The actual patent states this to describe that figure: (well, what I could find, anyway - it doesn't include the figures, but it references the ones that were in TFA)
FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view of a plug connector 800 mated with a low profile plug receptacle 802 that illustrates a magnetic retention mechanism according to an embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment shown, plug connector 800 is similar in general construction to custom plug connector 400 of FIG. 4. For example, plug connector 800 can include a cosmetic cap 804. Low profile plug receptacle 802 is similar in general construction to receptacle 200 of FIG. 2A.
In various embodiments, low profile plug receptacle 802 can include a magnet 806 and plug connector 800 can include a ferrous attractor 808 (e.g., a ferromagnetic material such as steel). In one embodiment, the ferrous attractor 808 can be a discrete object embedded in the plug and/or connector body of plug connector 800. In another embodiment, ferrous attractor 808 can be integrated into the structure of the plug or connector body; for instance, the entire plug can be constructed of a ferromagnetic material.
In other words, a standard plug would fall out of the port, unless it was made from a ferromagnetic material or had a bit of ferromagnetic material embedded so that it would be held in the port by a magnet.
Since you seem to know a little about this, maybe you can clear up some of my confusion.
I wasn't aware that they could detect signatures of particular molecules in space... I know that with spectral imaging they can detect elements, but I was under the impression that this (for example) was why it's so hard to tell if there's water on some planet. You can't just point an antenna or camera at it and say "yup, there's H2O".
Secondly, isn't graphite basically stacked sheets of graphene, with small imperfections? In which case why is it so surprising that now they think they've found graphene in space? How can they tell the difference between graphene and graphite?
It made no assumption that it was the only barrier or that IE9 was the best in every security measure. It says that it is the most common form of malware out there.
I assume that by the 2nd "it" you mean malware that spreads via social engineering.
Social engineering has to do with getting someone to click a link. However: clicking a link should never infect your computer. At the worst, it might download a file to your computer which, if your antivirus doesn't catch it and you run it, could infect your computer.
Keeping someone from visiting a website because it's "bad" and they're too dumb to safely visit it is a stupid defense mechanism required only for the very stupidest of users. Or it is an admission that your browser is so exploitable that it can't load parts of the internet safely. And that's why I think this study is pretty useless.
The study analyzed the correct criteria for users who will click every link, download every file, and will install every codec or wallpaper so that they can see the dancing kitties. Oh, and they don't have any antivirus.
The study analyzed the correct criteria under the assumption that the only barrier between a user and the big bad internet is the URL blacklisting in their browser.
In other words, it's useless. And it's especially useless for me and anyone I've tried to influence toward halfway-sane safe online practices.
You are assuming that because it is from Microsoft, it must be very bad at preventing infections while giving other browsers the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not assuming anything, merely stating that in the worst-case it could be exactly the opposite of what this study would seem to indicate. Or anywhere in-between. This study didn't study the correct criteria.
Or the fact that OSX bites it in pwn to own first every. single. time.
Yes, and the first bobsled team always finishes before the other bobsled teams, because they finish before the next bobsled team starts. That doesn't mean they won.
It has nothing to do with blocking or thwarting malicious CONTENT. It is about Microsoft's feature where it phones home to see if every ADDRESS you're visiting is "evil". Evil content on a "good" address doesn't get detected until Microsoft figures out that it's bad, and if a good address gets falsely reported as "evil", it gets blocked too.
I'd be much more interested in a study that didn't rely on the browser telling me "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that" and indicated a truer statistic of how many infections actually result from visiting "evil" websites. For all I know, every webpage that got past IE's URL blacklist might have pwned the machine, while Chrome, Opera, and Firefox let you visit all of the sites without ever actually getting infected. So until I know how many infections occurred, this study is nothing but propaganda for IE's phoning-home feature.
I don't care about them; I care about how secure my browser is, and my friends' and parents' browsers, which I've configured similarly to mine. As far as I'm concerned, even if the virus gets as far as downloading its executable, just as long as MSE stops it when they try to launch it I consider that a successfully thwarted attack.
IE's idiot mode where it tells you "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" might be better at keeping users off bad websites than other browsers, okay.
Give me a study that shows the actual infection rate once you've visited the site; I'm betting that the scores would look different then.
Obviously the cost of shipping the packaging is factored into the price of a box of cereal and that's not a problem.
If you buy it from the grocery store, it's hidden in their markup. Yet you don't have a problem with that.
But when the box says you are getting 24oz of cereal, it would be illegal to make that claim if it included the weight of the packaging.
"Net Weight", yes, because that's what net weight means. But if you bought a full pallet of cereal (12 boxes / case x 8 cases / level x 4 levels deep, say) and it indicated a gross weight of 800 lb. (+6 oz. packaging for each box, +2.5 lb. for each case), it wouldn't matter that it contained 576 lb. of cereal. You'd pay shipping on an 800 lb. pallet, not a 576 lb. one.
The argument could be made either way, but I see no problem with having a standard conversion factor for a 10% overhead on DSL vs. no overhead of cable internet, since that's easily enough computed.
If you have a 10Mb pipe, and they know 10% of that is overhead you will never touch it is dishonest saying that you are getting a 10Mb connection, especially when competitors may have only 5% overhead on their 10Mb pipe.
I'm really more concerned about the 20-60% you're likely getting during peak usage periods than the 90-95% you're getting at 2 AM when nobody else is online.
Developers of add ons are under NO obligation to update that software. None whatsoever.
Developers who stop updating their software will find that their software becomes obsolete. This is not unique to Firefox. No guarantee is typically made of forward-compatibility. DOS 16- and 32-bit apps won't run under x64 Win7. Such is life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! Every device has a rotation factor that is native to it, but hard to discover.
Just like PS2 connectors?
Thinner just means it's easier to forget it's in that back pocket when you sit down. Crack.
No, what you thought was a "non-conducting part of the case" is not part of the case; it is part of the plug. You read the patent.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110201213
For example, plug connector 800 can include a cosmetic cap 804.
It wouldn't help hold the plug in at all.
The actual patent states this to describe that figure: (well, what I could find, anyway - it doesn't include the figures, but it references the ones that were in TFA)
FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view of a plug connector 800 mated with a low profile plug receptacle 802 that illustrates a magnetic retention mechanism according to an embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment shown, plug connector 800 is similar in general construction to custom plug connector 400 of FIG. 4. For example, plug connector 800 can include a cosmetic cap 804. Low profile plug receptacle 802 is similar in general construction to receptacle 200 of FIG. 2A.
In various embodiments, low profile plug receptacle 802 can include a magnet 806 and plug connector 800 can include a ferrous attractor 808 (e.g., a ferromagnetic material such as steel). In one embodiment, the ferrous attractor 808 can be a discrete object embedded in the plug and/or connector body of plug connector 800. In another embodiment, ferrous attractor 808 can be integrated into the structure of the plug or connector body; for instance, the entire plug can be constructed of a ferromagnetic material.
In other words, a standard plug would fall out of the port, unless it was made from a ferromagnetic material or had a bit of ferromagnetic material embedded so that it would be held in the port by a magnet.
Unless I'm reading that wrong.
Not all of the holes are waterproof though...
Am I really the only person who knows that "jacks" and "ports" are BOTH FEMALE CONNECTORS.
Current jacks will fit the new port design
A "jack" is a female fitting. So is a "port".
jack noun : a female fitting in an electric circuit used with a plug to make a connection with another circuit
8
[2]port noun : a hardware interface by which a computer is connected to another device (as a printer, a mouse, or another computer); broadly : JACK 8
5
THEY MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!
In other words, whoever wrote that is a moron and failed to successfully explain what they meant.
I'm still not sure whether they meant that current jacks will fit the new plug design, or that current plugs will fit the new port.
Since you seem to know a little about this, maybe you can clear up some of my confusion.
I wasn't aware that they could detect signatures of particular molecules in space... I know that with spectral imaging they can detect elements, but I was under the impression that this (for example) was why it's so hard to tell if there's water on some planet. You can't just point an antenna or camera at it and say "yup, there's H2O".
Secondly, isn't graphite basically stacked sheets of graphene, with small imperfections? In which case why is it so surprising that now they think they've found graphene in space? How can they tell the difference between graphene and graphite?
Has that been fixed, or did you mis-read it? The page currently states,
One chip has 262,144 programmable synapses, while the other contains 65,536 learning synapses.
262,144 = 2^18
65,536 = 2^16
Psst, I think there's an R tailgating you.
It made no assumption that it was the only barrier or that IE9 was the best in every security measure. It says that it is the most common form of malware out there.
I assume that by the 2nd "it" you mean malware that spreads via social engineering.
Social engineering has to do with getting someone to click a link. However: clicking a link should never infect your computer. At the worst, it might download a file to your computer which, if your antivirus doesn't catch it and you run it, could infect your computer.
Keeping someone from visiting a website because it's "bad" and they're too dumb to safely visit it is a stupid defense mechanism required only for the very stupidest of users. Or it is an admission that your browser is so exploitable that it can't load parts of the internet safely. And that's why I think this study is pretty useless.
https://slashdot.org/prefs/d2_posting
Change "default posting style" to "plain old text".
The study analyzed the correct criteria for users who will click every link, download every file, and will install every codec or wallpaper so that they can see the dancing kitties. Oh, and they don't have any antivirus.
The study analyzed the correct criteria under the assumption that the only barrier between a user and the big bad internet is the URL blacklisting in their browser.
In other words, it's useless. And it's especially useless for me and anyone I've tried to influence toward halfway-sane safe online practices.
You are assuming that because it is from Microsoft, it must be very bad at preventing infections while giving other browsers the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not assuming anything, merely stating that in the worst-case it could be exactly the opposite of what this study would seem to indicate. Or anywhere in-between. This study didn't study the correct criteria.
Or the fact that OSX bites it in pwn to own first every. single. time.
Yes, and the first bobsled team always finishes before the other bobsled teams, because they finish before the next bobsled team starts. That doesn't mean they won.
It has nothing to do with blocking or thwarting malicious CONTENT. It is about Microsoft's feature where it phones home to see if every ADDRESS you're visiting is "evil". Evil content on a "good" address doesn't get detected until Microsoft figures out that it's bad, and if a good address gets falsely reported as "evil", it gets blocked too.
I'd be much more interested in a study that didn't rely on the browser telling me "I'm sorry, I can't let you do that" and indicated a truer statistic of how many infections actually result from visiting "evil" websites. For all I know, every webpage that got past IE's URL blacklist might have pwned the machine, while Chrome, Opera, and Firefox let you visit all of the sites without ever actually getting infected. So until I know how many infections occurred, this study is nothing but propaganda for IE's phoning-home feature.
I don't care about them; I care about how secure my browser is, and my friends' and parents' browsers, which I've configured similarly to mine. As far as I'm concerned, even if the virus gets as far as downloading its executable, just as long as MSE stops it when they try to launch it I consider that a successfully thwarted attack.
IE's idiot mode where it tells you "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" might be better at keeping users off bad websites than other browsers, okay.
Give me a study that shows the actual infection rate once you've visited the site; I'm betting that the scores would look different then.
Well...
Canada Dry is a brand of soft drinks owned since 2008 by the Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Dry
Add-on compatibility reporter.
I doubt anyone in 70 odd years will know who Paul Newmann was, baring a few boffs.
That might have been a rather poor choice when it comes to illustrating the particular point you were trying to make.
You mean like every driver in every movie ever made? I swear I want to reach into the screen and strangle them...
Obviously the cost of shipping the packaging is factored into the price of a box of cereal and that's not a problem.
If you buy it from the grocery store, it's hidden in their markup. Yet you don't have a problem with that.
But when the box says you are getting 24oz of cereal, it would be illegal to make that claim if it included the weight of the packaging.
"Net Weight", yes, because that's what net weight means. But if you bought a full pallet of cereal (12 boxes / case x 8 cases / level x 4 levels deep, say) and it indicated a gross weight of 800 lb. (+6 oz. packaging for each box, +2.5 lb. for each case), it wouldn't matter that it contained 576 lb. of cereal. You'd pay shipping on an 800 lb. pallet, not a 576 lb. one.
The argument could be made either way, but I see no problem with having a standard conversion factor for a 10% overhead on DSL vs. no overhead of cable internet, since that's easily enough computed.
If you have a 10Mb pipe, and they know 10% of that is overhead you will never touch it is dishonest saying that you are getting a 10Mb connection, especially when competitors may have only 5% overhead on their 10Mb pipe.
I'm really more concerned about the 20-60% you're likely getting during peak usage periods than the 90-95% you're getting at 2 AM when nobody else is online.
Developers of add ons are under NO obligation to update that software. None whatsoever.
Developers who stop updating their software will find that their software becomes obsolete. This is not unique to Firefox. No guarantee is typically made of forward-compatibility. DOS 16- and 32-bit apps won't run under x64 Win7. Such is life.
Depends on how cheap the car is.
And on how cheap the seller is willing to sell for if you're paying in gold bullion coins using their face value instead of their real value.