I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
Before the firewall was put on by default in SP2, a fresh install of XP had - at best - 5 minutes between the time you connected it to the Internet and the time someone else had full control of your machine. It was unbelievable.
Phishing is nothing new. It's the same ancient techniques used by snake oil salesmen and corrupt businesses since we started using money as a trade medium.
You're right about hacked servers. It's a problem that won't go away until they make banks financially responsible for the security breaches.
No operating system is perfectly secure. Even Linux, with its non-root mentality, has exploits for it. I've got 74 updates waiting for download right now, many of which are security updates. (Let's just say 1/4 for the sake of argument.)
Windows was wiiiide open for years, which is why there are so many exploits for it. We've all read the "Surviving the First Day of Windows XP" guide; we know how open that OS was. That's not to say it's the only shaky OS. It's just the most famous and the most available.
The folks who break into our computers spend and make fortunes on security. I've spent about $100 in the last 10 years securing my computer. The only things that keeps me from getting cracked are my obscurity and my neural network. In other words, I don't have anything valuable or desirable, and I'm not dumb enough to open random attachments.
Any online system is crackable, given enough time and resources. These cybercriminals have more of both than we do.
Thinking for even one second that you're fully secure because you're using Linux makes you part of the problem.
I downloaded the rest of the season after a time glitch cut out the end of "Doctor's Daughter".
Luckily for my mom, she was over last Friday to babysit, so she got to watch the whole episode. (The power was out at her place, too, so it was doubly lucky.)
I can download the shows and then watch them on my regular TV, which is very nice. I've got a $20,000 DVR - at least according to Bill C-61.
For a statement to be slanderous / libelous, it must be believable.
For example, were I to say, "Nasajin is from another planet -- check his car. It runs on plutonium, not gasoline," that's obviously false.
I could also say, "Nasajin is awesome. Once he bought me a car for no reason." That's not libel since it improves your reputation.
If I were to libelously say something like, "I knew Nasajin when we were in college together. He really liked young girls. Once he had a 12-year-old in his room overnight, " then that's potentially believable, so it's libelous.
So, it has to be: 1. False 2. Believable 3. Harmful
Also, slander is spoken; libel is lines (i.e. written)
It had the same problems, and the only way to fix them was to get the no CD crack. It was so rampant that the only fix for Rockstar was to patch the game with a no CD crack of their own. What happens is that it's checking the CD so ridiculously often that your PC is now only as fast as your DVD drive. That's a HUGE bottleneck.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago. They haven't learned anything in the last five years.
Instead of the antiquated magnetic stripe cards, all the banks would have to do is make the cards thicker and use a proximity scanner along with a random number generator. Put the random number generator in the card, updating every X minutes.
PayPass uses magnetic stripes, but reads them from a distance. Maybe that would work instead of prox.
Anyway, you'd then have: 1. Your card with the random number, which you have. 2. Your PIN, which you know.
Two-factor security. Easy.
You could stop ID theft with another minor upgrade: Add a photo to credit reports. The End.
If they give you a contract and you don't sign it, but you act as though you had signed it, then it's a valid contract. So, if they hand you paper that says, "You sign away your IP to this software. In exchange, we pay you." If you don't sign, but still work there and still draw a paycheque, then your behaviour is indicative of agreeing to the terms of the contract.
As an example, one engineer I worked with in my first years as a co-op student invented traction control. It was for his final design project.
The University gave it to Ford. He didn't see a dime. He didn't sign anything away, but the University's policies over-rode any rights he might have had as a private citizen.
As always, any legal opinions from non-lawyers offered on the Internet are legally binding and should be used instead of seeking appropriate legal counsel.
The idea is also that if it's breaking the rules, then you should have a clue about its behaviour. For a rough example, consider the even number axiom: The number should be evenly divisible by 2 to be even.
If it's even, you get no remainder.
If it's odd, then it breaks the rule.
If it neither breaks nor follows the answer, it's undecidable. 0 is an undecidable in this case. So is 4j. (I'm an engineer. I use j.)
You can't determine 0's behaviour based on this axiom, but you can determine the behaviour of 5, 8, 354, &etc, because they are either breaking or following the axiom.
The breakthrough, from what I understand, is that when you have these axioms defined at the quantum level, and the thing you're measuring follows the random results from ignoring the rules altogether, you can show a link between quantum physics and raw mathematics. In essence, the lab tests confirmed the paper hypothesis.
From what I can tell, this hasn't been done before.
That's a good thought: the other person won't shut up because it doesn't immediately affect them. On the other hand, most of the conversations I've seen are along the lines of, "Yeah, I'm totally driving. It's awesome. Yeah, that's what I said! Driving!"
My wife knows the following will happen when I'm driving:
I'll trail off without warning.
I'll ignore her while turning.
When changing lanes, conversation is on pause.
I will often forget what she was talking about during the trip.
I'm driving. If you want to talk, we can take the bus.
Of course, I don't have a cell, so it's really easy for me to ignore it.
If something is neither following nor breaking the rules, that thing is "undecidable".
If it's "undecidable", then you get a random result. That should be somewhat obvious: if you're not sure what something is doing, then you can't predict future actions.
They turned these rules into quantum states and measured a "thing" against it.
If the "thing" isn't following or breaking the rules, then they should get a random result. That's what they found.
Global political simulator? I think it does all right. There were also some rts games made by a german company that involved environmental cleanup. I'm not sure how those did but they looked interesting.
Careful though: historically, Germans have poor judgment when it comes to determining what constitutes an "environmental cleanup".
Meh, the joke is all right, but could use a little work.
It looks like they haven't learned a thing in the last five years.
They put copy protection on GTA3 for the PC, and it was so unplayable that you had to download the No-CD crack in order to play the game. That's legitimate, retail customers that had to pirate the game they bought in order to play it. That's OSI-Ultima9-level bad coding.
Rockstar patched the game by providing a legitimate No-CD crack in order to speed up the game to a playable level in v1.1
I've completely given up on PC gaming because of shit like this. I refuse to buy a new video card and reinstall Windows every year just so I can play a new game.
That's just good practice. You should put in a handful of bugs and see how many your QA department finds.
If you put in 10 and they find 8 of those plus 24 other bugs, then you can roughly estimate that there are about 30 bugs in the code that you have to fix.
For diving suits, you could make the outer layer out of this stuff. Your thermal protection has little to do with the outermost layer, except to restrict the amount of ambient water that touches your body. In the case of a wetsuit, you keep just enough water inside to keep it warm. A drysuit requires (in most cases) thermal undergarments. (I use a neoprene drysuit and thermal underwear when I dive.)
Nevertheless, having the exterior of your gear coated with this would greatly reduce your drag underwater, making for a much easier dive.
Hell, put it on your regulators and the salt water would just...leave. Ooh, I got a chill.
Also, I live in a rainy area, so a jacket made out of this material would be really nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
XP didn't always have that security center.
Before the firewall was put on by default in SP2, a fresh install of XP had - at best - 5 minutes between the time you connected it to the Internet and the time someone else had full control of your machine. It was unbelievable.
Phishing is nothing new. It's the same ancient techniques used by snake oil salesmen and corrupt businesses since we started using money as a trade medium.
You're right about hacked servers. It's a problem that won't go away until they make banks financially responsible for the security breaches.
Yes, it does.
No operating system is perfectly secure. Even Linux, with its non-root mentality, has exploits for it. I've got 74 updates waiting for download right now, many of which are security updates. (Let's just say 1/4 for the sake of argument.)
Windows was wiiiide open for years, which is why there are so many exploits for it. We've all read the "Surviving the First Day of Windows XP" guide; we know how open that OS was. That's not to say it's the only shaky OS. It's just the most famous and the most available.
The folks who break into our computers spend and make fortunes on security. I've spent about $100 in the last 10 years securing my computer. The only things that keeps me from getting cracked are my obscurity and my neural network. In other words, I don't have anything valuable or desirable, and I'm not dumb enough to open random attachments.
Any online system is crackable, given enough time and resources. These cybercriminals have more of both than we do.
Thinking for even one second that you're fully secure because you're using Linux makes you part of the problem.
I downloaded the rest of the season after a time glitch cut out the end of "Doctor's Daughter".
Luckily for my mom, she was over last Friday to babysit, so she got to watch the whole episode. (The power was out at her place, too, so it was doubly lucky.)
I can download the shows and then watch them on my regular TV, which is very nice. I've got a $20,000 DVR - at least according to Bill C-61.
That's the Lady Washington.
Well, if your mom and dad both gets cold sores, odds are you do too.
Even if you're not symptomatic, you might still have the virus.
Hmm. Maybe you are symptomatic, but the sores are in your brain instead of on your lips.
For a statement to be slanderous / libelous, it must be believable.
For example, were I to say, "Nasajin is from another planet -- check his car. It runs on plutonium, not gasoline," that's obviously false.
I could also say, "Nasajin is awesome. Once he bought me a car for no reason." That's not libel since it improves your reputation.
If I were to libelously say something like, "I knew Nasajin when we were in college together. He really liked young girls. Once he had a 12-year-old in his room overnight, " then that's potentially believable, so it's libelous.
So, it has to be:
1. False
2. Believable
3. Harmful
Also, slander is spoken; libel is lines (i.e. written)
Not to HER home.
She's happier now, at least for a few minutes at a time.
You forgot two groups:
1. People who actually watch football and care about it.
2. People who watch football as a 2-3 hour escape. "Ooh, sorry, honey. The game is on. How about in a few hours?"
Personally, I don't watch or follow any pro sports. I think they're all a waste of time and money, and I simply don't get it.
You never played GTA3 for the PC, did you?
It had the same problems, and the only way to fix them was to get the no CD crack. It was so rampant that the only fix for Rockstar was to patch the game with a no CD crack of their own. What happens is that it's checking the CD so ridiculously often that your PC is now only as fast as your DVD drive. That's a HUGE bottleneck.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago. They haven't learned anything in the last five years.
Apparently, neither have the consumers.
UTC
No, there's a better way.
Instead of the antiquated magnetic stripe cards, all the banks would have to do is make the cards thicker and use a proximity scanner along with a random number generator. Put the random number generator in the card, updating every X minutes.
PayPass uses magnetic stripes, but reads them from a distance. Maybe that would work instead of prox.
Anyway, you'd then have:
1. Your card with the random number, which you have.
2. Your PIN, which you know.
Two-factor security. Easy.
You could stop ID theft with another minor upgrade: Add a photo to credit reports. The End.
Not quite. Oral contracts are still contracts.
If they give you a contract and you don't sign it, but you act as though you had signed it, then it's a valid contract. So, if they hand you paper that says, "You sign away your IP to this software. In exchange, we pay you." If you don't sign, but still work there and still draw a paycheque, then your behaviour is indicative of agreeing to the terms of the contract.
As an example, one engineer I worked with in my first years as a co-op student invented traction control. It was for his final design project.
The University gave it to Ford. He didn't see a dime. He didn't sign anything away, but the University's policies over-rode any rights he might have had as a private citizen.
As always, any legal opinions from non-lawyers offered on the Internet are legally binding and should be used instead of seeking appropriate legal counsel.
The idea is also that if it's breaking the rules, then you should have a clue about its behaviour. For a rough example, consider the even number axiom: The number should be evenly divisible by 2 to be even.
If it's even, you get no remainder.
If it's odd, then it breaks the rule.
If it neither breaks nor follows the answer, it's undecidable. 0 is an undecidable in this case. So is 4j. (I'm an engineer. I use j.)
You can't determine 0's behaviour based on this axiom, but you can determine the behaviour of 5, 8, 354, &etc, because they are either breaking or following the axiom.
The breakthrough, from what I understand, is that when you have these axioms defined at the quantum level, and the thing you're measuring follows the random results from ignoring the rules altogether, you can show a link between quantum physics and raw mathematics. In essence, the lab tests confirmed the paper hypothesis.
From what I can tell, this hasn't been done before.
That's a good thought: the other person won't shut up because it doesn't immediately affect them. On the other hand, most of the conversations I've seen are along the lines of, "Yeah, I'm totally driving. It's awesome. Yeah, that's what I said! Driving!"
My wife knows the following will happen when I'm driving:
I'm driving. If you want to talk, we can take the bus.
Of course, I don't have a cell, so it's really easy for me to ignore it.
There are rules. They call them axioms.
If something is neither following nor breaking the rules, that thing is "undecidable".
If it's "undecidable", then you get a random result. That should be somewhat obvious: if you're not sure what something is doing, then you can't predict future actions.
They turned these rules into quantum states and measured a "thing" against it.
If the "thing" isn't following or breaking the rules, then they should get a random result. That's what they found.
Global political simulator? I think it does all right.
There were also some rts games made by a german company that involved environmental cleanup. I'm not sure how those did but they looked interesting.
Careful though: historically, Germans have poor judgment when it comes to determining what constitutes an "environmental cleanup".
Meh, the joke is all right, but could use a little work.
It looks like they haven't learned a thing in the last five years.
They put copy protection on GTA3 for the PC, and it was so unplayable that you had to download the No-CD crack in order to play the game. That's legitimate, retail customers that had to pirate the game they bought in order to play it. That's OSI-Ultima9-level bad coding.
Rockstar patched the game by providing a legitimate No-CD crack in order to speed up the game to a playable level in v1.1
I've completely given up on PC gaming because of shit like this. I refuse to buy a new video card and reinstall Windows every year just so I can play a new game.
That's just good practice. You should put in a handful of bugs and see how many your QA department finds.
If you put in 10 and they find 8 of those plus 24 other bugs, then you can roughly estimate that there are about 30 bugs in the code that you have to fix.
Test your testers.
Jack Thompson's unemployed. Why not choose him?
You've heard of Edubuntu, right?
Depression is a medical condition, not a general sadness about how much your life sucks.
You require medication and dedicated professional counseling to deal with depression. A pep talk from your parents isn't going to cut it.
When someone is depressed on the verge of being suicidal, that person requires very strong and immediate medical intervention.
The only way "perfect parents" would have helped is if they had noticed a problem with the girl and taken her to get help.
For diving suits, you could make the outer layer out of this stuff. Your thermal protection has little to do with the outermost layer, except to restrict the amount of ambient water that touches your body. In the case of a wetsuit, you keep just enough water inside to keep it warm. A drysuit requires (in most cases) thermal undergarments. (I use a neoprene drysuit and thermal underwear when I dive.)
Nevertheless, having the exterior of your gear coated with this would greatly reduce your drag underwater, making for a much easier dive.
Hell, put it on your regulators and the salt water would just...leave. Ooh, I got a chill.
Also, I live in a rainy area, so a jacket made out of this material would be really nice.
the plots appear to be generated by a mathematical model rather than a laboratory experiment
This is what I would say "NEXT!" for, but to each their own.
Our countries are brothers. You guys can have all the oil, gas, water, electricity, and uranium you want.
You've got our back; we've got yours.