> you could take in an immigrant with a poor credit score who works like crazy, starts his own business and becomes a millionaire
And if you really even the summary you'd know such a person would pass the financial means test, because: -- According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated) would be reviewed to predict an applicant's chances of "self-sufficiency." --
I don't expect people to read the articles, but is reading the *summary* at the top of page too much to ask?
The proposal (which may be bad or good, that's for another post) is:
Try to estimate the likelihood that the person will becime financially dependent on the taxpayers, by looking at their finances.
It's nothing about moral character. THIS proposal is about the financial cost to tax payers. How many financially dependent people we want to bring in is a related, though different, discussion.
Financial dependence isn't "moral character". My daughter is 100% dependent on me financially*. She has high moral character. She's four. The headline is crap.
I suppose someone *could* make the argument that having a habit of borrowing money and not paying it back is a moral weakness, but the authors of the proposal make no such statement. They argue that people who are financially a mess are more likely to become a drain on the tax payer.
* My four year old daughter regularly asks for jobs she can do to earn money for extra toys.
The article raises the question of which security model os needed.
Security has been been studied a lot, and there are many well-defined models, an acronym soup of security models to choose from. Since this is my field, I've studied most all them to varying degrees.
There is a very simple answer to the question of which security model will prevent abuse while allowing the API to be useful. They need the U.N.I.C.O.R.N. security model. It's called UNICORN because it doesn't exist. There is no security they can put on this that will work.
I don't know the safety record of Amazon vs comparable companies. That would be interesting to find out.
What I DO know is that "we are not robots" is kind of a dumb thing for the union boss to say to a company considering replacing workers with robots. The union is basically saying "you'd be better off replacing us with robots". Bad choice of words.
Personally I use bookmarks for long-term things, pages I expect to still want a year later. The bookmarks UI is appropriate for that type of use.
I tend to leave tabs open for things I'm likely to want to look at later today, or this week. I end up with a lot of tabs open, which isn't ideal.
What I'd like to have would be something like bookmarks but quicker to add, and especially remove, things from the "read later" list. Just have an X next to the entry so removing it is one click just like closing a tab. Maybe it would just keep the last 100 unread pages things dropping old items I've already returned to to keep the list manageable.
I'm happy to finding thrm anywhere on any of the sites from companies who are complaining. I don't see a link to Google at the top of any of these pages.
> You build a bigger plane, but don't double wall thickness of your material.
Actually you DO have to double the strength of the walls, and square the strength of certain joints. That's because you've doubled, squared, and cubed the loads they have to withstand.
Consider the wing. A wing 20x2x2 is 8 times as much material as a 10x1x1 wing. Where the wing attaches to the fuselage, a wing root 2 units long is only twice as long as one 1 units. You've only doubled the number of fasteners but multiplied, so each fastener would need to hold four times as much weight, right? Four times the force trying to pull through the material on each fastener? Nope, it's even worse than that - the wing is a lever against the root. So 8x the weight acting via a lever twice as long = 16 times as much force trying to rip the rivets out. But only twice as many rivets.
So you *do* have to double the wall thickness. Or switch to stronger and heavier materials without doubling the thickness.
Btw probably the most important design criteria is wing area . If you scale up a design by doubling length, width, and height, you have squared the wing area and therefore the weight carrying capacity. But you've cubed the weight.
> Doubling the size would be 20x1x1. That you allow you to carry twice as much cargo...
If you had an aircraft design at 10x10x1 and tried to scale up the design by only doubling the length, without doubling everything else, it a) wouldn't fly and b) would probably fold in the middle before it made it to the runway.
You can see why if you take it to the extreme and imagine an aircraft 100 feet long, 1 foot wide and 1 foot high. It's obviously not going to be strong enough. Doubling length doubles the lever acting to snap the plane in half. To keep your structural strength, you have to double the width and height when you double the length. That"s why most all planes have basically the same shape, save the "flying wing" design exemplified by the B2.
Weight is HUGELY important in aircraft design, so you don't design something far stronger/heavier than needed, allowing you to double or square the forces without doubling or squaring the strength.
> In practice very large aircraft are economical and not as impractical as your numbers would suggest.
Large aircraft are *possible*, a large team of aeronautical engineering, working with materials scientists, can design one in a few years. Small ones are easy - if you have a piece of paper you can make one right now. You don't even have to know what "wing loading" or even "chord" mean to make a tiny plane that's plenty strong enough while being light enough.
Hobbyists routinely make small scale planes with performance numbers as good or better than the most advanced fighter jets, so that means there is room to scale up. You'd be hard pressed find a model that flies as poorly as a 747 because you'd almost have to suck on purpose to have to be as bad as what the weight penalty of scale does to an aircraft design.
The common housefly has HORRIBLE aerodynamics. If you scaled up a housefly to be a foot long or 100 feet long it would be far too heavy to fly. Yet it gets away with it by being so small. The very small wing area (and horrible chord to width ratio) works only because the fly is only a 3 mm tall.
What this means is that if a powerplant, wing planform, or other element is barely good enough to work in a small scale plane, things only get worse as you scale up.
> make it much bigger, which will require much stronger wings, which will make it heavier.
Yeah with planes, if it barely works at small scale, it can't come close to working at a much larger scale. Specifically, doubling the length and width means the weight is eight times as much. It's easy to do things at model scale that are nearly impossible at full size.
Imagine a plane with a rectangular fuselage 10x1x1. Its volume would be ten units, and the weight proportional. "Doubling the size" would be 20x2x2. That's 80 units of volume/weight! Doubling the size makes it 8 times heavier.
I can easily scratch build a model plane from Dollar Tree materials that has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1. Probably most models have 1 or better thrust to weight. At full scale, only some fighter jets have that kind of capability.
The fact that scaling up by doubling the wingspan means 8 times as much weight means anything borderline capable at 5 meter wingspan because totally unusable at 10 meters. They'll need to either scale it up and show it works, or demo fighter jet level performance at 5 meters to show flight is possible at 10 meter wingspan.
The summary says ridership is diwn due to unreliable service.
The proposed solution is to raise rates and reduce service.
That does sound very New York, so I suppose it's not surprising. Here in Texas, if we had a problem caused by unreliable service we'd probably do something silly like fixing the service to make it more reliable.
I've always thought it interesting that most people pay twice as much as they need to, even on the exact same network. There are several low-cost carriers such as Boost Mobile, which I've been very happy with.
From what I've been able to gather, people pay $100/month instead of $30-$35 for two reasons - the "free" phone (that actually costs them $2,000) and advertising / brand recognition. Phone companies spend a ton on advertising because it works. People buy the most-advertised phone service brands, which results in them paying for advertising.
Sometimes I think the founders designed the systen to keep the bossy people busy arguing so they couldn't actually effectively boss the rest of us around. It took over 200 years for them to manage to become really bothersome.
So what you're saying is that there is an opportunity for someone to copy that open data to a fast server and provide something of value?
You could either monetize it somehow, whether via a $5/year subscription to the fast service or ads or whatever, or just pay the bill from their own pocket to provide a public service.
Finding vulnerabilities and warning the vulnerable companies is what I do for a living. What we do is in no way a substitute for deterrence.
Instead of putting muggers in jail, why don't our good guys try mugging people and alert victims that they're vulnerable?
Instead of killing bin Laden, why don't our good guys just ram planes into all the buildings and then we'll know which buildings are vulnerable?
Having cops break into the people's houses won't make burglary stop.
The main benefit of vulnerability assessment, what I do for a living, is that when we make Lockheed Martin a more difficult target, the attackers focus more on Northrop Grumman, because it's an easier target. That's an advantage to Lockheed.
We will never come anywhere close to making our county impenetrable. If we magically did, which would require a police state, two days Microsoft would release a new version of some software and we'd all be vulnerable again. Every time somebody installs anything connected to a network, there are opportunities for it to be configured poorly, and that happens a million times a day. We will never be secure. We can only make YOU a harder target than your neighbor.
"Instead of starting a cyber war" - LOL! We're *in" a cyber war. Pur adversaries spend billions of dollars every year attacking us, and we're losing. Ignoring it and pretending it's not happening won't make it go away. The way to make a country (or a person) stop attacking you is to make it hurt them to continue, to exact a high price. If someone is swinging a knife at me, knowing I'm vulnerable doesn't solve the problem. You stop their attack by shooting them. That's what solar the problem.
I wonder how many of these are left over from testing. I developer is having trouble getting something to work, so they *temporarily* open up the SG to test it, removing one variable. After they get it working they forget to secure it again.
Anyway, our AWS security service (Alert Logic) checks for this and I know we catch public buckets fairly often.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't have a touch screen (a phone), a mouse works just as well today as it did 18 years ago.
Tthe ESIGN Act was passed eighteen years ago. It recognizes digital signatures. Adobe makes it really easy to sign a PDF, which you then email back.
Most of them are STILL unaware of the ESIGN Act, passed eighteen years ago. It recognizes digital signatures.
> you could take in an immigrant with a poor credit score who works like crazy, starts his own business and becomes a millionaire
And if you really even the summary you'd know such a person would pass the financial means test, because:
--
According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated) would be reviewed to predict an applicant's chances of "self-sufficiency."
--
I don't expect people to read the articles, but is reading the *summary* at the top of page too much to ask?
Indeed, total flamebait.
The proposal (which may be bad or good, that's for another post) is:
Try to estimate the likelihood that the person will becime financially dependent on the taxpayers, by looking at their finances.
It's nothing about moral character. THIS proposal is about the financial cost to tax payers. How many financially dependent people we want to bring in is a related, though different, discussion.
Financial dependence isn't "moral character". My daughter is 100% dependent on me financially*. She has high moral character. She's four. The headline is crap.
I suppose someone *could* make the argument that having a habit of borrowing money and not paying it back is a moral weakness, but the authors of the proposal make no such statement. They argue that people who are financially a mess are more likely to become a drain on the tax payer.
* My four year old daughter regularly asks for jobs she can do to earn money for extra toys.
The article raises the question of which security model os needed.
Security has been been studied a lot, and there are many well-defined models, an acronym soup of security models to choose from. Since this is my field, I've studied most all them to varying degrees.
There is a very simple answer to the question of which security model will prevent abuse while allowing the API to be useful. They need the U.N.I.C.O.R.N. security model. It's called UNICORN because it doesn't exist. There is no security they can put on this that will work.
I don't know the safety record of Amazon vs comparable companies. That would be interesting to find out.
What I DO know is that "we are not robots" is kind of a dumb thing for the union boss to say to a company considering replacing workers with robots. The union is basically saying "you'd be better off replacing us with robots". Bad choice of words.
Personally I use bookmarks for long-term things, pages I expect to still want a year later. The bookmarks UI is appropriate for that type of use.
I tend to leave tabs open for things I'm likely to want to look at later today, or this week. I end up with a lot of tabs open, which isn't ideal.
What I'd like to have would be something like bookmarks but quicker to add, and especially remove, things from the "read later" list. Just have an X next to the entry so removing it is one click just like closing a tab. Maybe it would just keep the last 100 unread pages things dropping old items I've already returned to to keep the list manageable.
I'm happy to finding thrm anywhere on any of the sites from companies who are complaining. I don't see a link to Google at the top of any of these pages.
http://www.foundem.co.uk/searc...
https://www.redbrain.com/
https://pricespy.co.uk/search?...
The only mention I see of Google is that Redbrain promises advertisers that they can manipulate Google search results for them.
In their search results, on what page do they put the links to Google?
I'm curious if the sites demanding the government force Google to link to them, for fairness, also are fair in that their search links to Google.
That would be fair, right? If I demand your search has to link to me, obviously I make my search link back to you, right?
> You build a bigger plane, but don't double wall thickness of your material.
Actually you DO have to double the strength of the walls, and square the strength of certain joints. That's because you've doubled, squared, and cubed the loads they have to withstand.
Consider the wing. A wing 20x2x2 is 8 times as much material as a 10x1x1 wing. Where the wing attaches to the fuselage, a wing root 2 units long is only twice as long as one 1 units. You've only doubled the number of fasteners but multiplied, so each fastener would need to hold four times as much weight, right? Four times the force trying to pull through the material on each fastener? Nope, it's even worse than that - the wing is a lever against the root. So 8x the weight acting via a lever twice as long = 16 times as much force trying to rip the rivets out. But only twice as many rivets.
So you *do* have to double the wall thickness. Or switch to stronger and heavier materials without doubling the thickness.
Btw probably the most important design criteria is wing area . If you scale up a design by doubling length, width, and height, you have squared the wing area and therefore the weight carrying capacity. But you've cubed the weight.
> Doubling the size would be 20x1x1. That you allow you to carry twice as much cargo...
If you had an aircraft design at 10x10x1 and tried to scale up the design by only doubling the length, without doubling everything else, it a) wouldn't fly and b) would probably fold in the middle before it made it to the runway.
You can see why if you take it to the extreme and imagine an aircraft 100 feet long, 1 foot wide and 1 foot high. It's obviously not going to be strong enough. Doubling length doubles the lever acting to snap the plane in half. To keep your structural strength, you have to double the width and height when you double the length. That"s why most all planes have basically the same shape, save the "flying wing" design exemplified by the B2.
Weight is HUGELY important in aircraft design, so you don't design something far stronger/heavier than needed, allowing you to double or square the forces without doubling or squaring the strength.
> In practice very large aircraft are economical and not as impractical as your numbers would suggest.
Large aircraft are *possible*, a large team of aeronautical engineering, working with materials scientists, can design one in a few years. Small ones are easy - if you have a piece of paper you can make one right now. You don't even have to know what "wing loading" or even "chord" mean to make a tiny plane that's plenty strong enough while being light enough.
Hobbyists routinely make small scale planes with performance numbers as good or better than the most advanced fighter jets, so that means there is room to scale up. You'd be hard pressed find a model that flies as poorly as a 747 because you'd almost have to suck on purpose to have to be as bad as what the weight penalty of scale does to an aircraft design.
The common housefly has HORRIBLE aerodynamics. If you scaled up a housefly to be a foot long or 100 feet long it would be far too heavy to fly. Yet it gets away with it by being so small. The very small wing area (and horrible chord to width ratio) works only because the fly is only a 3 mm tall.
What this means is that if a powerplant, wing planform, or other element is barely good enough to work in a small scale plane, things only get worse as you scale up.
> make it much bigger, which will require much stronger wings, which will make it heavier.
Yeah with planes, if it barely works at small scale, it can't come close to working at a much larger scale. Specifically, doubling the length and width means the weight is eight times as much. It's easy to do things at model scale that are nearly impossible at full size.
Imagine a plane with a rectangular fuselage 10x1x1. Its volume would be ten units, and the weight proportional. "Doubling the size" would be 20x2x2. That's 80 units of volume/weight! Doubling the size makes it 8 times heavier.
I can easily scratch build a model plane from Dollar Tree materials that has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1. Probably most models have 1 or better thrust to weight. At full scale, only some fighter jets have that kind of capability.
The fact that scaling up by doubling the wingspan means 8 times as much weight means anything borderline capable at 5 meter wingspan because totally unusable at 10 meters. They'll need to either scale it up and show it works, or demo fighter jet level performance at 5 meters to show flight is possible at 10 meter wingspan.
I could have fixed the problem with my post, if I had proofread it. Maybe even look at the screen while I'm typing next time.
The summary says ridership is diwn due to unreliable service.
The proposed solution is to raise rates and reduce service.
That does sound very New York, so I suppose it's not surprising. Here in Texas, if we had a problem caused by unreliable service we'd probably do something silly like fixing the service to make it more reliable.
Look up argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam before you use yhe term again.
Michael Jordan endorsing tires is fallacious appeal to authority. Randomly movie star making statements about vaccines or politics is the same.
Learning physics by reading Stephen Hawking is called *civilization*. The other option is inventing your own physics, which is mysticism.
I've always thought it interesting that most people pay twice as much as they need to, even on the exact same network. There are several low-cost carriers such as Boost Mobile, which I've been very happy with.
From what I've been able to gather, people pay $100/month instead of $30-$35 for two reasons - the "free" phone (that actually costs them $2,000) and advertising / brand recognition. Phone companies spend a ton on advertising because it works. People buy the most-advertised phone service brands, which results in them paying for advertising.
Sometimes I think the founders designed the systen to keep the bossy people busy arguing so they couldn't actually effectively boss the rest of us around. It took over 200 years for them to manage to become really bothersome.
So what you're saying is that there is an opportunity for someone to copy that open data to a fast server and provide something of value?
You could either monetize it somehow, whether via a $5/year subscription to the fast service or ads or whatever, or just pay the bill from their own pocket to provide a public service.
> We write 0 days
How are things at Microsoft these days? If you get bored there, Adobe is hiring zero-day creators.
Finding vulnerabilities and warning the vulnerable companies is what I do for a living. What we do is in no way a substitute for deterrence.
Instead of putting muggers in jail, why don't our good guys try mugging people and alert victims that they're vulnerable?
Instead of killing bin Laden, why don't our good guys just ram planes into all the buildings and then we'll know which buildings are vulnerable?
Having cops break into the people's houses won't make burglary stop.
The main benefit of vulnerability assessment, what I do for a living, is that when we make Lockheed Martin a more difficult target, the attackers focus more on Northrop Grumman, because it's an easier target. That's an advantage to Lockheed.
We will never come anywhere close to making our county impenetrable. If we magically did, which would require a police state, two days Microsoft would release a new version of some software and we'd all be vulnerable again. Every time somebody installs anything connected to a network, there are opportunities for it to be configured poorly, and that happens a million times a day. We will never be secure. We can only make YOU a harder target than your neighbor.
"Instead of starting a cyber war" - LOL! We're *in" a cyber war. Pur adversaries spend billions of dollars every year attacking us, and we're losing. Ignoring it and pretending it's not happening won't make it go away. The way to make a country (or a person) stop attacking you is to make it hurt them to continue, to exact a high price. If someone is swinging a knife at me, knowing I'm vulnerable doesn't solve the problem. You stop their attack by shooting them. That's what solar the problem.
For those not into seafood, as chicken is to - uhm never mind.
As pork is to pig.
I wonder how many of these are left over from testing. I developer is having trouble getting something to work, so they *temporarily* open up the SG to test it, removing one variable. After they get it working they forget to secure it again.
Anyway, our AWS security service (Alert Logic) checks for this and I know we catch public buckets fairly often.