It's probably a lot more common than you realise. And even if they typically eat a meal or two at home, if that is all they have to eat it won't last nearly as long as it normally would... especially if they also don't have the foresight to ration it sensibly.
I'm not going to be able to convince her on this point. I need to find something that's labeled "no salt added".
Salt is a preservative, and survival kits need to last a while. So... good luck with that.
High blood pressure is one of the body's coping mechanisms, like a fever. Not good for extended periods of time - like all the time - but in a disaster, it shouldn't be one of your primary concerns unless it's really dangerously high.
I agree that it would be handy if you were already conscious of security. The tendency though is almost certain to be using this instead of being conscious of security, to force security on people who didn't want it in the first place.
The simple fact of the matter is, if it's often enough to be annoying, they won't like the automated system either, and they'll find ways to defeat it. Compared to the hassle of typing the password to unlock it when you get back, it's not really that inconvenient to hit Win-L as you're leaving.
I have a script specifically written to simulate a keypress every 14 minutes and 30 seconds (the screensaver time-out is 15 minutes). Most people, though, just set a weight on the Ctrl key or something.
While the water in beer actually does hydrate you, it's still really not that great a choice for hydration since the alcohol, you know, makes you piss. Same goes for caffeinated beverages (coffee, soft drinks, and some teas).
In fact, if you're trying to conserve water, it's probably a good idea as much as possible to just avoid anything that would unduly tax your kidneys (including over-the-counter painkillers).
The easy way to handle many of the items on the list would be to buy a survival kit. But it's a bit expensive, and she worries that the food contains too much salt.
There's a hidden benefit... ask her if she'd rather piss a lot of valuable water down the drain.
Humans also get distracted fairly easily, and can't always predict when. "Just stepping away from the computer for 15 seconds" can easily become "get dragged into something and come back half an hour later".
Which is why, if I'm only stepping away from the computer for 15 seconds, I lock it. And it's why, even if I'm just driving the car across the street to park it on the other side, I buckle up.
just how much a pain in the ass eating must be for people that don't have 3 days of food in the house. How do you even do that?... they would have to be shopping 2-3 times a week.
Shopping? Does that include stopping by McD's to order carry-out? What about having Pizza Hut deliver?
Still, some vendors get left out entirely. I use ESET. Since they don't have a free version, they weren't included. I'd like to know how they measure up, though... hell, whoever's testing could just install their 30-day trial and not even have to buy it.
switches allow devices to utilize the full bandwidth of a wire without fear of collisions. There is no analogue to this in the wireless world
Yes, there is. It's called "channels". A channel is set such that the signal-to-noise is maximised and you can reliably tell the signal from the rest of the radio noise.
radio waves propagate from the transmitter to the other end of the universe, always (theoretically even if they are sent from within a Faraday cage if you ever open it up later)
Ahem.
Signals sent from inside a Faraday cage get out just fine.
Lumpy was talking about ethernet, that's why I went there.
What does interference from other devices have to do with anything? Last I checked, they even had to bear a warning/disclaimer to be licensed under the FCC: something like "This device may not cause harmful interference. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." It's why we have 11 different channels for wireless routers. And there are power limitations on transmitting devices as well.
Letting a website screw around with existing browser features is a little bit different than giving them a whole new sandbox to play in.
E.g. right-click - Google Maps is one of the only websites that I've found that actually does this "nicely". The rest of the websites that disable the browser right-click menu generally just piss me off. But if there was a whole new menu in addition to the browser's default right-click menu, instead of one or the other, it would give the best of both worlds.
So when I say they could register the menu options and event handlers, I don't imply that they'd be able to interact with other parts of the browser chrome, like the other menus. They'd just be able to fill the site-specific menu with options. The rest of the browser chrome would work exactly as it was supposed to.
From the mockup, it looks like they're going to scrape a few functions from the website's interface and add them to a site-specific menu in the Firefox menu bar.
While I wouldn't call this terrible so long as it would actually work, it seems like something that would break at the slightest change to the websites it's designed to support, which ranks it up there somewhere near "worst idea ever" in my estimation. They're basically assuming that Facebook isn't going to change their javascript, and/or putting upon themselves the hassle of fixing the menu every time Facebook's update breaks it.
The only way I could see this being workable is by making it an opt-in thing, e.g. giving an interface whereby a site could register its menu with the options and their corresponding javascript event handler functions to fire when they were selected.
Full-duplex ethernet is achieved because the full-duplex switch talks to every connected device separately, and relays their packets to the other devices on the network to achieve collision-free communication. There are effectively only 2 devices per ethernet cable: one on each end. One of those is the switch, which is connected to multiple devices whose packets it can receive simultaneously. It then buffers and re-transmits them to the rest of the network sequentially so that they can't collide with each other.
On half-duplex ethernet, the switch is dumb and can't prevent two devices' packets from colliding. The switch is just there to make connections between the conductors in the ethernet cables. So instead of two devices, there are many devices talking on the same ethernet cable, which means that only one device can transmit at a time on the entire network.
And this is something entirely different: currently a "full-duplex" connection still means you spend 50% of your maximum bandwidth transmitting and 50% of it receiving. This is supposedly able to utilize 100% of it transmitting and 100% of it receiving at the same time, which means your speed effectively doubles.
If your link will transmit that high-frequency chopping without causing too much interference to be decoded on the far end, your data rate could have been much faster to begin with. So I wouldn't call it "true full duplex speed".
That's like saying you can get "true dual-core multi-threading" by using time-slice allocation and running the two threads on one core.
As someone else pointed out, in a real scenario you don't have the luxury of having perfect information of everything that's going on from the entire scenario. Much of the time the person making command decisions is going to have to gather their information from actual people on the ground, e.g. via radios. This would be much more realistic in forcing people to communicate and efficiently relay information up/down the chain of command.
And if they wanted to, I'm sure they could pause the simulation's timeline so that they could move their camera "instantly".
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a lot more common than you realise. And even if they typically eat a meal or two at home, if that is all they have to eat it won't last nearly as long as it normally would... especially if they also don't have the foresight to ration it sensibly.
I'm not going to be able to convince her on this point. I need to find something that's labeled "no salt added".
Salt is a preservative, and survival kits need to last a while. So ... good luck with that.
High blood pressure is one of the body's coping mechanisms, like a fever. Not good for extended periods of time - like all the time - but in a disaster, it shouldn't be one of your primary concerns unless it's really dangerously high.
I agree that it would be handy if you were already conscious of security. The tendency though is almost certain to be using this instead of being conscious of security, to force security on people who didn't want it in the first place.
The simple fact of the matter is, if it's often enough to be annoying, they won't like the automated system either, and they'll find ways to defeat it. Compared to the hassle of typing the password to unlock it when you get back, it's not really that inconvenient to hit Win-L as you're leaving.
Oh yeah... I've sure heard that one before.
I've also read estimates, proposals, specifications, scopes...
They may have contained all of the necessary information, but "well written" isn't how I'd describe most of them.
I have a script specifically written to simulate a keypress every 14 minutes and 30 seconds (the screensaver time-out is 15 minutes). Most people, though, just set a weight on the Ctrl key or something.
While the water in beer actually does hydrate you, it's still really not that great a choice for hydration since the alcohol, you know, makes you piss. Same goes for caffeinated beverages (coffee, soft drinks, and some teas).
In fact, if you're trying to conserve water, it's probably a good idea as much as possible to just avoid anything that would unduly tax your kidneys (including over-the-counter painkillers).
The easy way to handle many of the items on the list would be to buy a survival kit. But it's a bit expensive, and she worries that the food contains too much salt.
There's a hidden benefit... ask her if she'd rather piss a lot of valuable water down the drain.
Engineers tend to be notoriously bad at writing. If you were really an engineer, Anonymous Coward, I suspect you would know that.
Humans also get distracted fairly easily, and can't always predict when. "Just stepping away from the computer for 15 seconds" can easily become "get dragged into something and come back half an hour later".
Which is why, if I'm only stepping away from the computer for 15 seconds, I lock it. And it's why, even if I'm just driving the car across the street to park it on the other side, I buckle up.
Habits work to your advantage if you let them.
...which is why, after a couple of times of this thing logging them out when they didn't want it to, they'll find a way to defeat it.
I wonder if unplugging it from the PC would work?
just how much a pain in the ass eating must be for people that don't have 3 days of food in the house. How do you even do that? ... they would have to be shopping 2-3 times a week.
Shopping? Does that include stopping by McD's to order carry-out? What about having Pizza Hut deliver?
That must be an enormous burden on these people.
Was that a fat joke?
Did you mean a grounded Faraday cage?
It goes by the date they were first published.
The copyright doesn't renew every time the book is reprinted. Otherwise, they could keep the copyright going perpetually.
Still, some vendors get left out entirely. I use ESET. Since they don't have a free version, they weren't included. I'd like to know how they measure up, though... hell, whoever's testing could just install their 30-day trial and not even have to buy it.
switches allow devices to utilize the full bandwidth of a wire without fear of collisions. There is no analogue to this in the wireless world
Yes, there is. It's called "channels". A channel is set such that the signal-to-noise is maximised and you can reliably tell the signal from the rest of the radio noise.
radio waves propagate from the transmitter to the other end of the universe, always (theoretically even if they are sent from within a Faraday cage if you ever open it up later)
Ahem.
Signals sent from inside a Faraday cage get out just fine.
Ultimately I can see "don't-play-if-anything-analog-is-hooked-to-it".
My eyes are still analog, so ultimately I can't see that...
Lumpy was talking about ethernet, that's why I went there.
What does interference from other devices have to do with anything? Last I checked, they even had to bear a warning/disclaimer to be licensed under the FCC: something like "This device may not cause harmful interference. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." It's why we have 11 different channels for wireless routers. And there are power limitations on transmitting devices as well.
A chia pet was able to identify them.
Letting a website screw around with existing browser features is a little bit different than giving them a whole new sandbox to play in.
E.g. right-click - Google Maps is one of the only websites that I've found that actually does this "nicely". The rest of the websites that disable the browser right-click menu generally just piss me off. But if there was a whole new menu in addition to the browser's default right-click menu, instead of one or the other, it would give the best of both worlds.
So when I say they could register the menu options and event handlers, I don't imply that they'd be able to interact with other parts of the browser chrome, like the other menus. They'd just be able to fill the site-specific menu with options. The rest of the browser chrome would work exactly as it was supposed to.
From the mockup, it looks like they're going to scrape a few functions from the website's interface and add them to a site-specific menu in the Firefox menu bar.
While I wouldn't call this terrible so long as it would actually work, it seems like something that would break at the slightest change to the websites it's designed to support, which ranks it up there somewhere near "worst idea ever" in my estimation. They're basically assuming that Facebook isn't going to change their javascript, and/or putting upon themselves the hassle of fixing the menu every time Facebook's update breaks it.
The only way I could see this being workable is by making it an opt-in thing, e.g. giving an interface whereby a site could register its menu with the options and their corresponding javascript event handler functions to fire when they were selected.
Jeebus, you're all stupid-heads.
Full-duplex ethernet is achieved because the full-duplex switch talks to every connected device separately, and relays their packets to the other devices on the network to achieve collision-free communication. There are effectively only 2 devices per ethernet cable: one on each end. One of those is the switch, which is connected to multiple devices whose packets it can receive simultaneously. It then buffers and re-transmits them to the rest of the network sequentially so that they can't collide with each other.
On half-duplex ethernet, the switch is dumb and can't prevent two devices' packets from colliding. The switch is just there to make connections between the conductors in the ethernet cables. So instead of two devices, there are many devices talking on the same ethernet cable, which means that only one device can transmit at a time on the entire network.
And this is something entirely different: currently a "full-duplex" connection still means you spend 50% of your maximum bandwidth transmitting and 50% of it receiving. This is supposedly able to utilize 100% of it transmitting and 100% of it receiving at the same time, which means your speed effectively doubles.
If your link will transmit that high-frequency chopping without causing too much interference to be decoded on the far end, your data rate could have been much faster to begin with. So I wouldn't call it "true full duplex speed".
That's like saying you can get "true dual-core multi-threading" by using time-slice allocation and running the two threads on one core.
As someone else pointed out, in a real scenario you don't have the luxury of having perfect information of everything that's going on from the entire scenario. Much of the time the person making command decisions is going to have to gather their information from actual people on the ground, e.g. via radios. This would be much more realistic in forcing people to communicate and efficiently relay information up/down the chain of command.
And if they wanted to, I'm sure they could pause the simulation's timeline so that they could move their camera "instantly".
The first rule of cyber-warfare is:
You do not talk about cyber-warfare.
The second rule of cyber-warfare is:
You do NOT talk about cyber-warfare!
(also, that was GP's point.)