The difference doesn't necessarily have to be quality, but it can be.
If you buy "audio" CDs and use them to record data, chances are you'll be fine. But I've also been burned because I got "audio" CDs on sale and they turned out to be low-quality - probably a defective batch, actually, but they were good enough to sell as "audio" CDs.
It's because the error correction on CD-DA is not the same as the error correction that is used on a data CD. The error correction on an audio CD is quite a bit more lenient - and corrupt data from an audio CD generally sounds pretty similar to the original (to the point where you wouldn't know the difference by listening to it), whereas corrupt data from a data CD is generally useless because it has to be bit-for-bit accurate or everything blows up.
It's also why the specially-marked "data" CDs work just fine to burn audio CDs, but the converse is not necessarily true. Audio CDs can be manufactured with crappy materials that cause all sorts of read errors on the disk; the error correction on an audio CD will just fudge it and get the low bits wrong and you can't even hear the difference, but the error correction on a data CD will figuratively just throw up its hands and say "I can't correct this, it's too corrupt".
I realize you're joking, but Halon doesn't actually work like that.
If something is actually burning, it's possible for the Halon to be converted into phosgene, which is highly toxic, and other toxic or irritating substances. However, Halon itself is not toxic although it does cause temporary giddiness and impairment.
Halon 1301 is more usually employed in total flooding systems. In these systems, banks of halon cylinders are kept pressurised to about 4 MPa (600 psi) with compressed nitrogen, and a fixed piping network leads to the protected enclosure. On triggering, the entire measured contents of one or more cylinders are discharged into the enclosure in a few seconds, through nozzles designed to ensure uniform mixing throughout the room. The quantity dumped is pre-calculated to achieve the desired concentration, typically 3–7% v/v. This level is maintained for some time, typically with a minimum of ten minutes and sometimes up to a twenty minute "soak" time, to ensure all items have cooled so reignition is unlikely to occur, then the air in the enclosure is purged, generally via a fixed purge system that is activated by the proper authorities. During this time the enclosure may be entered by persons wearing SCBA. (There exists a common myth that this is because halon is highly toxic; in fact, it is because it can cause giddiness and mildly impaired perception, and also due to the risk of combustion byproducts.)
since there were no employees present to actually identify the servers by IP, it's hard to see how they could do any different
TFA's been updated a few times, so maybe this quotation wasn't included when you read it (yes, that was a joke).
DigitalOne provided all necessary information to pinpoint the servers for a specific I.P. address, Mr. Ostroumow said. However, the agents took entire server racks, perhaps because they mistakenly thought that “one enclosure is = to one server,” he said in an e-mail.
Not only that, but they'd have to do it from private property - say, every vehicle in a parking garage because they suspected that one of them had a drug stash in its trunk.
Exactly - the people who know will treat the new TLD with suspicion, and the people who don't know will frankly just be oblivious anyway unless/until their browser displays a big scary warning instead of the web site they tried to click on.
Realistically, someone who gets tricked by a fraudulent "mybank.bank" [example given in TFA] is equally likely to be tricked by "mybank.us", or "mybank.com". And we already have made browsers as nearly-idiot-proof as possible so it should display a big scary warning when they try to visit that URL anyway. I don't see this as being that much of a problem.
Litigation is so expensive that you should just pay up when somebody sues you for thousands of dollars and you lose?
FTFY. And yes... if it's only for a few thousand dollars, and you already lost the case in one court, appealing to a higher court isn't likely to help you much.
The only difference I can think of is that IdentifierName cannot be (or begin with) a numeric literal, whereas <identifier-name-string> is a string and thus it isn't subject to this limitation.
E.g. var obj = {}; alert(obj.0);//generates a Javascript error alert(obj['0']);//returns undefined, no error
Yeah, because nobody seems to know how to avoid using a preposition at the end of a sentence without it sounding twisted and convoluted. Hint: try also avoiding passive tense. It helps.
"I like to be at the top of lists, but I don’t believe Michigan wants to be at the top of this particular ranking."
I expect this "law" is going to be quietly repealed a few years down the road when they find it doesn't' really work.
I'm not sure you understand how the legislative system works, or maybe you're just forgetting.
Unless the law for some reason has a sunset built-in, or unless it severely inconveniences someone with political clout later down the line, it very rarely works like that. Just read up on obsolete laws some time. It costs them nothing to keep it on the books forever, where it will remain very quietly so they're able to tack it on to the other charges whenever they feel like they can extract a few more bucks out of someone who got caught for something else.
It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.
The really simple way to describe it is in terms of inertia. Like any spinning body, the earth has a moment of inertia (the figure skater is the example you always hear, but spinning in a rotating chair works just as well to demonstrate the point). It's really big, but it's possible to change it. Move a bunch of heavy stuff up to the top of a mountain, and just like a figure skater extending their arms, you'll have increased the earth's moment of inertia slightly. Well, spinning a really big flywheel will also increase the earth's moment of inertia slightly. Increasing the moment of inertia means that the rotational speed decreases.
But the key thing to remember is that both of them are reversible: move the heavy stuff back down to its original location or stop the spinning flywheel, and the earth's moment of inertia will be returned to the same as it was before too. There was never any effect on the actual energy stored in the earth as it rotated; you merely changed the form in which that energy was being expressed - you temporarily converted some of it from kinetic (rotational) energy into potential (stored) energy.
All operations are atomic. For instance, if you have a line of code that tests a mutex bit, and, if it's unset, it sets it and branches into a subroutine, you don't have to worry about the bit being modified by external code between when you test it and when you set it.
However, since the real processes that are occurring outside the PLC take much, much longer than the few milliseconds that it takes to execute a single scan of the PLC program, most of the time the PLC is actually just running multiple subroutines which are all waiting for inputs to change on the PLC (maybe, a level reaches a setpoint, or a valve reaches its open or closed limit) so that they can move to the next stage of their execution. As a result you have most of the same issues that are caused by multi-threading with respects to concurrency, preventing deadlock, etc.
If you don't design your PLC correctly, you end up with two paths attempting to modify the same bit at the same time.
A PLC does in fact run the same code over and over in an endless loop. There are no threads. No other processes. No other code can modify your mutex. This line executes, and the line following this line will follow this line in execution, nothing in-between, no question about it. There is simply no way that anything else can attempt to modify the same bit at the same time.
The only things that can modify that bit are other parts of the program, and since the program executes in order, you know exactly when that will happen.
Mutexes are just bits that are turned on or off. Semaphores are integers. Local variables are memory locations that aren't used by the rest of the program (or the rest of the program may use them freely and their value need not be retained from scan to scan). Function arguments are just memory locations that are written by the rest of the program before calling the subroutine, which reads them and uses their values.
The only of those that I actually haven't used in a PLC program are semaphores.
Correct. More specifically: If the events are completely independent (i.e. the probability of one doesn't influence the probability of the other) and the probability of getting caught is p, then the probability of getting caught in n attempts is (1 - (1 - p)^n). In other words, if there's a 25% probability of getting caught each time and you do it twice, that's (1 - 0.75*0.75) = 43.75% of being caught. If you do it three times, ~57.8%; four times, ~68.4%; etc.
However, most likely the events are not independent (the probability of one influences the probability of the other). Since there's really no way of determining the conditional probability of getting caught on a 2nd attempt vs. on a 1st attempt, trying to mathematically analyze the probability is rather ridiculous and IMHO it's fair enough to say that you have twice as many opportunities to be caught; note that I'd intentionally avoid using a word like "odds" or "probability" since those imply precision that simply can't be drawn from the information that we have.
He'd have access to the money box inside the machine, thus bypassing the sensors. Open it up to count the money, slip a few $20s out and replace them with a few fakes; as long as the money count comes out right when the next serviceman comes to check the ATM, nobody would know the difference... and if they eventually found the fakes it'd just look like some bank customer(s) had passed the fake $20s to the machine.
However, if the machine should have been able to detect the forgeries, that might be one thing that led them to suspect a repairman was behind it - bank customers shouldn't be able to feed the machine fake $20s.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference doesn't necessarily have to be quality, but it can be.
If you buy "audio" CDs and use them to record data, chances are you'll be fine. But I've also been burned because I got "audio" CDs on sale and they turned out to be low-quality - probably a defective batch, actually, but they were good enough to sell as "audio" CDs.
It's because the error correction on CD-DA is not the same as the error correction that is used on a data CD. The error correction on an audio CD is quite a bit more lenient - and corrupt data from an audio CD generally sounds pretty similar to the original (to the point where you wouldn't know the difference by listening to it), whereas corrupt data from a data CD is generally useless because it has to be bit-for-bit accurate or everything blows up.
It's also why the specially-marked "data" CDs work just fine to burn audio CDs, but the converse is not necessarily true. Audio CDs can be manufactured with crappy materials that cause all sorts of read errors on the disk; the error correction on an audio CD will just fudge it and get the low bits wrong and you can't even hear the difference, but the error correction on a data CD will figuratively just throw up its hands and say "I can't correct this, it's too corrupt".
I realize you're joking, but Halon doesn't actually work like that.
If something is actually burning, it's possible for the Halon to be converted into phosgene, which is highly toxic, and other toxic or irritating substances. However, Halon itself is not toxic although it does cause temporary giddiness and impairment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halomethane#Safety
Halon 1301 is more usually employed in total flooding systems. In these systems, banks of halon cylinders are kept pressurised to about 4 MPa (600 psi) with compressed nitrogen, and a fixed piping network leads to the protected enclosure. On triggering, the entire measured contents of one or more cylinders are discharged into the enclosure in a few seconds, through nozzles designed to ensure uniform mixing throughout the room. The quantity dumped is pre-calculated to achieve the desired concentration, typically 3–7% v/v. This level is maintained for some time, typically with a minimum of ten minutes and sometimes up to a twenty minute "soak" time, to ensure all items have cooled so reignition is unlikely to occur, then the air in the enclosure is purged, generally via a fixed purge system that is activated by the proper authorities. During this time the enclosure may be entered by persons wearing SCBA. (There exists a common myth that this is because halon is highly toxic; in fact, it is because it can cause giddiness and mildly impaired perception, and also due to the risk of combustion byproducts.)
since there were no employees present to actually identify the servers by IP, it's hard to see how they could do any different
TFA's been updated a few times, so maybe this quotation wasn't included when you read it (yes, that was a joke).
DigitalOne provided all necessary information to pinpoint the servers for a specific I.P. address, Mr. Ostroumow said. However, the agents took entire server racks, perhaps because they mistakenly thought that “one enclosure is = to one server,” he said in an e-mail.
Not only that, but they'd have to do it from private property - say, every vehicle in a parking garage because they suspected that one of them had a drug stash in its trunk.
Exactly - the people who know will treat the new TLD with suspicion, and the people who don't know will frankly just be oblivious anyway unless/until their browser displays a big scary warning instead of the web site they tried to click on.
Realistically, someone who gets tricked by a fraudulent "mybank.bank" [example given in TFA] is equally likely to be tricked by "mybank.us", or "mybank.com". And we already have made browsers as nearly-idiot-proof as possible so it should display a big scary warning when they try to visit that URL anyway. I don't see this as being that much of a problem.
Litigation is so expensive that you should just pay up when somebody sues you
for thousands of dollars and you lose?
FTFY. And yes... if it's only for a few thousand dollars, and you already lost the case in one court, appealing to a higher court isn't likely to help you much.
The only difference I can think of is that IdentifierName cannot be (or begin with) a numeric literal, whereas <identifier-name-string> is a string and thus it isn't subject to this limitation.
E.g. //generates a Javascript error //returns undefined, no error
var obj = {};
alert(obj.0);
alert(obj['0']);
If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine; personally, his comment made me want to check the library's website and see if they have a recent edition.
Cut him some slack... his definitive guide to the English language probably hasn't been updated in a while.
He may be an embarrassment, but at least he shouldn't be THE MOST embarrassed THAN you.
Try, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something which I will not tolerate."
Yeah, because nobody seems to know how to avoid using a preposition at the end of a sentence without it sounding twisted and convoluted. Hint: try also avoiding passive tense. It helps.
"I like to be at the top of lists, but I don’t believe Michigan wants to be at the top of this particular ranking."
I think he was going for funny.
I hope he was going for funny.
technically a fetus is a barrier to it's host becoming pregnant
And technically, if you jump in the pool first you can go outside in the rain and not get wet.
I expect this "law" is going to be quietly repealed a few years down the road when they find it doesn't' really work.
I'm not sure you understand how the legislative system works, or maybe you're just forgetting.
Unless the law for some reason has a sunset built-in, or unless it severely inconveniences someone with political clout later down the line, it very rarely works like that. Just read up on obsolete laws some time. It costs them nothing to keep it on the books forever, where it will remain very quietly so they're able to tack it on to the other charges whenever they feel like they can extract a few more bucks out of someone who got caught for something else.
The NATO report actually said "persecuted".
It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths. The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted.
The really simple way to describe it is in terms of inertia. Like any spinning body, the earth has a moment of inertia (the figure skater is the example you always hear, but spinning in a rotating chair works just as well to demonstrate the point). It's really big, but it's possible to change it. Move a bunch of heavy stuff up to the top of a mountain, and just like a figure skater extending their arms, you'll have increased the earth's moment of inertia slightly. Well, spinning a really big flywheel will also increase the earth's moment of inertia slightly. Increasing the moment of inertia means that the rotational speed decreases.
But the key thing to remember is that both of them are reversible: move the heavy stuff back down to its original location or stop the spinning flywheel, and the earth's moment of inertia will be returned to the same as it was before too. There was never any effect on the actual energy stored in the earth as it rotated; you merely changed the form in which that energy was being expressed - you temporarily converted some of it from kinetic (rotational) energy into potential (stored) energy.
All operations are atomic. For instance, if you have a line of code that tests a mutex bit, and, if it's unset, it sets it and branches into a subroutine, you don't have to worry about the bit being modified by external code between when you test it and when you set it.
However, since the real processes that are occurring outside the PLC take much, much longer than the few milliseconds that it takes to execute a single scan of the PLC program, most of the time the PLC is actually just running multiple subroutines which are all waiting for inputs to change on the PLC (maybe, a level reaches a setpoint, or a valve reaches its open or closed limit) so that they can move to the next stage of their execution. As a result you have most of the same issues that are caused by multi-threading with respects to concurrency, preventing deadlock, etc.
If you don't design your PLC correctly, you end up with two paths attempting to modify the same bit at the same time.
A PLC does in fact run the same code over and over in an endless loop. There are no threads. No other processes. No other code can modify your mutex. This line executes, and the line following this line will follow this line in execution, nothing in-between, no question about it. There is simply no way that anything else can attempt to modify the same bit at the same time.
The only things that can modify that bit are other parts of the program, and since the program executes in order, you know exactly when that will happen.
No wait - I take that back; I've used semaphores too.
Mutexes are just bits that are turned on or off. Semaphores are integers. Local variables are memory locations that aren't used by the rest of the program (or the rest of the program may use them freely and their value need not be retained from scan to scan). Function arguments are just memory locations that are written by the rest of the program before calling the subroutine, which reads them and uses their values.
The only of those that I actually haven't used in a PLC program are semaphores.
Correct. More specifically: If the events are completely independent (i.e. the probability of one doesn't influence the probability of the other) and the probability of getting caught is p, then the probability of getting caught in n attempts is (1 - (1 - p)^n). In other words, if there's a 25% probability of getting caught each time and you do it twice, that's (1 - 0.75*0.75) = 43.75% of being caught. If you do it three times, ~57.8%; four times, ~68.4%; etc.
However, most likely the events are not independent (the probability of one influences the probability of the other). Since there's really no way of determining the conditional probability of getting caught on a 2nd attempt vs. on a 1st attempt, trying to mathematically analyze the probability is rather ridiculous and IMHO it's fair enough to say that you have twice as many opportunities to be caught; note that I'd intentionally avoid using a word like "odds" or "probability" since those imply precision that simply can't be drawn from the information that we have.
He'd have access to the money box inside the machine, thus bypassing the sensors. Open it up to count the money, slip a few $20s out and replace them with a few fakes; as long as the money count comes out right when the next serviceman comes to check the ATM, nobody would know the difference... and if they eventually found the fakes it'd just look like some bank customer(s) had passed the fake $20s to the machine.
However, if the machine should have been able to detect the forgeries, that might be one thing that led them to suspect a repairman was behind it - bank customers shouldn't be able to feed the machine fake $20s.