I am getting kind of sick of these science fair winners being hailed as scientific heroes with amazing discoveries on Slashdot. There was an article a while back about how students who produced hydrogen from water with electrolysis and then fed that hydrogen back into a generator to produce energy had managed to make an unlimited source of electricity. It was a cool experiment but anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science can tell you it does not produce any electricity. The problem seems to be that the Slashdot editors have such a pathetic understanding of science that they will accept whatever sensationalized headlines get published by a news source without seeing through to the pretty basic scientific principles underneath.
I stopped taking this post seriously when I got to the part that reads "45 percent of the entire gaming population is now women". That statistic is based on mobile games which I am sure are played predominantly by women and are not the subject of E3. If you would care to produce some relevant statistics then I might start caring about what you have to say.
I am from the UK and we have a legal system based on that. Our version of the Miranda rights have a section that reads "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". I.e. if you say nothing to the police then the jury can be instructed to infer that you made your story up before the trial.
Not to seem cruel but it looks like the original problem was her being drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14. If you don't want a video of you being drunk getting out then don't get drunk in public.
Agreed. I really don't know what all the fuss with contactless payments is. The main benefit is that they are instant and you don't have to type in a PIN, not the fact that you don't have to put a card in the reader. Why not just make it so that any purchase under £15 doesn't require a PIN or bank confirmation and then you have the convenience of contactless without as many issues like this.
If they own the property I think it is well within their moral (though maybe not legal) rights. If a structure is worth saving then someone will buy it.
It is useful to know about malware spreading through Skype but I am pretty sure no one blames Microsoft for it. Malware spreads through the web too but I don't see anyone hating on Tim Berners-Lee for it. I feel fully entitled to blame Microsoft for snooping on private conversations however.
Google are not writing that though. What they would effectively be writing is "'Herr Rolf is a fraud' is one of the most commonly searched terms in our search engine" which would be pretty easy to prove and hence it is not defamatory.
How exactly would that help? Any idiot can access data on a phone without a passcode. If by forensics you mean accessing unencrypted data on a different device to the one it is stored on then I do it every day just by plugging in my USB drive.
"if you use the iPhone’s passcode lock feature, you’ll need to disable it before you can make any changes using PhoneView; it isn’t sufficient to just unlock the screen."
http://www.macworld.com/article/1133796/phonedrive.html
The Humble Bundle HTTP downloads are a little on the unreliable side. I often get a "completed" download and then the MD5 doesn't match and I have to redownload. Now I use Bittorrent and get a perfect file every time.
Oh it's the old "people might accidentally go to porn sites" excuse. Is this a particularly common occurrence? Has anyone here gone to a site and misspelled the name and ended up at a porn site?
How does it not? An external attacker should not have any access to your internal network and hence has to guess the IP address of the router. It is easier for them to make a few attacks against 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.0.1 than for them to try and attack the entire range of IP addresses reserved for internal networks.
You dump a fixed amount of Bitcoins into a communal address operated by a laundering business. Other people, both others trying to launder the Bitcoins and those who wish for Bitcoin to be hard to trace do the same. The Bitcoins are then divided up again between everyone who put Bitcoins in. If you do this a few times then not only are the Bitcoins very difficult to trace but even if someone determined which source address was most likely to have received the coins before the laundering process, you still have a lot of plausible deniability.
I don't really see how that will help. Laundering Bitcoins is incredibly easy compared to actual money. In addition, as more websites begin to accept Bitcoin, exchanges will become less important.
Agreed. If all sentencing was used to send messages then we would have the death penalty for traffic violations. It is not fair on the person convicted but there would be no more traffic violations.
Slashdot Mirror
They paid so much for the certificate would it really be that costly to them to keep the private key on a machine not connected to a network?
I am getting kind of sick of these science fair winners being hailed as scientific heroes with amazing discoveries on Slashdot. There was an article a while back about how students who produced hydrogen from water with electrolysis and then fed that hydrogen back into a generator to produce energy had managed to make an unlimited source of electricity. It was a cool experiment but anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science can tell you it does not produce any electricity. The problem seems to be that the Slashdot editors have such a pathetic understanding of science that they will accept whatever sensationalized headlines get published by a news source without seeing through to the pretty basic scientific principles underneath.
I stopped taking this post seriously when I got to the part that reads "45 percent of the entire gaming population is now women". That statistic is based on mobile games which I am sure are played predominantly by women and are not the subject of E3. If you would care to produce some relevant statistics then I might start caring about what you have to say.
I missed that new, thanks. Microsoft really need to update their website. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/internet-explorer/ie-system-requirements#ie=ie-10
Well IE10 requires a PC running Windows 8 so a lot of people will actually be running those "age old IEs".
I agree. Android phones are also banned. This is just another attempt to jump on the Glass privacy bandwagon.
I am from the UK and we have a legal system based on that. Our version of the Miranda rights have a section that reads "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". I.e. if you say nothing to the police then the jury can be instructed to infer that you made your story up before the trial.
The footage gets automatically deleted when requested by someone for a lawsuit against the police.
Not to seem cruel but it looks like the original problem was her being drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14. If you don't want a video of you being drunk getting out then don't get drunk in public.
Provided you buy your translation dictionary from a reputable dealer you should be fine.
Agreed. I really don't know what all the fuss with contactless payments is. The main benefit is that they are instant and you don't have to type in a PIN, not the fact that you don't have to put a card in the reader. Why not just make it so that any purchase under £15 doesn't require a PIN or bank confirmation and then you have the convenience of contactless without as many issues like this.
You say that but these are the people who vote for your government so frighteningly they kind of are.
If they own the property I think it is well within their moral (though maybe not legal) rights. If a structure is worth saving then someone will buy it.
It is useful to know about malware spreading through Skype but I am pretty sure no one blames Microsoft for it. Malware spreads through the web too but I don't see anyone hating on Tim Berners-Lee for it. I feel fully entitled to blame Microsoft for snooping on private conversations however.
Google are not writing that though. What they would effectively be writing is "'Herr Rolf is a fraud' is one of the most commonly searched terms in our search engine" which would be pretty easy to prove and hence it is not defamatory.
How exactly would that help? Any idiot can access data on a phone without a passcode. If by forensics you mean accessing unencrypted data on a different device to the one it is stored on then I do it every day just by plugging in my USB drive. "if you use the iPhone’s passcode lock feature, you’ll need to disable it before you can make any changes using PhoneView; it isn’t sufficient to just unlock the screen." http://www.macworld.com/article/1133796/phonedrive.html
The Humble Bundle HTTP downloads are a little on the unreliable side. I often get a "completed" download and then the MD5 doesn't match and I have to redownload. Now I use Bittorrent and get a perfect file every time.
Oh it's the old "people might accidentally go to porn sites" excuse. Is this a particularly common occurrence? Has anyone here gone to a site and misspelled the name and ended up at a porn site?
How does it not? An external attacker should not have any access to your internal network and hence has to guess the IP address of the router. It is easier for them to make a few attacks against 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.0.1 than for them to try and attack the entire range of IP addresses reserved for internal networks.
It is easier to just run the "tree" command. When it has completed you will have successfully backtraced the IP address.
You dump a fixed amount of Bitcoins into a communal address operated by a laundering business. Other people, both others trying to launder the Bitcoins and those who wish for Bitcoin to be hard to trace do the same. The Bitcoins are then divided up again between everyone who put Bitcoins in. If you do this a few times then not only are the Bitcoins very difficult to trace but even if someone determined which source address was most likely to have received the coins before the laundering process, you still have a lot of plausible deniability.
I don't really see how that will help. Laundering Bitcoins is incredibly easy compared to actual money. In addition, as more websites begin to accept Bitcoin, exchanges will become less important.
Wait, did I miss something in the article? How are people getting paid for lasering aircraft?
Agreed. If all sentencing was used to send messages then we would have the death penalty for traffic violations. It is not fair on the person convicted but there would be no more traffic violations.
It is pretty difficult to hit a plane for long enough to be a problem unless you are actually trying to.