLs sold per year.
Mercury in an average CFL: 5 mg
5 mg times 300 million is 1.65 T.
Exactly half the mercury we saved per year by lowering our energy use, we'll be sticking in our light fixtures every year. I'm not even going to count the instant whammy of replacing every bulb in the country overnight - it's just 1.65 T per year once things settle down. So which is better - 3.3 T more mercury in the environment or 1.65 T more in our living spaces?
And then there's the issue of disposing of the bulbs properly. Granted, broken bulbs are not really even an issue at all - the danger from the broken glass is greater than the danger from the mercury.
Personally, I think we'd be better off sticking with incandescent or, better yet, switching to LED lighting. Meanwhile, the EPA is already tightening the screws on power plants to get them to reduce mercury emissions. They're already filtering out about 25 T of mercury per year, and new regulations are being considered that would require them to lower emissions even further.
tl;dr, catch more of the mercury at the power plant and dispose of it safely, and let's not put it in our houses if we can help it.
Of course, the other possibility is that traffic at those intersections just tends to be heavy and traffic intending to turn left needs to get in the left lane early to avoid blocking everything up by trying to merge left too late.
It just seems pretty obvious. Particularly since you said the left lane isn't a left-turn-only lane. Probably had problems with dimwitted drivers thinking the left turn was left-turn-only and they could turn left from the right lane, so they put up signs. I'll admit that I don't recall ever having seen one myself.
Or, more recently "Left lane for left turn". Apparently this does not mean "Left lane must turn left". Perhaps they are informing us that left turns are not allowed from the right lane?
Yes. There are streets where you can turn left from the right lane. That isn't one of them. Hence the sign.
People can't report you for it if they can't see it.
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/De-Ele/Discrimination.html:
Case 4: A male boss fired his female secretary because he thought she was too ugly, and replaced her with a woman who, in his opinion, was much prettier. ... Is the employer guilty of sex discrimination? The answer is no if the bias displayed by the boss was directed at appearance, not sex. Appearance is not a protected classification. The answer is yes if the appearance standard were being applied only to women; that is, the company fired women but not men on the basis of their looks.
Maybe he couldn't afford to buy a vowel.
Internet Archive doesn't show that IMDb has ever revealed her DOB though.
Never had her DOB listed in IMDb, though - not according to the Internet Archive.
Probably lied about her age, too... not like that'd be unusual. But she can't be the Jane Doe.
That's not a bad idea, actually, but you're basically talking about a flywheel, of the sort they'd use to keep a hospital on-line through a power outage*. And damn, we're talking a lot of kinetic energy stored in those things... they're usually buried underground because you really don't want one of them getting lose. But maybe that's mostly just hype. Supposedly they're supposed to turn into the biggest ever hairball if they come lose, to waste all that energy really fast and preventing them doing severe damage to much other than themselves. Still - I don't think you'd want one of them on a train.
*dunno what the energy requirements would be, really, but I still figure it's got to be large to keep a fairly massive train upright if the track's not level.
*not Americanized
*was on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in '97. Not exactly "unknown".
No, they took the information (which included her real, non-fake, non-screen name)... and once they had her real name, they did a public records search.
Whether or not the fact that her screen name was not her real name should have been considered confidential, or whether her real name should have been confidential, is less black-and-white.
The Internet Archive has a variety of snapshots of her profile page... and sometime between 22 Oct 2007 and 08 Jan 2009, her date of birth changed from 16 Jul 1978 to 16 Jul 1971.
Her Facebook profile and website's contact page list her permanent residence in LA... but the voicemail number on her contact page has a Houston area code, 713.
Yeah; I'm surprised she got away with it for this long anyway - how does she even get hired under a fake name? What the heck?
if IMDB was able to find this lady's age, surely there are many other sources on the Internet able to do the same thing
According to her complaint, they'd need her real name, not her Americanized name, and she's kept her real name a closely-guarded secret. Except it's on her credit card, which she used to pay for IMDbPro.