A tall, thin guy with a pony-tail and a t-shirt from some obscure anime drinking a capuccino and reading a book we can't see the title of. No voice-over, but towards the end of the scene a caption appears that says, "If you can't figure out for yourself that I'm supposed to be Linux, you have no business watching this video."
Are we talking about what the actress might say, or what the character might say? Near as I can tell, Summer's kind of a sweetheart, I don't think she'd threaten anybody. Just sayin'. As for River, it seems a little... coherent, don't you think? I agree Mal would say this. Probably in Chinese.
I'm at work at the moment (shh, don't tell), but when I get home I'll take a look at the GhostBusters DVD I have and see how big the actual VOB files are.
A single film doesn't use up an entire DVDs 4.7G capacity. Most DVD video is encoded at around 9.8M/s. That's something of a simplification, of course, but do the math and you'll see a feature-length film would easily fit in 2G.
What planet are you from? When did humans ever do work they didn't have to do because they were supposed to do it? It's not like the company doesn't play the same game in reverse. They may keep you at a lower wage by promising retirement benefits, but then outsource your job to another country before they have to pay those benefits. There's no altruism in business, and there never has been.
I salute you. Probably a good first step would be to address the criticism that only cows in the Northern Hemisphere were observed. Google Earth does also cover the Southern Hemisphere. Get out there and find some cows!:)
the correlationisnotcausation tag? Honestly, it gets trotted out anytime an article mentions even the most tentative conclusions drawn about anything. Yes, thank you, we've been to highschool science. Yet correlation that is statistically significant in data which has been thoroughly examined for possible confounding factors and bias is meaningful. Causation may possibly account for the correlation, in one direction or another. Or the two elements may each have a common cause in some other factor, possibly not present in the data. But it does actually mean something. That's why we collect data and study it.
If I say you ought to have said that, I'd be repeating myself, wouldn't I?;) Biometrics does have its own problems, of course, chief among them being that if it's defeated once you have to throw it out. For exactly the reason you originally mentioned: that it's easier to change a PIN than a fingerprint, which is what you'd have to ask the legitimate account-holder to do if someone actually did defeat the system. That, or go to the expense of implementing something completely different. If someone steals PINs from a database, you can change the PINs and beef up security on the database. You don't have that option with biometrics. So even if it does raise the bar sufficiently to prevent 99.999% of intruders from even attempting it, it only takes one person who perceives it as a personal challenge to force you to start over. But really, I think we all agree: the system currently in place is grossly insufficient, and it's the banks' responsibility to do better. They can just do better than biometrics.
If that was his point, then that's what he ought to have said, and I wouldn't have disagreed with him. But it isn't. What he actually said strongly implied that the only way to fool a biometric scanner is to have surgery. Possibly very involved surgery. Of course there's no such thing as perfect security, there is only a balance between the expense you force on the potential intruder compared to the risk of loss from the intrusion, taking into account the expense you incur for implementing the security itself. It's all an equation, and if one variable is overstated it does throw the equation off.
Retinal scanning would fail if someone was in an accident or had surgery or something. Or just went on a bender last night. I knew a guy who loved to tell the story of when he was consulting at a military installation that employed retinal scanners among other security measures. He went out drinking one night and the next day when he reported for work he was a little bloodshot and the scanners didn't recognize him. And the metal walls came down while the guys with shotguns were summoned...
Your comment made me stop and think, so congratulations for that. What I'm thinking, though, is that it isn't gun ownership itself that deters crime in this example, but the fear of potential gun ownership. Consider your own reluctance to put the same sign in your own front yard. Both you and your gunless neighbors benefit from a criminal's fear that you might have a gun. In short, that particular benefit derives from the right, not necessarily the reality, of gun ownership. This of course assumes a great many things about criminal psychology about which I'm afraid I'm underqualified to comment. It only proceeds from the assumptions evident in your example.
Okay, I apologize for not reading the article first. I read the summary to imply that graduates with good prospects for IT positions were avoiding the field, not that non-IT graduates thought IT would be boring. So people who don't study IT think IT is not worth studying? Isn't this a tautology? Nothing to see here, move along.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to say I found the "buyamerican" tag amusing for that reason.
This is a laptop, though.
with this theory. Is stupid. Is most stupid theory I ever heard.
A tall, thin guy with a pony-tail and a t-shirt from some obscure anime drinking a capuccino and reading a book we can't see the title of. No voice-over, but towards the end of the scene a caption appears that says, "If you can't figure out for yourself that I'm supposed to be Linux, you have no business watching this video."
People are pretty much the same as garbage.
3... 2... 1...
Well, the question at hand was why do people want to watch movies on their computer at all, not specifically on a USB key.
Are we talking about what the actress might say, or what the character might say?
Near as I can tell, Summer's kind of a sweetheart, I don't think she'd threaten anybody. Just sayin'. As for River, it seems a little... coherent, don't you think? I agree Mal would say this. Probably in Chinese.
I must've made an error the first time I worked that out. That'll teach me to be lazy next time and let Google do it for me. Thanks. :)
I'm at work at the moment (shh, don't tell), but when I get home I'll take a look at the GhostBusters DVD I have and see how big the actual VOB files are.
Haven't seen the film, then?
People bring laptops with them on the plane.
A single film doesn't use up an entire DVDs 4.7G capacity. Most DVD video is encoded at around 9.8M/s. That's something of a simplification, of course, but do the math and you'll see a feature-length film would easily fit in 2G.
What planet are you from? When did humans ever do work they didn't have to do because they were supposed to do it? It's not like the company doesn't play the same game in reverse. They may keep you at a lower wage by promising retirement benefits, but then outsource your job to another country before they have to pay those benefits. There's no altruism in business, and there never has been.
I salute you. Probably a good first step would be to address the criticism that only cows in the Northern Hemisphere were observed. Google Earth does also cover the Southern Hemisphere. Get out there and find some cows! :)
the correlationisnotcausation tag? Honestly, it gets trotted out anytime an article mentions even the most tentative conclusions drawn about anything. Yes, thank you, we've been to highschool science. Yet correlation that is statistically significant in data which has been thoroughly examined for possible confounding factors and bias is meaningful. Causation may possibly account for the correlation, in one direction or another. Or the two elements may each have a common cause in some other factor, possibly not present in the data. But it does actually mean something. That's why we collect data and study it.
Yeah, they really ought to send them a printout.
Benefit of an RSA SecurID key or something of that order would be it could also be used for online transactions.
If I say you ought to have said that, I'd be repeating myself, wouldn't I? ;)
Biometrics does have its own problems, of course, chief among them being that if it's defeated once you have to throw it out. For exactly the reason you originally mentioned: that it's easier to change a PIN than a fingerprint, which is what you'd have to ask the legitimate account-holder to do if someone actually did defeat the system. That, or go to the expense of implementing something completely different. If someone steals PINs from a database, you can change the PINs and beef up security on the database. You don't have that option with biometrics. So even if it does raise the bar sufficiently to prevent 99.999% of intruders from even attempting it, it only takes one person who perceives it as a personal challenge to force you to start over.
But really, I think we all agree: the system currently in place is grossly insufficient, and it's the banks' responsibility to do better. They can just do better than biometrics.
If that was his point, then that's what he ought to have said, and I wouldn't have disagreed with him. But it isn't. What he actually said strongly implied that the only way to fool a biometric scanner is to have surgery. Possibly very involved surgery.
Of course there's no such thing as perfect security, there is only a balance between the expense you force on the potential intruder compared to the risk of loss from the intrusion, taking into account the expense you incur for implementing the security itself. It's all an equation, and if one variable is overstated it does throw the equation off.
You are. There are ways to deceive biometric scanners.
Your comment made me stop and think, so congratulations for that.
What I'm thinking, though, is that it isn't gun ownership itself that deters crime in this example, but the fear of potential gun ownership. Consider your own reluctance to put the same sign in your own front yard. Both you and your gunless neighbors benefit from a criminal's fear that you might have a gun. In short, that particular benefit derives from the right, not necessarily the reality, of gun ownership.
This of course assumes a great many things about criminal psychology about which I'm afraid I'm underqualified to comment. It only proceeds from the assumptions evident in your example.
Considering the percentage that don't have access to clean drinking water..? Yeah, it's just you.
Okay, I apologize for not reading the article first. I read the summary to imply that graduates with good prospects for IT positions were avoiding the field, not that non-IT graduates thought IT would be boring. So people who don't study IT think IT is not worth studying? Isn't this a tautology? Nothing to see here, move along.