You're afraid of something hundreds of thousands of times less dangerous to your health than a dozen risks you blithely take every day, such as walking down the street, drinking tap water, eating cooked meat, flying on a commercial jet, etc.
I guess you've never heard of risk management. If a Risk Assessment index is comprised of probability on the X axis, and consequence on the Y, where risk = X * Y, then something with a very low likelihood of occurrence with catastrophic consequences deserves equal consideration as something that's virtually guaranteed to happen with very mild consequences.
For example, if there's a 99.999999% chance of rain, and the consequence is getting wet, you'd grab an umbrella. If there's a.000001% chance of the entire planet getting wiped out by a black hole, then it is -- at the very least -- worth grabbing an umbrella.
It's still a bargain, since a top of the line dual core (the 900 something) draws only ~50W less. Admittedly it can throttle back when not under load, but would that make up for the $1,000 price difference during its expected lifetime? Obviously, given enough time it would, but I doubt 50W over, say, 3 years would even come close. Let be generous and say that by buying the $1,100 chip, you save 200W on average, running 24/7, so
200W = 4.8KWh/day = 144KHh/month 144KWh at a pricey $.20/KWh = $28.80/mo $1,000 / $28.80 = 34.7
So, if my math is correct, it would take over 34 months to equal the extra $1000 in price. Of course, you also keep $1000 of liquidity which, according to most economists, means that money is actually worth more, since it can perform a useful function instead of being locked up in an asset -- especially one which will devalue to near 0 in a short timespan.
Also, the biggest jump in power draw is from 4.0GHz to 4.1GHz, because you've got to up the core voltage at that point to maintain stability. Of course, your milage may vary, and such an increase might be necessary earlier, or not at all.
Actually, that feature is locked in the 805 D because, according to THG anyway, it's got a base speed of 2.66GHz, so throttling it back would dip below Intel's idea of minimum performance (1.85GHz IIRC).
Because they couldn't just use aGPStracker to begin with, and cellphone batteries last forever, right?
On the plus side, someone stole your phone? Left it in a cab? Not sure? Now you can be. It's easy enough to defeat if you don't want to be tracked (turn the GPS function off, or the phone) and there are security measures in place to ensure that not just anyone can track the phone. Could they be defeated? Well, if it's got a web interface, then it's only secure as that is.. But I would wager that some sicko driving by is more likely to just snatch a kid than go through the hassle of trying to hack into their phone tracking system. It might happen, but if a system does largely more good than harm, it's acceptable. We make the same concessions for all technology, from cars to planes to power lines.
Regardless, if this program was not available, it would not prevent bad people from doing bad things, but by enabling parents to keep tabs on their children, it gives people peace of mind. Also, the article (or at least one of the versions I read earlier on Google news) explicitly states that this is aimed at the small child, not teens who would just be clever enough to bypass it anyway; by leaving the phone where they're supposed to be and forwarding the calls, for example.
You're really playing russian roulette by being the first on your block to try [DUH].
Where DUH is one or more of the following:
BetaMax
iPod Nano
MiniDisc
DIVX
Capri Pants
Any new car model
The Pentium
Joint NASA/ESA orbiters
Vioxx
HDMI
Anything new.
The early adopter is pretty much a beta tester who pays for the privelage. Consequently, he is rarely the first person to have a fully working version, since he'll (hopefully) make damned sure the bugs have been ironed out before buying the next one. I call it the early adopter paradox. (I just coined that phrase, and the Early Adopter Paradox is Copyright 2006, me.)
Well, at some point you've got to trust someone. How do you know the free and open method wasn't developed by a foreign government, your own government, or anyone else who already knows its weakness and can exploit it? And what better way to get millions of people using your product than to introduce it as a new public standard? Are you going to review the algorithms and mathematical theory behind them, or will you just assume that someone else will? From your "few billion flaw-seekers" statement, I will infer that you're expecting someone else to do the legwork. Really, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of people do a thorough analysis, and that analysis isn't likely to be any more or less revealing for an open standard than a closed one, especially if the researchers don't have the particular insights, knowledge, or access to technology that the author does.
If you're really dealing with information so secure that you can't afford risking any amount of interception or infiltration, you should be using one time pads or the like, rather than relying on protections which are inherently weak against MITM and good old-fashioned brute force.
Anyway, we're talking about wireless newtworks here. If you're using a wireless network to begin with, you're already accepting a huge risk for the sake of convenience. I'm not saying the standards bodies shouldn't take reasonable precautions to protect against known attacks, to the extent possible, but you're still broadcasting information that can be intercepted by just about anyone. If you're comfortable doing that, then the author of your encryption shouldn't be that much of a concern.
Outstanding analysis. Your explanation is exactly why I left, but I couldn't put it into words nearly as succinctly.
Also, the thing the military neglects to mention is that they can and do "fire" (kick out / pay to separate / disapprove reenlistment) people all the time. It's only secure in that you probably won't get fired on a whim, which is little different than many state labor laws.
I also did 6 years in the military. Sure, some of what they say is true -- there's office politics and the like, which is just part of the human condition -- but it's nothing like the military. You don't have to worry about irrelevant details like making sure your shoes don't have any scuffs on them, which allows you to focus more on the real work. Sure, in a professional atmosphere you should probably look professional, but it's not like the mindless obsession that is the military.
More importantly, if you happen to land a job with a terrible boss, you have a lot more leverage in the private sector than in the military. Namely -- you can leave. Many of the people I work with are all former military as well, so we all have stories to tell and laugh about, and I've never met one person who regretted leaving, if that says anything.
The "career counselors" in the military are no different than recruiters or any other salesmen. They'll try to point out the virtues of military service and the negatives of civilian life, under the guise of presenting an "objective" view. Strangely, you'll never hear them extoll the virtues of civilian life, or point out the negatives of military life. Of course, there ARE two sides of the coin, and each has its flaws.. but don't buy in to the biggest argument the military tries to make, which is that "it's no different on the outside, except you can get laid off." Sure, you can get fired or laid off, but militaries downsize too (the Navy just implemented downsizing in 2004). More importantly, think of how many people do just fine in the civilian sector. If they can do it, why not you? If you don't find the military environment rewarding, then don't be afraid to get out. Fear is often be an excuse for doing nothing, so don't let it deter you. Don't get me wrong, this may be the most difficult decision you'll ever have to make -- it was for me, and it was for some of my associates -- especially when you're surrounded by people who don't want you to leave. Just remember, their bottom line is retention and making themselves look good, but it's your life.
Some people, especially those who've been in the service for a long time, are institutionalized and simply incapable of performing in an environment without strict rules and regulations guiding their every move, and six years is definately enough time to become institutionalized. Some people simply don't have the education, qualifications, or resources to pursue a good job, and the military is the best choice for them, for the money. However, the biggest handicap to military service, in my experience is that you are limited in how much you can succeed. Your options are pretty much limited to being a grunt, or being in charge of grunts. If you find that satisfying, then by all means, stay in.
Rest assured, you shouldn't have a problem finding a job in IT when you get out. I have several collegues and associates who performed work which barely qualified as IT, but IT was their hobby, and they now work as (very capable) sysadmins. As someone above posted, contractor jobs are great, because they like people who've had military experience. Actually the experience looks good on a resume for just about anywhere, and it sets you apart from the competitors.
Of course, I'm biased because I got out, and I don't know the particulars of your situation so take what I say with a grain of salt. Anyway, I hope my experience helps and good luck, whatever your choice.
I'm pretty sure getting an AO rating, and getting yanked from the shelves of many major retailers cost more sales than it earned through publicity. Regardless, it would take a lot of sales to offset the ~50% drop in Take Two's stock price.
Fortunately umbilical/placental stem cells have been discovered to have as much or more developmental potential than embryonic cells, and are no more difficult to harvest than embryonic cells, so the point it mostly moot.
and yet they couldn't even put a fullsize keyboard on it.
Honestly, if you look at the pictures, it looks like they actually tried to keep from using all that space. I'm sure that's not the case, and they just wanted to use the components they already have, but would it really be that much more expensive to use a keyboard for grownups?
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is why San Diego had to get rid of their traffic cameras which were run by a private company: It's illegal for private entities to perform the role of law enforcement. Sales tax is completely different, in that the seller is not imposing a penalty for an alleged violation of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
You're afraid of something hundreds of thousands of times less dangerous to your health than a dozen risks you blithely take every day, such as walking down the street, drinking tap water, eating cooked meat, flying on a commercial jet, etc.
.000001% chance of the entire planet getting wiped out by a black hole, then it is -- at the very least -- worth grabbing an umbrella.
I guess you've never heard of risk management. If a Risk Assessment index is comprised of probability on the X axis, and consequence on the Y, where risk = X * Y, then something with a very low likelihood of occurrence with catastrophic consequences deserves equal consideration as something that's virtually guaranteed to happen with very mild consequences.
For example, if there's a 99.999999% chance of rain, and the consequence is getting wet, you'd grab an umbrella. If there's a
Per fortnight, or...?
It's still a bargain, since a top of the line dual core (the 900 something) draws only ~50W less. Admittedly it can throttle back when not under load, but would that make up for the $1,000 price difference during its expected lifetime? Obviously, given enough time it would, but I doubt 50W over, say, 3 years would even come close. Let be generous and say that by buying the $1,100 chip, you save 200W on average, running 24/7, so
200W = 4.8KWh/day = 144KHh/month
144KWh at a pricey $.20/KWh = $28.80/mo
$1,000 / $28.80 = 34.7
So, if my math is correct, it would take over 34 months to equal the extra $1000 in price. Of course, you also keep $1000 of liquidity which, according to most economists, means that money is actually worth more, since it can perform a useful function instead of being locked up in an asset -- especially one which will devalue to near 0 in a short timespan.
Also, the biggest jump in power draw is from 4.0GHz to 4.1GHz, because you've got to up the core voltage at that point to maintain stability. Of course, your milage may vary, and such an increase might be necessary earlier, or not at all.
Actually, that feature is locked in the 805 D because, according to THG anyway, it's got a base speed of 2.66GHz, so throttling it back would dip below Intel's idea of minimum performance (1.85GHz IIRC).
I just spelled it that way becooze my yoo key is broken; I wasn't making any statements aboot Canadians.
Because they couldn't just use a GPS tracker to begin with, and cellphone batteries last forever, right?
On the plus side, someone stole your phone? Left it in a cab? Not sure? Now you can be. It's easy enough to defeat if you don't want to be tracked (turn the GPS function off, or the phone) and there are security measures in place to ensure that not just anyone can track the phone. Could they be defeated? Well, if it's got a web interface, then it's only secure as that is.. But I would wager that some sicko driving by is more likely to just snatch a kid than go through the hassle of trying to hack into their phone tracking system. It might happen, but if a system does largely more good than harm, it's acceptable. We make the same concessions for all technology, from cars to planes to power lines.
Regardless, if this program was not available, it would not prevent bad people from doing bad things, but by enabling parents to keep tabs on their children, it gives people peace of mind. Also, the article (or at least one of the versions I read earlier on Google news) explicitly states that this is aimed at the small child, not teens who would just be clever enough to bypass it anyway; by leaving the phone where they're supposed to be and forwarding the calls, for example.
You're really playing russian roulette by being the first on your block to try [DUH].
Where DUH is one or more of the following:
BetaMax
iPod Nano
MiniDisc
DIVX
Capri Pants
Any new car model
The Pentium
Joint NASA/ESA orbiters
Vioxx
HDMI
Anything new.
The early adopter is pretty much a beta tester who pays for the privelage. Consequently, he is rarely the first person to have a fully working version, since he'll (hopefully) make damned sure the bugs have been ironed out before buying the next one. I call it the early adopter paradox. (I just coined that phrase, and the Early Adopter Paradox is Copyright 2006, me.)
Are you claiming that a port is not wine?
That sounds aboot right.
For those wondering, the text they discovered was "...etarium Pat. Pending (1)"
Well, at some point you've got to trust someone. How do you know the free and open method wasn't developed by a foreign government, your own government, or anyone else who already knows its weakness and can exploit it? And what better way to get millions of people using your product than to introduce it as a new public standard? Are you going to review the algorithms and mathematical theory behind them, or will you just assume that someone else will? From your "few billion flaw-seekers" statement, I will infer that you're expecting someone else to do the legwork. Really, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of people do a thorough analysis, and that analysis isn't likely to be any more or less revealing for an open standard than a closed one, especially if the researchers don't have the particular insights, knowledge, or access to technology that the author does.
If you're really dealing with information so secure that you can't afford risking any amount of interception or infiltration, you should be using one time pads or the like, rather than relying on protections which are inherently weak against MITM and good old-fashioned brute force.
Anyway, we're talking about wireless newtworks here. If you're using a wireless network to begin with, you're already accepting a huge risk for the sake of convenience. I'm not saying the standards bodies shouldn't take reasonable precautions to protect against known attacks, to the extent possible, but you're still broadcasting information that can be intercepted by just about anyone. If you're comfortable doing that, then the author of your encryption shouldn't be that much of a concern.
Outstanding analysis. Your explanation is exactly why I left, but I couldn't put it into words nearly as succinctly.
Also, the thing the military neglects to mention is that they can and do "fire" (kick out / pay to separate / disapprove reenlistment) people all the time. It's only secure in that you probably won't get fired on a whim, which is little different than many state labor laws.
I also did 6 years in the military. Sure, some of what they say is true -- there's office politics and the like, which is just part of the human condition -- but it's nothing like the military. You don't have to worry about irrelevant details like making sure your shoes don't have any scuffs on them, which allows you to focus more on the real work. Sure, in a professional atmosphere you should probably look professional, but it's not like the mindless obsession that is the military.
More importantly, if you happen to land a job with a terrible boss, you have a lot more leverage in the private sector than in the military. Namely -- you can leave. Many of the people I work with are all former military as well, so we all have stories to tell and laugh about, and I've never met one person who regretted leaving, if that says anything.
The "career counselors" in the military are no different than recruiters or any other salesmen. They'll try to point out the virtues of military service and the negatives of civilian life, under the guise of presenting an "objective" view. Strangely, you'll never hear them extoll the virtues of civilian life, or point out the negatives of military life. Of course, there ARE two sides of the coin, and each has its flaws.. but don't buy in to the biggest argument the military tries to make, which is that "it's no different on the outside, except you can get laid off." Sure, you can get fired or laid off, but militaries downsize too (the Navy just implemented downsizing in 2004). More importantly, think of how many people do just fine in the civilian sector. If they can do it, why not you? If you don't find the military environment rewarding, then don't be afraid to get out. Fear is often be an excuse for doing nothing, so don't let it deter you. Don't get me wrong, this may be the most difficult decision you'll ever have to make -- it was for me, and it was for some of my associates -- especially when you're surrounded by people who don't want you to leave. Just remember, their bottom line is retention and making themselves look good, but it's your life.
Some people, especially those who've been in the service for a long time, are institutionalized and simply incapable of performing in an environment without strict rules and regulations guiding their every move, and six years is definately enough time to become institutionalized. Some people simply don't have the education, qualifications, or resources to pursue a good job, and the military is the best choice for them, for the money. However, the biggest handicap to military service, in my experience is that you are limited in how much you can succeed. Your options are pretty much limited to being a grunt, or being in charge of grunts. If you find that satisfying, then by all means, stay in.
Rest assured, you shouldn't have a problem finding a job in IT when you get out. I have several collegues and associates who performed work which barely qualified as IT, but IT was their hobby, and they now work as (very capable) sysadmins. As someone above posted, contractor jobs are great, because they like people who've had military experience. Actually the experience looks good on a resume for just about anywhere, and it sets you apart from the competitors.
Of course, I'm biased because I got out, and I don't know the particulars of your situation so take what I say with a grain of salt. Anyway, I hope my experience helps and good luck, whatever your choice.
p.s. But I'm right that there is some sort of conspiracy to misspell the word ridiculous
That's unpossible.
And rediculous!
I'm still trying to figure out how he left a Suzuki in a taxi, let alone how he took pictures with it.
In related news, Carl's Jr. announced their Six Dollar Burger will cost $8.10.
I'm pretty sure getting an AO rating, and getting yanked from the shelves of many major retailers cost more sales than it earned through publicity. Regardless, it would take a lot of sales to offset the ~50% drop in Take Two's stock price.
Fortunately umbilical/placental stem cells have been discovered to have as much or more developmental potential than embryonic cells, and are no more difficult to harvest than embryonic cells, so the point it mostly moot.
Which, by definition, is everyone.
That's a common misperception among people who have never seen Kate Moss stand sideways.
If you think it's taking us a long time to come out with the PS2's successor, just wait!
Fortunately, games cannot be owned, under current US IP law. They can be pwned, but that's something altogether different.
and yet they couldn't even put a fullsize keyboard on it.
Honestly, if you look at the pictures, it looks like they actually tried to keep from using all that space. I'm sure that's not the case, and they just wanted to use the components they already have, but would it really be that much more expensive to use a keyboard for grownups?
There's more interesting things in life, like mountains, women and fast cars.
Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is why San Diego had to get rid of their traffic cameras which were run by a private company: It's illegal for private entities to perform the role of law enforcement. Sales tax is completely different, in that the seller is not imposing a penalty for an alleged violation of the law.