One way to verify who you are is to either require you reset your password from the console you last connected to the PSN with or just send an email to the email address they have stored... Because, theoretically neither of those items are accessible to the hackers.
I have two accounts on my PS3, and that's pretty much how it worked. The first one I tried logging back in on gave me a dialog saying that my password needed to be reset and that an email was being sent to the login email with information on what to do. From there, the email had a link to click to go and change the password (I'm assuming they were doing some sort of validation with that link, but maybe they weren't). When I tried logging in the second account, it had me change the password right there from the console. I'm assuming their system is aware that both accounts were on the same console (easy enough for them to verify), and that's why the two procedures were different.
Strange. When I did it, it first said it needed to download a new firmware (before I logged on to PSN - it does seem like they improved their network capacity, it actually maxed out my internet connection - something that nothing from PSN has ever come close to before). Once that was installed, it then popped up the dialog saying my password needed to be changed and forced me to change it right there. It then told me it was sending a confirmation email to the address on file. That email said that my account password had been updated, and to click the link only if I had not changed the password.
I also have multiple accounts on the console, but don't usually use the others (and haven't since PSN came back up). The other accounts are shared with friends and I didn't create them (only there for purposes of splitting DLC among multiple people to ease the pain of insane prices - seriously, they want $15 for a map pack? $3 is more like it).
You do realize that if you confiscated all of the money earned by everyone who earns more than $250,000 a year it would not even cover the Federal deficit for one year? What are you going to do the second year?
Uh, citation needed? I'm sick of that particular meme, but seriously - you throw a claim like that out, you've got to provide some supporting evidence.
I know, it's more fun to just make stuff up that sounds good.
Yeah, I'm still waiting on the amazing solar innovations that were breathlessly announced five years ago to hit the market.
I was going to try looking up some solar power articles from five years ago, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to restrict a search to a particular time period. Is there an advanced Slashdot search hidden away somewhere? Even Google only lets me restrict my search to "past day" or "past year", etc. I could have sworn you used to be able to actually input a date range, but it isn't there any more.
MASERs and rectenna already operate using this same principle, and similarly operate at 85% or better efficiency. Since they operate in the tens of GHz range, there are readily available electronics available to handle them.
On a sidenote: If there is only 2 hours of voice recording, why will it take weeks to listen to it?
Obviously you can't have the whole investigation team shorting Airbus stock right away, that would be too obvious; you need time for some "regularly scheduled transactions".
On a more serious note, there is 2 hours of voice recording plus lots of instrument data. Better to go through it thoroughly and recover everything you can rather than immediately issue a report just to satiate the curiosity of the public. I mean, it isn't like there is a rush - what are the chances that another A330 might fall out of the sky in the mean time? Hmm, maybe I should be shorting Rolls-Royce stock instead of Airbus...(Yeah, sorry, I got silly again for a minute there.)
I don't know about that specific case, but in general you are not allowed to take pictures of security arrangements at ports of entry. The things that the DHS would object to in those photos are the boring bits; fences, lighting posts, security cameras if they are there, etc. Found that out at a bulk chemical facility; while ~60 miles inland, the facility is serviced by international shipping (via a long ship channel), so is designated as a port of entry. Had to have someone standing over my shoulder while shooting photos to make sure I didn't have their security arrangements in my field of view (literally razor wire fence and lighting posts; never mind that you could see them all quite clearly on Google Earth, which the guy with me even pointed out - said if I wanted photos of those areas, I could probably just look at Google Earth).
There's lots of baseless fear in the comments here. Of course you can take photos out the window of an airplane you are riding in. I do it all the time, and I've never had anybody bat an eye. You can take photos pretty much everywhere in an airport, too - just not in the security area. Shoot all the photos of planes you want, no one is going to stop you or even look at you askance (well, aside from the typical "hey, look at the plane nerd!" way). Now, if you are wandering around the airport perimeter fence taking photos, you are likely to get a visit - because of the aforementioned issue that you are likely, whether on purpose or by accident, taking photos of their security arrangements. As long as you are pointing your camera into the sky, though, you're probably okay - but they'll probably stick around and watch.
Care to share any and all correspondence between you and Comcast/NBC during the merger review, Ms. Baker? Not that I'm suggesting you would ever trade your vote for a cushy job, just to put any unfortunate rumors to rest, you see...
Yeah, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
The point was that, currently, hydrogen gas is largely derived from petroleum products and/or natural gas. So until large-scale industrial water cracking or something becomes economical and takes over, this really doesn't reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
The biggest problems that I can see with ground-effect trains is that they'll have to bring the energy needed, just like a air plane.
No it won't. It's only floating on a cushion of air a few centimeters above a track, just run 2 electric rails in the track and drop a pickup arm to make contact with the rails.
Just stick with overhead catenaries like normal trains; should be flexible enough to handle the minor variations in altitude you would encounter, and you avoid the electrocution hazard if someone wanders onto your track.
I'm actually more interested in the efficiency of an electrically-driven propeller vs. electric traction. I would think electric traction would be significantly more efficient, but maybe not enough to overcome the losses associated with wheels on tracks.
It is just that the U.S. Navy is more worried about an incident where say a 20 people die trying to rescue the fillipino crew from a non u.s. flagged vessel. Heaven forbid some of the innocent crew members get killed in the rescue operation.
Providing every crew member of a vessel going through the area with access to a rifle would probably go a long way to combat the problem.
I think the issue has more to do with the questions of why the US Navy should be expending resources to protect a ship flagged in the Philippines. I can see protecting ships of close allies, but it is the responsibility of the Flag nation to protect sips sailing under their flag. Of course, the majority of merchant ships sail under flags of convenience from nations that have no chance of protecting them, but you get what you pay for. You want the protection of the U.S. Navy, you're going to have to register with the U.S. and follow the rules that go along with it. You want to cheap out and avoid the costs associated with meeting the requirements of being U.S.-flagged, you're on your own.
It's easy enough to blame fracturing, but the process of fracturing itself is occurring deep within some producing formation.
Did even you RTFA? (In this case I mean did you read the fracking Abstract of the scientific paper in question?;-) That's a huge degree of correlation, and the chemistry of the hydrocarbons in the water match the chemistry of the gas in the nearby wells.
Yeah sure the fracturing does take place much deeper than the water table, they have to pump the fracturing fluids down to the shale which involves pumping them THROUGH the water table. Yes I know that the procedure involves sealing the well hole before pumping the nasty stuff down there, but when they drill hundreds of wells in a region only a few have to leak to ruin the local water table. Of course the oil/gas extraction business has such a great safety record and they have never made a mess of things before, so why should we believe science when we can believe BP? I think you should consider not drinking the water from your local well, obviously the fracking fluids are messing with your thinking process.
Not to mention the fact that the millions of gallons of water per well they pump in (according to the article, 9-13 million liters per well on average) is going to be displacing something, even if the injected water itself doesn't come up into the shallow aquifer. One theory is that the fracking fluids are displacing the groundwater within the shale formation, which is mixing with the shallow groundwater. The deeper groundwater tends to be higher in dissolved methane, dissolved solids (likely including heavy metals and radioactive particles), and other things you don't want in drinking water.
First they sucker eBay into buying them for a lot of money. Then eBay eventually figures out that it was a mistake and sells it back for chump change.
Actually, according to the article eBay bought it for $2.6 billion, then sold a 70% share a few years later for $1.9 billion. Not exactly chump change, in fact it was pretty much the same as what they paid for it. Of course, their 30% stake in the current deal gives them another $2.55 billion, so turns out they made a tidy profit on that deal.
Though I agree, I don't really see where MS is going to get anything like the amount they invested out of this. I get the feeling that Ballmer is grasping at straws here;
Why bother re-doing something badly. Just air the original, or take your own stab at the genre. The market doesn't really need more copies of the same stuff. All that does is just waste money and dilute the marketplace.
Although the original seems to be jumping the shark at the moment...
Another perfect example of this idiocy is the American pilot of IT Crowd. They basically changed most of the actors, then did their best to copy EXACTLY the first episode, pretty much shot for shot. It boggles the mind that someone gave the go-ahead for that; utterly pointless.
Hey! Give this guy a break. He's probably American and he doesn't even know that French actually make cars.
You can't really blame him, the French surrendered the U.S. car market to the rest of the world back in the '70s or so... obviously if they made decent cars, they'd be on sale here;)
I am not downplaying the issues with electric vehicles right now, one of which is that it takes longer to recharge one than it does to refuel a petrol or diesel car, just that the Top Gear team went beyond the usual light hearted stuff and stuck a big old dishonest fork into the Tesla.
I disagree. For most of the test, they really played up how great it was to drive, and what a wonderful car it was. They then balanced that (perhaps overly dramatically) with the one big negative - the range. As good as the car is, it has the same drawback that all electric-only cars currently have - a limited range, and a long charging time. You can either live within that range limitation, or you can't; if you can't, it doesn't matter how good the car is otherwise.
No, they didn't actually run it out of power. But that's beside the point. Saying that the fact that it didn't actually run out of power proves that it had plenty of range is ridiculous; they knew the approximate range they could expect (they had Tesla calculate it beforehand), and obviously managed their shots within that budget to make sure they didn't actually run it all the way down before getting everything they wanted.
I have to say, the first time I saw the episode I came away thinking they had a pretty positive view of the Tesla. When I read about Tesla's lawsuit, I barely remembered the episode and was a little upset at Top Gear's alleged falsifications about the car. When I went back to watch it again, I really think Tesla overreacted; the episode was generally pretty positive about the car, with the exception of the range issue - claiming it could have gone another few laps really completely misses the (legitimate) point that was being made.
It's because cords to ring a bell (even if it's electronic at the very end of the cord) harkens back to the days of horse driven trams!
It just shows that if there is so little money invested in the public transport system that they start cutting back on the small expenses like a cord instead of just a bunch of simple buttons (which is what I am used to see).
It also means that you can't easily have different kinds of stop signals. Or at different hights. In several European countries for example they will have buttons at a height where people in a wheelchair can reach them. For the same people (or a parent with a baby in a stroller) there is a button they can use to ask to lower the bus or a ramp so they can get off (more easily), depending on the type of bus.
Buses where I'm from use the cord method. Seems much more sensible than having to place (and wire) a bunch of individual buttons. Just string a cord on either side of the bus along the windows, with a vertical cord attached every few feet, and one switch on each side. Easily accessible to everyone, including people in wheelchairs (though if the bus is packed and you are stuck standing in the aisle you might have to ask someone to pull the cord for you). I don't see how having lots of individual buttons that need to be individually wired and where each is prone to failure is any kind of improvement.
In the buses here, the disabled access ramps are only located at the front of the bus, next to the driver, with the disabled/wheelchair seating immediately behind. So no need for electronics, or separate disabled buttons, you just tell the driver and he/she lowers the ramp.
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Sony.
No kidding. PSN only got marginally worse once they shut it off. Maybe they are taking this opportunity to actually build a network that works and isn't embarrassingly slow.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this is why some people champion systems like Steam, where it is much harder to pirate games.
Plus the added benefit of completely eliminating the second-hand market.
One way to verify who you are is to either require you reset your password from the console you last connected to the PSN with or just send an email to the email address they have stored... Because, theoretically neither of those items are accessible to the hackers.
I have two accounts on my PS3, and that's pretty much how it worked. The first one I tried logging back in on gave me a dialog saying that my password needed to be reset and that an email was being sent to the login email with information on what to do. From there, the email had a link to click to go and change the password (I'm assuming they were doing some sort of validation with that link, but maybe they weren't). When I tried logging in the second account, it had me change the password right there from the console. I'm assuming their system is aware that both accounts were on the same console (easy enough for them to verify), and that's why the two procedures were different.
Strange. When I did it, it first said it needed to download a new firmware (before I logged on to PSN - it does seem like they improved their network capacity, it actually maxed out my internet connection - something that nothing from PSN has ever come close to before). Once that was installed, it then popped up the dialog saying my password needed to be changed and forced me to change it right there. It then told me it was sending a confirmation email to the address on file. That email said that my account password had been updated, and to click the link only if I had not changed the password.
I also have multiple accounts on the console, but don't usually use the others (and haven't since PSN came back up). The other accounts are shared with friends and I didn't create them (only there for purposes of splitting DLC among multiple people to ease the pain of insane prices - seriously, they want $15 for a map pack? $3 is more like it).
Here in California, we call it "earthquake weather" when you have a real hot day out of nowhere.
No we don't.
You do realize that if you confiscated all of the money earned by everyone who earns more than $250,000 a year it would not even cover the Federal deficit for one year? What are you going to do the second year?
Uh, citation needed?
I'm sick of that particular meme, but seriously - you throw a claim like that out, you've got to provide some supporting evidence.
I know, it's more fun to just make stuff up that sounds good.
Yeah, I'm still waiting on the amazing solar innovations that were breathlessly announced five years ago to hit the market.
I was going to try looking up some solar power articles from five years ago, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to restrict a search to a particular time period. Is there an advanced Slashdot search hidden away somewhere? Even Google only lets me restrict my search to "past day" or "past year", etc. I could have sworn you used to be able to actually input a date range, but it isn't there any more.
MASERs and rectenna already operate using this same principle, and similarly operate at 85% or better efficiency. Since they operate in the tens of GHz range, there are readily available electronics available to handle them.
Cartman had one of those, right?
Just to enlarge upon your "temporarily" in your final sentence, isn't everything we own temporarily owned? After all, its not ours after death.
I'm a corporation, you insensitive clod!
On a sidenote: If there is only 2 hours of voice recording, why will it take weeks to listen to it?
Obviously you can't have the whole investigation team shorting Airbus stock right away, that would be too obvious; you need time for some "regularly scheduled transactions".
On a more serious note, there is 2 hours of voice recording plus lots of instrument data. Better to go through it thoroughly and recover everything you can rather than immediately issue a report just to satiate the curiosity of the public. I mean, it isn't like there is a rush - what are the chances that another A330 might fall out of the sky in the mean time? Hmm, maybe I should be shorting Rolls-Royce stock instead of Airbus...(Yeah, sorry, I got silly again for a minute there.)
Why did they say you couldn't take the pictures?
I don't know about that specific case, but in general you are not allowed to take pictures of security arrangements at ports of entry. The things that the DHS would object to in those photos are the boring bits; fences, lighting posts, security cameras if they are there, etc. Found that out at a bulk chemical facility; while ~60 miles inland, the facility is serviced by international shipping (via a long ship channel), so is designated as a port of entry. Had to have someone standing over my shoulder while shooting photos to make sure I didn't have their security arrangements in my field of view (literally razor wire fence and lighting posts; never mind that you could see them all quite clearly on Google Earth, which the guy with me even pointed out - said if I wanted photos of those areas, I could probably just look at Google Earth).
There's lots of baseless fear in the comments here. Of course you can take photos out the window of an airplane you are riding in. I do it all the time, and I've never had anybody bat an eye. You can take photos pretty much everywhere in an airport, too - just not in the security area. Shoot all the photos of planes you want, no one is going to stop you or even look at you askance (well, aside from the typical "hey, look at the plane nerd!" way). Now, if you are wandering around the airport perimeter fence taking photos, you are likely to get a visit - because of the aforementioned issue that you are likely, whether on purpose or by accident, taking photos of their security arrangements. As long as you are pointing your camera into the sky, though, you're probably okay - but they'll probably stick around and watch.
Care to share any and all correspondence between you and Comcast/NBC during the merger review, Ms. Baker? Not that I'm suggesting you would ever trade your vote for a cushy job, just to put any unfortunate rumors to rest, you see...
Yeah, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
Now where did I leave my pitchfork and torch?
Umm, no.
Natural Gas = CH4.
Hydrogen = H2
CH4 =/= H2.
The point was that, currently, hydrogen gas is largely derived from petroleum products and/or natural gas. So until large-scale industrial water cracking or something becomes economical and takes over, this really doesn't reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
No it won't. It's only floating on a cushion of air a few centimeters above a track, just run 2 electric rails in the track and drop a pickup arm to make contact with the rails.
Just stick with overhead catenaries like normal trains; should be flexible enough to handle the minor variations in altitude you would encounter, and you avoid the electrocution hazard if someone wanders onto your track.
I'm actually more interested in the efficiency of an electrically-driven propeller vs. electric traction. I would think electric traction would be significantly more efficient, but maybe not enough to overcome the losses associated with wheels on tracks.
It is just that the U.S. Navy is more worried about an incident where say a 20 people die trying to rescue the fillipino crew from a non u.s. flagged vessel. Heaven forbid some of the innocent crew members get killed in the rescue operation.
Providing every crew member of a vessel going through the area with access to a rifle would probably go a long way to combat the problem.
I think the issue has more to do with the questions of why the US Navy should be expending resources to protect a ship flagged in the Philippines. I can see protecting ships of close allies, but it is the responsibility of the Flag nation to protect sips sailing under their flag. Of course, the majority of merchant ships sail under flags of convenience from nations that have no chance of protecting them, but you get what you pay for. You want the protection of the U.S. Navy, you're going to have to register with the U.S. and follow the rules that go along with it. You want to cheap out and avoid the costs associated with meeting the requirements of being U.S.-flagged, you're on your own.
It's easy enough to blame fracturing, but the process of fracturing itself is occurring deep within some producing formation.
Did even you RTFA? (In this case I mean did you read the fracking Abstract of the scientific paper in question? ;-) That's a huge degree of correlation, and the chemistry of the hydrocarbons in the water match the chemistry of the gas in the nearby wells.
Yeah sure the fracturing does take place much deeper than the water table, they have to pump the fracturing fluids down to the shale which involves pumping them THROUGH the water table. Yes I know that the procedure involves sealing the well hole before pumping the nasty stuff down there, but when they drill hundreds of wells in a region only a few have to leak to ruin the local water table. Of course the oil/gas extraction business has such a great safety record and they have never made a mess of things before, so why should we believe science when we can believe BP? I think you should consider not drinking the water from your local well, obviously the fracking fluids are messing with your thinking process.
Not to mention the fact that the millions of gallons of water per well they pump in (according to the article, 9-13 million liters per well on average) is going to be displacing something, even if the injected water itself doesn't come up into the shallow aquifer. One theory is that the fracking fluids are displacing the groundwater within the shale formation, which is mixing with the shallow groundwater. The deeper groundwater tends to be higher in dissolved methane, dissolved solids (likely including heavy metals and radioactive particles), and other things you don't want in drinking water.
First they sucker eBay into buying them for a lot of money. Then eBay eventually figures out that it was a mistake and sells it back for chump change.
Actually, according to the article eBay bought it for $2.6 billion, then sold a 70% share a few years later for $1.9 billion. Not exactly chump change, in fact it was pretty much the same as what they paid for it. Of course, their 30% stake in the current deal gives them another $2.55 billion, so turns out they made a tidy profit on that deal.
Though I agree, I don't really see where MS is going to get anything like the amount they invested out of this. I get the feeling that Ballmer is grasping at straws here;
Why bother re-doing something badly. Just air the original, or take your own stab at the genre. The market doesn't really need more copies of the same stuff. All that does is just waste money and dilute the marketplace.
Although the original seems to be jumping the shark at the moment...
Another perfect example of this idiocy is the American pilot of IT Crowd. They basically changed most of the actors, then did their best to copy EXACTLY the first episode, pretty much shot for shot. It boggles the mind that someone gave the go-ahead for that; utterly pointless.
The movie sucked almost as bad as all the TV spinoffs, except the movie had very slightly better acting.
Also, it was over within a couple of hours instead of dragging on and on and on and on and on and on. And on and on and on and on. And on.
Nope, this year they are running 2.4L V8s (at least, Red Bull and McLaren are).
Hey! Give this guy a break. He's probably American and he doesn't even know that French actually make cars.
You can't really blame him, the French surrendered the U.S. car market to the rest of the world back in the '70s or so... obviously if they made decent cars, they'd be on sale here ;)
I am not downplaying the issues with electric vehicles right now, one of which is that it takes longer to recharge one than it does to refuel a petrol or diesel car, just that the Top Gear team went beyond the usual light hearted stuff and stuck a big old dishonest fork into the Tesla.
I disagree. For most of the test, they really played up how great it was to drive, and what a wonderful car it was. They then balanced that (perhaps overly dramatically) with the one big negative - the range. As good as the car is, it has the same drawback that all electric-only cars currently have - a limited range, and a long charging time. You can either live within that range limitation, or you can't; if you can't, it doesn't matter how good the car is otherwise.
No, they didn't actually run it out of power. But that's beside the point. Saying that the fact that it didn't actually run out of power proves that it had plenty of range is ridiculous; they knew the approximate range they could expect (they had Tesla calculate it beforehand), and obviously managed their shots within that budget to make sure they didn't actually run it all the way down before getting everything they wanted.
I have to say, the first time I saw the episode I came away thinking they had a pretty positive view of the Tesla. When I read about Tesla's lawsuit, I barely remembered the episode and was a little upset at Top Gear's alleged falsifications about the car. When I went back to watch it again, I really think Tesla overreacted; the episode was generally pretty positive about the car, with the exception of the range issue - claiming it could have gone another few laps really completely misses the (legitimate) point that was being made.
It's because cords to ring a bell (even if it's electronic at the very end of the cord) harkens back to the days of horse driven trams!
It just shows that if there is so little money invested in the public transport system that they start cutting back on the small expenses like a cord instead of just a bunch of simple buttons (which is what I am used to see).
It also means that you can't easily have different kinds of stop signals. Or at different hights. In several European countries for example they will have buttons at a height where people in a wheelchair can reach them. For the same people (or a parent with a baby in a stroller) there is a button they can use to ask to lower the bus or a ramp so they can get off (more easily), depending on the type of bus.
Buses where I'm from use the cord method. Seems much more sensible than having to place (and wire) a bunch of individual buttons. Just string a cord on either side of the bus along the windows, with a vertical cord attached every few feet, and one switch on each side. Easily accessible to everyone, including people in wheelchairs (though if the bus is packed and you are stuck standing in the aisle you might have to ask someone to pull the cord for you). I don't see how having lots of individual buttons that need to be individually wired and where each is prone to failure is any kind of improvement.
In the buses here, the disabled access ramps are only located at the front of the bus, next to the driver, with the disabled/wheelchair seating immediately behind. So no need for electronics, or separate disabled buttons, you just tell the driver and he/she lowers the ramp.
So you're saying that Caldera got to keep ¥16.8 billion?
FC Spokesperson and Manager: Ahhhhh!
(after being shot in heart by revolting employees)
The employees are always revolting; this is a Rebellion!
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Sony.
No kidding. PSN only got marginally worse once they shut it off.
Maybe they are taking this opportunity to actually build a network that works and isn't embarrassingly slow.
For those (like me) that had no idea what Thunderbolt is, apparently it is the new name for what was formerly known as Light Peak.