It's not so much the distance of the lava over the ground. If you carefully pop the cork from a champagne bottle, it does not overflow. Be somewhat less gentle, and the stuff overflows from the top and drips down the side, maybe you get a bit of rise. There are volcanos that look like this when erupting. Shake vigorously, and the cork will launch itself on a fountain of bubbles. That's a volcano lik Mt. St. Helens. For a supervolcano, the champagne bottle is insufficient as a simile. Think broken fire hydrant. The problem is the enormous amount of lava going up in the air in droplets and turning into ash, which then gets spread around the atmosphere around the world.
I have no "farthest ever", but did find this artice on Wikipedia for you, including a reference to a book on the subject, that states that when Yellowstone last erupted, 6400.000 years ago, the magma and ashes got as far as norht Mexico and covered the USA west of Mississippi.
Here is an article from the FOSS Patents Blog with some details on the case ruled on in last August in the Netherlands, which is what I guess is being referred to as "earlier dismissed in Europe". It's certainly amazing how one judge can say "this clearly existed before" and another can say "no it didn't" based on the same info.
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
But the disadvantage is not just present in case of (bizarre, as you say) hostilities between the US and EU. If the US military is involved in some conflict somewhere and decide that it is beneficial to them to limit or even shut down GPS for civilian use, then every-one is affected by that. Example: suppose you were hiking around South-Italy during the Balkan conflict (just across the Adriatic Sea, there), and the US had switched off GPS, or limited it to military use only. Bummer. And that's just a vacation. Business etc are affected just as well. So having an independent system seems better.
Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?
Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)
I can't help thinking about Minority Report, where the shopping centre's billboards scanned Tom Cruise's irises to adapt their advertisements to suite his recent shopping behaviour. I guess we're still lucky with only phone monitoring; we can see were it's going, though...
Ah, I stand corrected. I guess I should have read further than "MiFare." Thanks for guarding the facts.
However, it shows that after the initial hacking, improvements were made (well, they probably would have brought out a newer version anyway, but I'm sure the hack was taken along in the development). Later, that improved chip was hacked (different hack, for not the same chip, as you point out). So, we can expect this new chip being used by TLS to be hacked again. I assume it's better, but so are the hack researchers. Should we expect a hack after a longer time period than before, or sooner?
Here's a link to the earlier hack by German reseachers in PCworld , with links to video demonstration and paper of University of Virginia.
A similar hack on the same chip also in 2008 was published by Dutch researchers from Radboud Univeristy in Nijmgen, in the Netherlands. This case attracted additional attention because the company making the Mifare chip, NXP (formerly Phillips semiconductors), tried to block publication of the hack and was denied this in a Dutch court of law (security guru Schneier on this).
Even more recently, the " improved" system, but still using the same chip on the cards, was targeted by Dutch investigative journalist Brenno de Winter who was cleared from prosecution by a judge as recently as three weeks ago. His research showed that hacking was possible by using a freely available windows program (you-tubevideo of his sadly overly-long presentation at DefCon 16).
Last week it became public that the company responsible for the system, Trans Link Systems ( somewhat uninformative site) has silently been introducing cards using a different chip for two months now. It uses the Infineon SLE-66 chip (producer unknown to me; anyone?), that can have software installed. The software that was installed by TLS is to block any tampering. Dutch news site nu.nl has had such a card for two weeks and was not able to hack it with the currently known methods (their article, Dutch only, I'm afraid). Old cards are still in production until he end of the year for subscriptions (linked to personalized accounts) but the new cards are used for the anonymous day cards. Equipment of public transport personnel has been adapted to reveal hacking attempts.
So, the big question to all the security experts hovering around slashdot: how realistic is the claim that this card will prevent fraud? Let's be realistic and assume that it can eventually be hacked in the lab, but that practical application of this hack is not feasible. The interesting case is a hacking method that would make free transport available on a large scale, as is the case now.Can chip-installed software block such tampering attempts?
Sorry, Coren22, for my somewhat general link; it does take a bit of clicking around.
Amounts are here. For 2011, the full Prize amount is 10.000.000,00 SEK (Swedish Kronor); this amounts (hahah, pun intended) to Eur 1.246.401,02 or USD 1.541.050,22. I'm sure a small mansion is a possibility.
Other facts, such as the age of winners over the years, are here.
Well, historically, the Nobel prize was instituted by Alfred Nobel to encourage young scientists, as far as I know. And yes, his intention was to made work possible that would not be related to weapons production etc, given his own involvement in developing dynamite - again, this is what I always understood. So that would fall under "responsible action." Over the years, the average age of Nobel Laureates has certainly gone up (I think the youngest ever was 25 years old, in 1915), so that nowadays the prize is more like a lifetime achievement award, and less of a "keep up the good work, young feller-me-lad" pat on the back.
Dividing the money is always done when there are more people involved in the research: there is a certain amount per year, and that is awarded, no more, no less. In this year, one of them was the main man of one scientific team, the other two were the leaders of the other team. So it's not so much the person that is being considered, as is the circumstances in which the work is done. Although you do get the money personally, to spend as you like it.
The Nobel committee (http://www.nobelprize.org) has interesting statistics available after clicking around some (although that resear will not get you a prize)
Yes, so, the fact that France has a large car and truck industry *does* make it probable that part of the car is made by a French company. Am I missing your point?
I read now that the car is made in the Pininfarina factories in Turin by companies Bolloré and Cecomp. Bolloré does the drivetrain, so there you go.
Probably the car is made with a small part, say, the left indicator light cover, that is French, so to the French, this car is French: a great victory for the republic! Vive la France! Vive la voiture Francais! (sounds of Marseillaise in the background)...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much the distance of the lava over the ground. If you carefully pop the cork from a champagne bottle, it does not overflow. Be somewhat less gentle, and the stuff overflows from the top and drips down the side, maybe you get a bit of rise. There are volcanos that look like this when erupting. Shake vigorously, and the cork will launch itself on a fountain of bubbles. That's a volcano lik Mt. St. Helens. For a supervolcano, the champagne bottle is insufficient as a simile. Think broken fire hydrant. The problem is the enormous amount of lava going up in the air in droplets and turning into ash, which then gets spread around the atmosphere around the world.
I have no "farthest ever", but did find this artice on Wikipedia for you, including a reference to a book on the subject, that states that when Yellowstone last erupted, 6400.000 years ago, the magma and ashes got as far as norht Mexico and covered the USA west of Mississippi.
Hope that helps.
Here is an article from the FOSS Patents Blog with some details on the case ruled on in last August in the Netherlands, which is what I guess is being referred to as "earlier dismissed in Europe". It's certainly amazing how one judge can say "this clearly existed before" and another can say "no it didn't" based on the same info.
>
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
But the disadvantage is not just present in case of (bizarre, as you say) hostilities between the US and EU. If the US military is involved in some conflict somewhere and decide that it is beneficial to them to limit or even shut down GPS for civilian use, then every-one is affected by that. Example: suppose you were hiking around South-Italy during the Balkan conflict (just across the Adriatic Sea, there), and the US had switched off GPS, or limited it to military use only. Bummer. And that's just a vacation. Business etc are affected just as well. So having an independent system seems better.
Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?
Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)
I can't help thinking about Minority Report, where the shopping centre's billboards scanned Tom Cruise's irises to adapt their advertisements to suite his recent shopping behaviour. I guess we're still lucky with only phone monitoring; we can see were it's going, though...
Ah, I stand corrected. I guess I should have read further than "MiFare." Thanks for guarding the facts.
However, it shows that after the initial hacking, improvements were made (well, they probably would have brought out a newer version anyway, but I'm sure the hack was taken along in the development). Later, that improved chip was hacked (different hack, for not the same chip, as you point out). So, we can expect this new chip being used by TLS to be hacked again. I assume it's better, but so are the hack researchers. Should we expect a hack after a longer time period than before, or sooner?
Here's a link to the earlier hack by German reseachers in PCworld , with links to video demonstration and paper of University of Virginia.
A similar hack on the same chip also in 2008 was published by Dutch researchers from Radboud Univeristy in Nijmgen, in the Netherlands. This case attracted additional attention because the company making the Mifare chip, NXP (formerly Phillips semiconductors), tried to block publication of the hack and was denied this in a Dutch court of law (security guru Schneier on this).
Even more recently, the " improved" system, but still using the same chip on the cards, was targeted by Dutch investigative journalist Brenno de Winter who was cleared from prosecution by a judge as recently as three weeks ago. His research showed that hacking was possible by using a freely available windows program (you-tubevideo of his sadly overly-long presentation at DefCon 16).
Last week it became public that the company responsible for the system, Trans Link Systems ( somewhat uninformative site) has silently been introducing cards using a different chip for two months now. It uses the Infineon SLE-66 chip (producer unknown to me; anyone?), that can have software installed. The software that was installed by TLS is to block any tampering. Dutch news site nu.nl has had such a card for two weeks and was not able to hack it with the currently known methods (their article, Dutch only, I'm afraid). Old cards are still in production until he end of the year for subscriptions (linked to personalized accounts) but the new cards are used for the anonymous day cards. Equipment of public transport personnel has been adapted to reveal hacking attempts.
So, the big question to all the security experts hovering around slashdot: how realistic is the claim that this card will prevent fraud? Let's be realistic and assume that it can eventually be hacked in the lab, but that practical application of this hack is not feasible. The interesting case is a hacking method that would make free transport available on a large scale, as is the case now.Can chip-installed software block such tampering attempts?
Sorry, Coren22, for my somewhat general link; it does take a bit of clicking around.
Amounts are here. For 2011, the full Prize amount is 10.000.000,00 SEK (Swedish Kronor); this amounts (hahah, pun intended) to Eur 1.246.401,02 or USD 1.541.050,22. I'm sure a small mansion is a possibility.
Other facts, such as the age of winners over the years, are here.
Well, historically, the Nobel prize was instituted by Alfred Nobel to encourage young scientists, as far as I know. And yes, his intention was to made work possible that would not be related to weapons production etc, given his own involvement in developing dynamite - again, this is what I always understood. So that would fall under "responsible action." Over the years, the average age of Nobel Laureates has certainly gone up (I think the youngest ever was 25 years old, in 1915), so that nowadays the prize is more like a lifetime achievement award, and less of a "keep up the good work, young feller-me-lad" pat on the back. Dividing the money is always done when there are more people involved in the research: there is a certain amount per year, and that is awarded, no more, no less. In this year, one of them was the main man of one scientific team, the other two were the leaders of the other team. So it's not so much the person that is being considered, as is the circumstances in which the work is done. Although you do get the money personally, to spend as you like it. The Nobel committee (http://www.nobelprize.org) has interesting statistics available after clicking around some (although that resear will not get you a prize)
Yes, so, the fact that France has a large car and truck industry *does* make it probable that part of the car is made by a French company. Am I missing your point? I read now that the car is made in the Pininfarina factories in Turin by companies Bolloré and Cecomp. Bolloré does the drivetrain, so there you go.
Probably the car is made with a small part, say, the left indicator light cover, that is French, so to the French, this car is French: a great victory for the republic! Vive la France! Vive la voiture Francais! (sounds of Marseillaise in the background)...