Massachusetts doesn't recognize that Maine broke away and
considers Portland and Kennebunkport to merely be suburbs of
Boston.
Strangely enough, Maineiacs (at least living North of Portland) also
consider Southern Maine as "Mainachusetts".
As for what Southern Maine residents consider it - Oh, wait, we don't have
any. Nothing but walled-off gated summer palaces for rich weirdos (for
example, the Bush family) who we thank greatly for paying the $2 York
toll at least twice per visit.
Isn't this the same key that will open mini-bars? I think the hotel owners should be able to sue over this release.
For the non-refridgerated mini-bars, you don't actually need the key. Grasp the handle firmly and push/rotate it
outward (hard to describe but trivial to do - Basically you want to put torque on it so the bolt of the lock on
the inside rotates away from the door jamb).
As an aside, this works on a lot of simpler locks on thin-metal cases - The weakness comes from the fact that
the door and outer case will easily flex (elastically - You don't need to rip the door off to do this) far enough to
open without bothering to unlock it first. "Tamper-proof" fire extinguisher boxes such as you find at schools... Some
electrical panels (usually they use heavier gauge steel though and won't bend enough), many mini-bars (the refridgerated
ones usually have an entirely different setup and this won't work), most thermostat covers such as you see at hotels,
paper towel and toilet dispensers... Once you see how this works once, you'll see how to apply it everywhere.
Welcome to the real-world application of chapter one of the MIT
lockpicking guide, namely, "it may be easier to bypass the bolt mechanism than to bypass the lock. It may also
be easier to bypass some other part of the door or even avoid the door entirely. Remeber: There is always another
way, usually a better one". It impresses your friends to actually pick a lock; It gets you free booze to just
ignore the lock and open the door with the right flick of the wrist.
Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length
movie at some point in the past, according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans.
Absolutely, positively false.
Any not because I consider people more honest than that - If you include people copying DVDs or even
back in the days of copying VHS tapes, I'd put the figure closer to 70-80% that have pirated a movie.
But to specifically say "downloaded"?
18% of the US population either doesn't have a net connection anywhere near fast enough to download
a full-length movie, or has no clue how to actually do so. The most inflated figures available only put
roughly a third of the country as having "broadband", which includes quite a bit of the "anything faster
than dialup" you see in rural areas, usually under 384kbps. And of those households with "real" broadband,
fewer than half of the occupants actually have a clue on how to use the internet (either young parents with
kids too young to pirate, or older parents who only have it for the teenager kids).
So no. 18% of respondants in an almost certainly urban area (much higher broadband penetration) have
downloaded a pirated movie. The MPAA, however, needs to learn the meanings of "external validity" and "sample
bias".
But this brings up a good point -- why shouldn't BitTorrent
be the great mythical omniscient music repository where all the
world's music is available instantly?
Fixed that for ya...
More seriously, we can't really blame Apple for this one.
They can only sell what the copyright holders let them
sell. Cross-border music distribution has always
counted as something of a tricky issue (thus the nearly
black-market prices of anything you buy stamped "import").
One additional, more practical problem - PR (in the good,
"exposure" sense). Let's say Apple miraculously gets permission
from every record company in the world to sell anything at all.
How many J-Pop artists do you think most non-Japanese people can
name? Off the top of my head, I can only think of one by name and
one more I would recognize but can't name a damned thing by
them; And I expect that makes two more than 99% of Americans.
And that, from a country with a major, thriving music industry.
How about more obscure regional genres? Ever heard of Norteño?
Magham? Wayno? Yupraka? Luogu? Isizulu? Yeah, I can see
those selling well enough the US to even justify the
bandwidth of listing them as available downloads.
Doggedly insisting on using one sense of a polysemous word for no apparent reason
No apparent reason??? The distinction involved makes the difference between "scientific
method" and "lab tech"!
You do not, ever, prove your hypothesis. You "fail to reject the null hypothesis".
If you don't appreciate not only the distinction, but also the critical role that distinction
plays in real science, you have no place criticizing those you would call "pedants".
(other, maybe, than the apparent desire to show off)
This, from the guy using "polysemous" rather than "ambiguous" or even just "unclear"?
and in the face of the obvious fact that the word is perfectly reasonable to use in
the given context if we allow other senses to be used
"Reasonable" in that it forms a gramatically correct sentence, yes. Also completely and utterly
wrong.
Windows tracks a "scorecard" of your hardware. Components like your cpu, video card,
hd, etc are worth 1 point. Your NIC is worth 3 points.
While you have the right basic idea, you need to understand more what WPA actually
keeps track of to make sense of it.
You can find a good explanation here.
To summarize, though, basically you have the right idea in that more than three "hardware" changes
trigger reactivation. In reality, several software, and particularly BIOS, changes also count as
"hardware" as WPA looks at it (although very very unlikely, you could actually flash your BIOS to a
new version, with no real hardware changes, and need to reactivate).
As the two easiest "soft" changes, WPA considers your MAC address (which you mention) and your HDD's
volume serial number (NOT unchangeable, though the user probably wouldn't even notice if it changed).
Of course, all this seems somewhat pointless to argue over, as WGA and WPA don't refer to the same thing.
Your story is telling...mostly telling lies. Added RAM? that alone wont cause it to need a new key.
Presuming you mean that seriously, rather than just to troll the guy...
He said, and I quote, "I added a gig of RAM and a different video card" (bolding mine).
Two changes, depending on which ones, can trigger reactivation.
Really quite annoying, actually. I find it much easier to just pirate VLK
versions. That way, no messy activation (or cracks thereof) to bother with.
To which I will reply: Fine, Why didn't you just call Microsoft?
Have you ever called a company to tell them they've made a mistake? Hmm?
Trust me, it takes far less time to just download a "third-party patch"
to correct the problem, than trying to do things the "right" way.
Really, this should be the easiest to crack. Someone has to take the money. Or some company
which then turns it over to some person. The SEC should be busting these left and right.
Except, you've missed the point on the very reason these scams do make money - Because
people buy these stocks realizing them as pump-n-dump scams, hoping to trade out in time.
Pretty easy, actually...
1) Get stock spam
2) See if the price has gone up in the past week. If so, forget it. If not, continue o step 3
3) Buy a few thousand shares
4) Watch the price carefully.
5) The second it starts going up, sell sell sell! Don't try to time it for best profit, dump ASAP.
6) Profit!
So, by "following the money", they'd potentially catch honest traders as well as those running the scam.
According to a Beijing digest, this SHA-1 encryption includes the world's gold standard
Message-Digest algorithm 5 (MD5). Before Professor Wang cracked it, the MD5 could only be deciphered
by today's fastest supercomputer running codes for more than a million years.
Overlooking the fact that a hash function does NOT equal "encryption", the above-quoted
paragraph goes far beyond word choice and grammar errors, and appears outright factually...
Well, not "wrong" so much as "completely absurd" - It would have to make at least some
sense to actually evaluate as "wrong".
Anyone have a link to info on this that makes sense? Like perhaps the nature of
the specific weakness Xiaoyun found, and by how much it weakens SHA-1? Makes a
big difference whether this means you can obtain an arbitrary SHA1, vs
reducing the search space by one or two bytes.
Agreed - I thought it obvious that I don't really feel that strongly against
pro-conservation books, but I bear the full blame for that assumption (you know what
they say about that word...).
Some of the books that come up really don't suck - I even own a few of them. But
we won't save the world by reading, and I stand by my rant against the
general uselessness of "tags".
For example, I noticed the Amazon tags for the first time after the most recent
discussion of CFLs on Slashdot. I already use almost all CFLs (except in the
attic and basement, where I've found they have very short lives due to the environment,
and I rarely need to light those places anyway).
But I thought, "What a great tag," not realizing at first that they had over a dozen very similar
tags, "I wonder if I can find lists of other energy-saving common household devices". Fans,
for one - I've found my P3 Kill-A-Watt to be a simply fabulous device, but have learned
that common household fans (box/oscillating/filter) have a huge range of power
consumption, totally unrelated to how much air they move (as an aside, the single most
efficient fan in my house sits inside a small portable space-heater - With the heater
off (fan-only mode), it draws only 17W yet will readily blow mail off the desk
from across the room). And you can't trust the rated wattage in the product literature,
because for most products, they only mention extremely conservative upper limits
(like 250W for a 20" box fan, which as inefficient as most seem, I've never seen one break
200W even on high and at a stall).
So, a nice list of common fans rated by CFM/Watt would prove useful. A list
of books, meh, not so useful.
As another, totally irrelevant aside, my trusty Kill-A-Watt has also taught me that
for most products, the "high" setting counts as the most efficient. For example, one
HEPA filter I own draws 86W on a barely dust-stirring "Low", yet only 107W on gale-force
"High".
Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term?
Important term?
Puh-lease.
You have a bunch of websites, many of which call themselves the buzzword-2.0 of the week,
that have implemented a feature that has zero standardization or between-site meaning.
Most of these sites actually allow users to post comments, making one-word comments
completely pointless. Though someone will probably point me to a counterexample, I
have yet to see a site that lets you meaningfully search or filter by tags.
On that point, note the key word, "meaningfully". Check out Amazon's tags for the best
I've seen yet, and it still sucks so hard that you have a dozen words all describing (almost)
the same thing - "Almost", except that you'd have to check every single one of them to find
the 1% that they don't overlap. Example: "green", "environment", "environmental",
"conservation", "sustainability", and a handful of similar words all mean the same thing,
yet point to slightly different lists; And on those lists, do you find environmentally-friendly
products? No. You find nothing but books of pseudoscience written by and for zealots.
I'll worry about what to call these things if (not "when") they actually take on
some usefulness. Until then, you can call them "snergs" for all I care.
And how can this possibly deal with the equivalent of a range of shutter speeds in front of a standard sensor?
Not to mention, you get the previously-not-an-issue joy of temporal
aliasing.
And you thought the flicker of fluorescents annoyed you now? Wait until
any exposure longer than 1/120th of a second includes both the "lit" and "unlit"
version in one picture. Good luck figuring out the meaning of white and black
levels on that monstrosity...
And it doesn't stop the megapixel chest thumping - it just starts up megamirror arguments, instead.
Well, realistically, you wouldn't need millions of mirrors, just one, which can tilt in 2d. It would thus
"scan" the target just like a CRT scans the screen - Except, instead of hitting distinct pixels on its
path, you'd have a continuous function.
In theory, you could literally generate an infinite-megapixel image from that. In practice, you'd
just replace "megapixels" with "megahertz" - The effective resolution would depend at the frequency
with which you could sample the actual sensor. You'd need a sampling rate of 1GHz to get an 8MP
image at an exposure of 1/125s (incidentally, that applies whether you use one 2d mirror or
an array of 8 million binary mirrors).
I do seriously have to wonder, though - Considering how poorly current digital cameras
perform in low-light conditions, wouldn't this massively worsen the problem? Even
taking a picture of the Sun itself, does a 1/(10^9) exposure really give a meaningful
value for a single pixel?
The system is intended to detect the launch of a
shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and
disable the missile with a laser beam.
What a great idea! Now when the terrorists
eventually take over another round of planes, they can
effectively block missiles intended to shoot them down
before reaching sensitive targets.
How about if next, we equip subway cars with nuclear
self-destruct devices so terrorists can't use them
to make their speedy getaways?
Company executives want face time with their employees, the study said.
Wait, I thought that counted as the best reason to telecommute?
On a more serious note - I've worked for a fairly small international corporation (~5k employees).
And physical presence at the corporate headquarters meant absolute diddly-squat. I had
only a vague notion that we had executives hiding somewhere on the third floor. They never
came out to play with the engineers, except at "informative" "internal" meetings that curiously
resembled press conferences (including the press).
You want to climb the corporate ladder? Don't start off as an engineer. Start off as a beancounter
(which, while mind-numbingly boring to most engineers, we can do the job in our sleep, leaving plenty
of time to keep our souls alive coding in our spare time - But then, having a soul counts as a handicap
if you hope to "make" it in a megacorp).
Wouldn't companies like Barr Labs, whose entire business model
is to develop drugs that have fallen out of patent protection, be
interested in developing a drug that's not patent protected?
Nope.
Manufacturing off-patent generics differs from bringing a new
unpatentable product to market in one very key aspect - Off-patent
drugs already have FDA approval.
Finding substance-X doesn't cost that much... Pharmaceutical
companies have developed techniques for rapidly trying every
plausible variant of a given structure in one huge parallel
batch. The cost comes from taking those chemicals that show
promise, performing clinical trials to show safety and efficacy,
getting FDA approval, and then actually marketing the drug.
And highlighting just about the worst aspect of capitalism,
the problem here doesn't just come from whether or not a company
could take a likely candidate, do all that I mention above, and
still turn a profit - The problem comes from the fact that seconds
after one company foots the bill for all that, the rest can then
start production and undercut the first player. So, rather than
making less money than the competition, no one will
take that leap.
Some will gloatingly point out that drug patents exist in the first
place to address that exact problem. Of course, that completely
misses the point that in this case, the patent system has still
failed to solve the problem, and if anything, exacerbated it.
You are clearly posting from a position of ignorance, and an inability
to reason, because you have fallen prey to the same logical fallacies i
mentioned in my grandparent post.
Your own ad hominem aside, calling argumentum ad ignorantiam
requires an actual absence of evidence. Yet, quite a lot of evidence
supports the "boys like weapons and tools, girls like dolls and housemaking"
stance - From research on pre-verbal children, to "feral" children, to the
organization of matriarchal societies, to studies of nonhuman primates.
They all act the same.
Ignorance: Sex is biologically determined. Gender is not.
Take it up with Webster: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". If you replace "one sex" as you
propose... Well, to quote you, "This again is circular."
Those physiological differences are not sufficient to explain
the disparity between salaries and positions that exist between
men and women in the western world.
No? Sorry, remind me which concrete physical attributes define
"deserved salary", that having ovaries (or a penis) doesn't
suffice to explain the discrepancy?
Not to say that women should make less. But you accuse
others of circular reasoning, while overlooking it in your own
stance: Why shouldn't one group make less, if they
choose lower-paying careers? "Making less for the same
work", which most of us can agree should not happen, does NOT
mean "Making less for picking a lower-paid career".
Or, to pervert your own argument, perhaps you've simply tried to force
the male bias toward focusing on monetary compensation onto
an area in which it doesn't work well as a metric.
No one has given a good reason why these fields should be so
lopsided in terms of sex. All the reasons that are given are
circular ones.
PLENTY of people have given "good", sound, survival-of-the-species
reasons - Females excel at social skills and nurturing behavior (and
consequently, linguistic-oriented tasks) because they traditionally
raised the young. Males excel at problem solving and 3d spatial
orientation (and consequently, mathematically-oriented tasks) because
they traditionally went out and killed either food or each other.
The problem there comes from certain people (not predominantly just male
or female, incidentally) not wanting to accept that we exist as the
product of the evolution that put us on top of the food chain. I don't
know if this comes from religious belief or just an inappropriate
application of the tenets of Jeffersonian democracy, but thus it stands.
Like it or not, 50 years of social change hasn't modified our hard-wired
behavior any more than 100 years of readily-available bright artificial
light has modified our hard-wired need for sleep. But we can revisit
this argument 10k or so generations from now, if you like.
The problem is that gender is socially determined,
Ummm... Not sure what you meant to say, but I can assure you
that, in humans, gender results from genetics, and with the
exception of rare "mistakes", has a well-defined value from the moment
of conception.
Now, a social aspect to the implications of gender certainly
exists, and in that, we can try our best to give both males and females
an equal set of opportunities to do what they want with their lives,
rather than forcing them into stereotypical roles. Except, in study
after study after study, when you give males and females a choice,
they overwhelmingly choose - Their stereotypical gender roles!
So which counts as the worse ethical "crime" - Not having 50/50 gender
representation in every profession; or forcing women to go into
professions they simply don't care for, such as engineering, just to
balance the numbers?
If it didn't disgust me, I'd find it hilarious that, in trying
to "liberate" women from their traditional shackles, we've simply
switched which post we chain them to.
Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week.
Gee, perhaps that has something to do with Microsoft marking it a
high-priority update, so everyone with automatic updates turned on
will unwittingly get it?
Not much of a claim to success to say that 100 million people,
running an OS that has automatic updates turned on by default,
have wasted bandwidth on a program they didn't even choose to
download.
You're clearly superhuman and you have trouble relating to us mortals.
I didn't plan to respond any more on this topic, but given this comment and your handle, I
couldn't resist.;-)
I don't see how doing the things a normal, health 11YO boy should do makes me
so unbelievable. As the only "unusual" circumstance from my childhood, we lived in
the middle of nowhere, so I mostly only saw my friends at school; resultingly, I learned
to entertain myself, and can thank my current self-sufficience on that part of my life
(though at the time, I certainly would have much rather lived within walking distance
of a few friends' houses).
But hunting and hiking and learning how the world (not the human world, the real
world) works? It saddens me greatly to think that ALL boys don't learn those things.
As much as I disapprove of the BSA for their rabidly anti-gay stance, perhaps they
really do serve a much-needed role reagardless of their bigotry.
If you're interested, I'm sure you can teach yourself by doing a little googling.
Yes, 6-8 people so far have mentioned "Stockholm Syndrome". I would bet that perhaps
one of them has ever seen the term used in a more formal context than Dan n' Connie's blathering.
SOME people come to identify with their captors in long-term hostage situations.
Some.
Others will patiently comply until their captors grow complacent, then do whatever it
takes the moment the captors turn their backs.
In that I simply cannot imagine falling into the first category, I will admit that I
do not understand the psychology of the willing victim.
I guess you were out hunting crocodiles and working as a mercenary in the
Civil War of Congo when you were eleven?
No, just fish, rabbits, and game birds, and only within a few miles (ie hiking distance)
of my parents' house. From your question, I suppose Nintendo's "Duck Hunt",
from the living-room floor, about did it for you, then?
Every response to me so far has take the stance that 11YO kids count as completely
helpless idiots. They don't. They have the presense of mind to get help when they direly
need it. They don't consider "bad men" omnipotent evil deities that can kill them
and their parents. They understand the difference between "Wierd uncle Joe" and
"Some guy that dragged me into his car at the mall one afternoon".
Hell, I don't think most of the responses so far would have applied to me at six.
By eleven, I truly believe that if I couldn't have outright escaped, I would have killed
the guy in his sleep.
So yeah, if it makes me an "asshole", I have trouble believing this as a simple
kidnapping.
Every IT job I have had, had that ever so magical cause "and other duties as needed".
Yup - And that ends the second I (or they) terminate my employment. Which sounds pretty much
like the situations to which you replied... People wrote small programs for their own use,
which others found useful. Their employers' had the chance to retain that work, and blindly
did not do so. I fail to see the problem.
I can understanding not having loyalty to an employer but one should at least
some respect for those that will come after you and/or left there.
"Respect" does not equal "volunteer work", into which category anything I do for the company
after I stop drawing a paycheck would fall. If someone has a 30 second question, I'd
probably chat, just for the sake of basic human decency. If they wanted me to recreate
a few hours' of work lost due to their own negligence, well, they damned well better expect
an invoice for my time.
He was paid to do his job and in effort to make his job easier he wrote some
software while at work to that end. Who is responsible for making sure that software
is backed up is the real question.
Not really - Let me pose a similar but non-backup-related concept, and see what you think:
In my job, I write a lot of small one-off tools to automate common tasks I
perform. I've shared them freely with my coworkers, who use them once then
promptly forget about it, until they need to perform a similar task... At which
point they come to me asking for a quick refresher in how to use tool-X.
As I firmly believe in backups, they would have no trouble finding various version
of my tools scattered across both the network and backup DVDs of my own system. Including
source code (though keep in mind I wrote these as quick-n-dirties for personal use, so good
luck reading the source code, and goddess help you if you trust that I did any input
validation whatsoever).
If I left my job, by your stance, would I have to write them a manual, on my own
time, to keep using the tools I wrote for my own convenience?
Devlin's neighbors 'often spotted Shawn out and about, visiting friends on his bicycle
or playing video games with the apartment door open.
Y'know, call me crazy, but... Does anyone else find this entire situation somewhat unbelievable
as a "kidnapping"?
In child kidnapping cases that don't involve a parent or close relative, they either:
A) Recover the child within a few days, or
B) Recover the body within a few months.
Yet, in this case, we have a kid missing for four years, found in good health, who
had the freedom to leave the apartment and hang out with friends?
Not to take a "blame the victim" stance here, but did running into a friend's house and
begging the friend's parents to call the police never cross this kid's mind? Hello?
Personally, I suspect the kid ran away and eventually hooked up with some random
guy that let him live there. As for the second kid, well, I can't explain that one
so well, but the "kidnapping" angle just doesn't sit right with me.
The company has every right to decide to charge money for a service.
100% true - But they should have the balls to come out and say so, not hide behind a
totally unrelated law that even the experts disagree on its exactly implications.
Perhaps they want to win some sympathy points from the customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts doesn't recognize that Maine broke away and considers Portland and Kennebunkport to merely be suburbs of Boston.
Strangely enough, Maineiacs (at least living North of Portland) also consider Southern Maine as "Mainachusetts".
As for what Southern Maine residents consider it - Oh, wait, we don't have any. Nothing but walled-off gated summer palaces for rich weirdos (for example, the Bush family) who we thank greatly for paying the $2 York toll at least twice per visit.
"The way life should be" indeed!
Isn't this the same key that will open mini-bars? I think the hotel owners should be able to sue over this release.
For the non-refridgerated mini-bars, you don't actually need the key. Grasp the handle firmly and push/rotate it outward (hard to describe but trivial to do - Basically you want to put torque on it so the bolt of the lock on the inside rotates away from the door jamb).
As an aside, this works on a lot of simpler locks on thin-metal cases - The weakness comes from the fact that the door and outer case will easily flex (elastically - You don't need to rip the door off to do this) far enough to open without bothering to unlock it first. "Tamper-proof" fire extinguisher boxes such as you find at schools... Some electrical panels (usually they use heavier gauge steel though and won't bend enough), many mini-bars (the refridgerated ones usually have an entirely different setup and this won't work), most thermostat covers such as you see at hotels, paper towel and toilet dispensers... Once you see how this works once, you'll see how to apply it everywhere.
Welcome to the real-world application of chapter one of the MIT lockpicking guide, namely, "it may be easier to bypass the bolt mechanism than to bypass the lock. It may also be easier to bypass some other part of the door or even avoid the door entirely. Remeber: There is always another way, usually a better one". It impresses your friends to actually pick a lock; It gets you free booze to just ignore the lock and open the door with the right flick of the wrist.
Roughly 18 percent of the U.S. online population has illegally downloaded a full-length movie at some point in the past, according to a telephone and online study of 2,600 Americans.
Absolutely, positively false.
Any not because I consider people more honest than that - If you include people copying DVDs or even back in the days of copying VHS tapes, I'd put the figure closer to 70-80% that have pirated a movie.
But to specifically say "downloaded"?
18% of the US population either doesn't have a net connection anywhere near fast enough to download a full-length movie, or has no clue how to actually do so. The most inflated figures available only put roughly a third of the country as having "broadband", which includes quite a bit of the "anything faster than dialup" you see in rural areas, usually under 384kbps. And of those households with "real" broadband, fewer than half of the occupants actually have a clue on how to use the internet (either young parents with kids too young to pirate, or older parents who only have it for the teenager kids).
So no. 18% of respondants in an almost certainly urban area (much higher broadband penetration) have downloaded a pirated movie. The MPAA, however, needs to learn the meanings of "external validity" and "sample bias".
But this brings up a good point -- why shouldn't BitTorrent be the great mythical omniscient music repository where all the world's music is available instantly?
Fixed that for ya...
More seriously, we can't really blame Apple for this one. They can only sell what the copyright holders let them sell. Cross-border music distribution has always counted as something of a tricky issue (thus the nearly black-market prices of anything you buy stamped "import").
One additional, more practical problem - PR (in the good, "exposure" sense). Let's say Apple miraculously gets permission from every record company in the world to sell anything at all. How many J-Pop artists do you think most non-Japanese people can name? Off the top of my head, I can only think of one by name and one more I would recognize but can't name a damned thing by them; And I expect that makes two more than 99% of Americans.
And that, from a country with a major, thriving music industry. How about more obscure regional genres? Ever heard of Norteño? Magham? Wayno? Yupraka? Luogu? Isizulu? Yeah, I can see those selling well enough the US to even justify the bandwidth of listing them as available downloads.
Doggedly insisting on using one sense of a polysemous word for no apparent reason
No apparent reason??? The distinction involved makes the difference between "scientific method" and "lab tech"!
You do not, ever, prove your hypothesis. You "fail to reject the null hypothesis". If you don't appreciate not only the distinction, but also the critical role that distinction plays in real science, you have no place criticizing those you would call "pedants".
(other, maybe, than the apparent desire to show off)
This, from the guy using "polysemous" rather than "ambiguous" or even just "unclear"?
and in the face of the obvious fact that the word is perfectly reasonable to use in the given context if we allow other senses to be used
"Reasonable" in that it forms a gramatically correct sentence, yes. Also completely and utterly wrong.
Windows tracks a "scorecard" of your hardware. Components like your cpu, video card, hd, etc are worth 1 point. Your NIC is worth 3 points.
While you have the right basic idea, you need to understand more what WPA actually keeps track of to make sense of it.
You can find a good explanation here. To summarize, though, basically you have the right idea in that more than three "hardware" changes trigger reactivation. In reality, several software, and particularly BIOS, changes also count as "hardware" as WPA looks at it (although very very unlikely, you could actually flash your BIOS to a new version, with no real hardware changes, and need to reactivate).
As the two easiest "soft" changes, WPA considers your MAC address (which you mention) and your HDD's volume serial number (NOT unchangeable, though the user probably wouldn't even notice if it changed).
Of course, all this seems somewhat pointless to argue over, as WGA and WPA don't refer to the same thing.
Your story is telling...mostly telling lies. Added RAM? that alone wont cause it to need a new key.
Presuming you mean that seriously, rather than just to troll the guy...
He said, and I quote, "I added a gig of RAM and a different video card" (bolding mine). Two changes, depending on which ones, can trigger reactivation.
Really quite annoying, actually. I find it much easier to just pirate VLK versions. That way, no messy activation (or cracks thereof) to bother with.
To which I will reply: Fine, Why didn't you just call Microsoft?
Have you ever called a company to tell them they've made a mistake? Hmm?
Trust me, it takes far less time to just download a "third-party patch" to correct the problem, than trying to do things the "right" way.
Really, this should be the easiest to crack. Someone has to take the money. Or some company which then turns it over to some person. The SEC should be busting these left and right.
Except, you've missed the point on the very reason these scams do make money - Because people buy these stocks realizing them as pump-n-dump scams, hoping to trade out in time.
Pretty easy, actually...
1) Get stock spam
2) See if the price has gone up in the past week. If so, forget it. If not, continue o step 3
3) Buy a few thousand shares
4) Watch the price carefully.
5) The second it starts going up, sell sell sell! Don't try to time it for best profit, dump ASAP.
6) Profit!
So, by "following the money", they'd potentially catch honest traders as well as those running the scam.
or will not be adept at crafting a rule that gives enough leeway and guidance to law enforcement
A perfectly good non-electronic equivalent situation already exists: Personal diaries.
Would the readily-apparent evidence suffice to justify confiscating and reading someone's diary?
If not, then stay the hell away from my laptop.
Overlooking the fact that a hash function does NOT equal "encryption", the above-quoted paragraph goes far beyond word choice and grammar errors, and appears outright factually... Well, not "wrong" so much as "completely absurd" - It would have to make at least some sense to actually evaluate as "wrong".
Anyone have a link to info on this that makes sense? Like perhaps the nature of the specific weakness Xiaoyun found, and by how much it weakens SHA-1? Makes a big difference whether this means you can obtain an arbitrary SHA1, vs reducing the search space by one or two bytes.
I fail to see your point.
Agreed - I thought it obvious that I don't really feel that strongly against pro-conservation books, but I bear the full blame for that assumption (you know what they say about that word...).
Some of the books that come up really don't suck - I even own a few of them. But we won't save the world by reading, and I stand by my rant against the general uselessness of "tags".
For example, I noticed the Amazon tags for the first time after the most recent discussion of CFLs on Slashdot. I already use almost all CFLs (except in the attic and basement, where I've found they have very short lives due to the environment, and I rarely need to light those places anyway).
But I thought, "What a great tag," not realizing at first that they had over a dozen very similar tags, "I wonder if I can find lists of other energy-saving common household devices". Fans, for one - I've found my P3 Kill-A-Watt to be a simply fabulous device, but have learned that common household fans (box/oscillating/filter) have a huge range of power consumption, totally unrelated to how much air they move (as an aside, the single most efficient fan in my house sits inside a small portable space-heater - With the heater off (fan-only mode), it draws only 17W yet will readily blow mail off the desk from across the room). And you can't trust the rated wattage in the product literature, because for most products, they only mention extremely conservative upper limits (like 250W for a 20" box fan, which as inefficient as most seem, I've never seen one break 200W even on high and at a stall).
So, a nice list of common fans rated by CFM/Watt would prove useful. A list of books, meh, not so useful.
As another, totally irrelevant aside, my trusty Kill-A-Watt has also taught me that for most products, the "high" setting counts as the most efficient. For example, one HEPA filter I own draws 86W on a barely dust-stirring "Low", yet only 107W on gale-force "High".
Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term?
Important term?
Puh-lease.
You have a bunch of websites, many of which call themselves the buzzword-2.0 of the week, that have implemented a feature that has zero standardization or between-site meaning. Most of these sites actually allow users to post comments, making one-word comments completely pointless. Though someone will probably point me to a counterexample, I have yet to see a site that lets you meaningfully search or filter by tags.
On that point, note the key word, "meaningfully". Check out Amazon's tags for the best I've seen yet, and it still sucks so hard that you have a dozen words all describing (almost) the same thing - "Almost", except that you'd have to check every single one of them to find the 1% that they don't overlap. Example: "green", "environment", "environmental", "conservation", "sustainability", and a handful of similar words all mean the same thing, yet point to slightly different lists; And on those lists, do you find environmentally-friendly products? No. You find nothing but books of pseudoscience written by and for zealots.
I'll worry about what to call these things if (not "when") they actually take on some usefulness. Until then, you can call them "snergs" for all I care.
And how can this possibly deal with the equivalent of a range of shutter speeds in front of a standard sensor?
Not to mention, you get the previously-not-an-issue joy of temporal aliasing.
And you thought the flicker of fluorescents annoyed you now? Wait until any exposure longer than 1/120th of a second includes both the "lit" and "unlit" version in one picture. Good luck figuring out the meaning of white and black levels on that monstrosity...
And it doesn't stop the megapixel chest thumping - it just starts up megamirror arguments, instead.
Well, realistically, you wouldn't need millions of mirrors, just one, which can tilt in 2d. It would thus "scan" the target just like a CRT scans the screen - Except, instead of hitting distinct pixels on its path, you'd have a continuous function.
In theory, you could literally generate an infinite-megapixel image from that. In practice, you'd just replace "megapixels" with "megahertz" - The effective resolution would depend at the frequency with which you could sample the actual sensor. You'd need a sampling rate of 1GHz to get an 8MP image at an exposure of 1/125s (incidentally, that applies whether you use one 2d mirror or an array of 8 million binary mirrors).
I do seriously have to wonder, though - Considering how poorly current digital cameras perform in low-light conditions, wouldn't this massively worsen the problem? Even taking a picture of the Sun itself, does a 1/(10^9) exposure really give a meaningful value for a single pixel?
The system is intended to detect the launch of a shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and disable the missile with a laser beam.
What a great idea! Now when the terrorists eventually take over another round of planes, they can effectively block missiles intended to shoot them down before reaching sensitive targets.
How about if next, we equip subway cars with nuclear self-destruct devices so terrorists can't use them to make their speedy getaways?
On many if not most college campuses the printers are administered and accounted for my a system tied to a student id.
Yeah, I've seen that done before - It entirely depends on students printing via locked-down (usually Windows) print servers.
Just note the printer model, download the driver, and install the printer directly on your laptop. Bam, free and unlimited printing.
Company executives want face time with their employees, the study said.
Wait, I thought that counted as the best reason to telecommute?
On a more serious note - I've worked for a fairly small international corporation (~5k employees). And physical presence at the corporate headquarters meant absolute diddly-squat. I had only a vague notion that we had executives hiding somewhere on the third floor. They never came out to play with the engineers, except at "informative" "internal" meetings that curiously resembled press conferences (including the press).
You want to climb the corporate ladder? Don't start off as an engineer. Start off as a beancounter (which, while mind-numbingly boring to most engineers, we can do the job in our sleep, leaving plenty of time to keep our souls alive coding in our spare time - But then, having a soul counts as a handicap if you hope to "make" it in a megacorp).
Wouldn't companies like Barr Labs, whose entire business model is to develop drugs that have fallen out of patent protection, be interested in developing a drug that's not patent protected?
Nope.
Manufacturing off-patent generics differs from bringing a new unpatentable product to market in one very key aspect - Off-patent drugs already have FDA approval.
Finding substance-X doesn't cost that much... Pharmaceutical companies have developed techniques for rapidly trying every plausible variant of a given structure in one huge parallel batch. The cost comes from taking those chemicals that show promise, performing clinical trials to show safety and efficacy, getting FDA approval, and then actually marketing the drug.
And highlighting just about the worst aspect of capitalism, the problem here doesn't just come from whether or not a company could take a likely candidate, do all that I mention above, and still turn a profit - The problem comes from the fact that seconds after one company foots the bill for all that, the rest can then start production and undercut the first player. So, rather than making less money than the competition, no one will take that leap.
Some will gloatingly point out that drug patents exist in the first place to address that exact problem. Of course, that completely misses the point that in this case, the patent system has still failed to solve the problem, and if anything, exacerbated it.
You are clearly posting from a position of ignorance, and an inability to reason, because you have fallen prey to the same logical fallacies i mentioned in my grandparent post.
Your own ad hominem aside, calling argumentum ad ignorantiam requires an actual absence of evidence. Yet, quite a lot of evidence supports the "boys like weapons and tools, girls like dolls and housemaking" stance - From research on pre-verbal children, to "feral" children, to the organization of matriarchal societies, to studies of nonhuman primates. They all act the same.
Ignorance: Sex is biologically determined. Gender is not.
Take it up with Webster: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". If you replace "one sex" as you propose... Well, to quote you, "This again is circular."
Those physiological differences are not sufficient to explain the disparity between salaries and positions that exist between men and women in the western world.
No? Sorry, remind me which concrete physical attributes define "deserved salary", that having ovaries (or a penis) doesn't suffice to explain the discrepancy?
Not to say that women should make less. But you accuse others of circular reasoning, while overlooking it in your own stance: Why shouldn't one group make less, if they choose lower-paying careers? "Making less for the same work", which most of us can agree should not happen, does NOT mean "Making less for picking a lower-paid career".
Or, to pervert your own argument, perhaps you've simply tried to force the male bias toward focusing on monetary compensation onto an area in which it doesn't work well as a metric.
No one has given a good reason why these fields should be so lopsided in terms of sex. All the reasons that are given are circular ones.
PLENTY of people have given "good", sound, survival-of-the-species reasons - Females excel at social skills and nurturing behavior (and consequently, linguistic-oriented tasks) because they traditionally raised the young. Males excel at problem solving and 3d spatial orientation (and consequently, mathematically-oriented tasks) because they traditionally went out and killed either food or each other.
The problem there comes from certain people (not predominantly just male or female, incidentally) not wanting to accept that we exist as the product of the evolution that put us on top of the food chain. I don't know if this comes from religious belief or just an inappropriate application of the tenets of Jeffersonian democracy, but thus it stands.
Like it or not, 50 years of social change hasn't modified our hard-wired behavior any more than 100 years of readily-available bright artificial light has modified our hard-wired need for sleep. But we can revisit this argument 10k or so generations from now, if you like.
The problem is that gender is socially determined,
Ummm... Not sure what you meant to say, but I can assure you that, in humans, gender results from genetics, and with the exception of rare "mistakes", has a well-defined value from the moment of conception.
Now, a social aspect to the implications of gender certainly exists, and in that, we can try our best to give both males and females an equal set of opportunities to do what they want with their lives, rather than forcing them into stereotypical roles. Except, in study after study after study, when you give males and females a choice, they overwhelmingly choose - Their stereotypical gender roles!
So which counts as the worse ethical "crime" - Not having 50/50 gender representation in every profession; or forcing women to go into professions they simply don't care for, such as engineering, just to balance the numbers?
If it didn't disgust me, I'd find it hilarious that, in trying to "liberate" women from their traditional shackles, we've simply switched which post we chain them to.
Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week.
Gee, perhaps that has something to do with Microsoft marking it a high-priority update, so everyone with automatic updates turned on will unwittingly get it?
Not much of a claim to success to say that 100 million people, running an OS that has automatic updates turned on by default, have wasted bandwidth on a program they didn't even choose to download.
You're clearly superhuman and you have trouble relating to us mortals.
;-)
I didn't plan to respond any more on this topic, but given this comment and your handle, I couldn't resist.
I don't see how doing the things a normal, health 11YO boy should do makes me so unbelievable. As the only "unusual" circumstance from my childhood, we lived in the middle of nowhere, so I mostly only saw my friends at school; resultingly, I learned to entertain myself, and can thank my current self-sufficience on that part of my life (though at the time, I certainly would have much rather lived within walking distance of a few friends' houses).
But hunting and hiking and learning how the world (not the human world, the real world) works? It saddens me greatly to think that ALL boys don't learn those things. As much as I disapprove of the BSA for their rabidly anti-gay stance, perhaps they really do serve a much-needed role reagardless of their bigotry.
If you're interested, I'm sure you can teach yourself by doing a little googling.
Yes, 6-8 people so far have mentioned "Stockholm Syndrome". I would bet that perhaps one of them has ever seen the term used in a more formal context than Dan n' Connie's blathering.
SOME people come to identify with their captors in long-term hostage situations.
Some.
Others will patiently comply until their captors grow complacent, then do whatever it takes the moment the captors turn their backs.
In that I simply cannot imagine falling into the first category, I will admit that I do not understand the psychology of the willing victim.
I guess you were out hunting crocodiles and working as a mercenary in the Civil War of Congo when you were eleven?
No, just fish, rabbits, and game birds, and only within a few miles (ie hiking distance) of my parents' house. From your question, I suppose Nintendo's "Duck Hunt", from the living-room floor, about did it for you, then?
Every response to me so far has take the stance that 11YO kids count as completely helpless idiots. They don't. They have the presense of mind to get help when they direly need it. They don't consider "bad men" omnipotent evil deities that can kill them and their parents. They understand the difference between "Wierd uncle Joe" and "Some guy that dragged me into his car at the mall one afternoon".
Hell, I don't think most of the responses so far would have applied to me at six. By eleven, I truly believe that if I couldn't have outright escaped, I would have killed the guy in his sleep.
So yeah, if it makes me an "asshole", I have trouble believing this as a simple kidnapping.
For one, how about a motive???
Every IT job I have had, had that ever so magical cause "and other duties as needed".
Yup - And that ends the second I (or they) terminate my employment. Which sounds pretty much like the situations to which you replied... People wrote small programs for their own use, which others found useful. Their employers' had the chance to retain that work, and blindly did not do so. I fail to see the problem.
I can understanding not having loyalty to an employer but one should at least some respect for those that will come after you and/or left there.
"Respect" does not equal "volunteer work", into which category anything I do for the company after I stop drawing a paycheck would fall. If someone has a 30 second question, I'd probably chat, just for the sake of basic human decency. If they wanted me to recreate a few hours' of work lost due to their own negligence, well, they damned well better expect an invoice for my time.
He was paid to do his job and in effort to make his job easier he wrote some software while at work to that end. Who is responsible for making sure that software is backed up is the real question.
Not really - Let me pose a similar but non-backup-related concept, and see what you think:
In my job, I write a lot of small one-off tools to automate common tasks I perform. I've shared them freely with my coworkers, who use them once then promptly forget about it, until they need to perform a similar task... At which point they come to me asking for a quick refresher in how to use tool-X.
As I firmly believe in backups, they would have no trouble finding various version of my tools scattered across both the network and backup DVDs of my own system. Including source code (though keep in mind I wrote these as quick-n-dirties for personal use, so good luck reading the source code, and goddess help you if you trust that I did any input validation whatsoever).
If I left my job, by your stance, would I have to write them a manual, on my own time, to keep using the tools I wrote for my own convenience?
Devlin's neighbors 'often spotted Shawn out and about, visiting friends on his bicycle or playing video games with the apartment door open.
Y'know, call me crazy, but... Does anyone else find this entire situation somewhat unbelievable as a "kidnapping"?
In child kidnapping cases that don't involve a parent or close relative, they either:
A) Recover the child within a few days, or
B) Recover the body within a few months.
Yet, in this case, we have a kid missing for four years, found in good health, who had the freedom to leave the apartment and hang out with friends?
Not to take a "blame the victim" stance here, but did running into a friend's house and begging the friend's parents to call the police never cross this kid's mind? Hello?
Personally, I suspect the kid ran away and eventually hooked up with some random guy that let him live there. As for the second kid, well, I can't explain that one so well, but the "kidnapping" angle just doesn't sit right with me.
The company has every right to decide to charge money for a service.
100% true - But they should have the balls to come out and say so, not hide behind a totally unrelated law that even the experts disagree on its exactly implications.
Perhaps they want to win some sympathy points from the customers?
<cough>Market share<cough>