The response rate for spam is very low (1 in 12.5 million according to http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/spammers-get-1-response-to-12-500-000-emails-483381?src=rss&attr=all), so a spammer would have to pay 12.5M / 1K * $0.10 = $1,250 to get a response by paying Amazon to send emails. Multiple responses will be required to make a sale. If they can't make $1,250 of profit per response, they can't make money by using Amazon to send their spam.
If the keys moved around randomly on the screen at the beginning of typing the password and after typing each character, the positions of smudges on the screen would not give any information about the password.
(Yes, this does have an obviously funny reply. Not sure how to upstage it from here. Go ahead and say it, then.)
The article said AT&T's "dropped call rate is within 1/10 of a percent – the equivalent of just one call in a thousand – of the industry leader". So if the industry leader drops 5% of the calls, AT&T drops 5.1%.
So he's spending 16 weeks in jail. At the end of those 16 weeks, can they ask him for the password again and throw him in jail again if he does not divulge it?
The article mentions "dark transistors", which are transistors on the chip that can't be powered because you can't get enough power onto the chip. This is the problem that reversiblecomputing was supposed to solve.
Digg has a recommendation system. I browse digg starting at http://digg.com/all/upcoming/recommended. The bury brigade ought not to be on my "Diggers Like You" list, so they ought not to affect me, right?
If not, that's a bug in their recommendation system.
Well, that's generally true, except the temperature of your bread will go negative if the tachyon flux is too high. I agree that having a toaster that risks vacuum collapse (no Higgs bosons required!) is unwise.
In other words, I have no idea WTF you mean and I think you're spewing word salad.:-)
As I write this, the charts about their magnet temperature are
contradictory. The top one says the temperature of the warmest arc
magnet is back down to 2 Kelvins, but the lower right one says the
temperature of the warmest arc magnet is about 9.5 Kelvins. It almost
makes sense if we assume that the numbers at the lower right are the
maximum value observed over the last few weeks, but the maximum in the
upper chart is around 8 Kelvins and the lower right chart says 9.5
Kelvins, so it's still not right.
The URL from The Register is: ht tp://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_main.php?region=Sector81
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel.
Please provide figures saying how long it would take to consume the existing supply of plutonium. The Wikipedia article about the IFR says 700 years for existing depleted uranium stores. Surely there's much more depleted uranium than plutonium?
Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said
technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel.
The Wikipedia article says the waste would have to be
stored ~400 years. You don't have to store the waste in the reactor, of course.
...the dental industry doesn't want to even consider the possibility that the amalgam in your fillings might be bad for you (but nevertheless the dentist keeps taking his chelates for mercury)
I couldn't quickly find evidence for this via Google. Surely we have some real dentists around. Do you take chelation drugs to avoid harmful effects from the fillings you install?
The live network is a 30 minute call followed by a 30 day delay to unhook your Credit Card from your xbox/360. They require passwords, emails used, gamer tag, you CC#, and it's expiry date.
I routinely use ShopSafe when transferring money to businesses I have no great reason to trust. It's great -- they can't take more money than I offer, and if I want to stop the payment I talk to my bank, not to the slimeball that made me want to stop the payment.
Simply arrange to receive all of your mailing lists one message at a time, not in a digest. Then treat the stupid messages just like you would spam. For me, that means adding it to my spam corpus and feeding it into bogofilter. Works like a charm. I see lots of emails from known-stupid people scrolling down in my spam bin, and when they occasionally say something worthwhile it usually shows up in my inbox. Every once in a while I read a presumed stupid/spam message to check I'm not missing something worthwhile, and occasionally I reclassify a presumed stupid/spam message as ham.
...AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service... for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy...
For all I know, they just moved their censorship provisions to the Acceptable Use Policy. They don't give a URL or cryptographic checksum for it, so they could claim later that any document at all is the Acceptable Use Policy mentioned in the original contract.
It bugs me when people include unavailable documents by reference. Is there a non-evil reason to scatter the terms of the contract among several documents?
They don't explain why, as a previous card holder, I should go back.
I haven't read their entire website, so I can't say what they do and don't explain.
Wikipedia claims that they have changed management since the time they failed to distribute their contributions. The executive director then is not listed as a board member or officer now. So if that's the sort of charity you want to do, it's plausible that linuxfund is a good way to do it.
I could imagine that replacing a bunch of little computers with a few big ones would result in saved electricity, rent, and maintenance cost. Those are all ongoing expenses, so I could believe that they save $250M per year or decade or whatever, but the claim was that they saved a lump sum of $250M. If they were thinking of buying that pile of little computers, I could also believe that they saved $250M by buying a few big ones instead of a bunch of little ones; however, they said they were replacing the little ones. I can't find an interpretation of the article that makes any sense; can anyone else do better?
If we are alone and the ET's aren't there, then there's an interesting question of why they aren't there. Hanson's Great Filter argument applies: there's a lot of space, they aren't there, so there must be some extraordinarily unlikely events required to get from dead stars to spacefaring life. Those requirements apply to us too, so either we were very lucky in the past, or we will have to be very lucky in the future to get off the planet. Unfortunately, "we will have to be very lucky in the future to get off the planet" is about the same as "we are very probably doomed, and soon".
This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that the presence of microbial life on Mars increases the probability that we're probably doomed soon, since if there's microbial life on Mars then the formation of microbial life must not have been one of the very improbable pieces of luck in our past.
How can the weight of the emissions coming out be anything other than proportional to the number of gallons of gas going in? Shifting the discussion from gas mileage to tonnage of emissions shouldn't change anything.
Nothing can be perfectly "secure" (theoretically undecidable).
What do you mean there? Can you cite a reference for this?
If I think of the most obvious definition of "secure", then it's pretty clear to me that it might be possible to prove that a system built for the purpose of being secure is actually secure.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that it's theoretically undecidable to prove that an arbitrary system is secure, but that's not a problem we care about. Our systems aren't arbitrary. They're supposed to be constructed for a purpose.
Microsoft called build 5600 of Vista RC1, not build 5728. The headline is misleading. The cited article correctly states that build 5728 is an update to RC1.
Slashdot Mirror
The response rate for spam is very low (1 in 12.5 million according to http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/spammers-get-1-response-to-12-500-000-emails-483381?src=rss&attr=all), so a spammer would have to pay 12.5M / 1K * $0.10 = $1,250 to get a response by paying Amazon to send emails. Multiple responses will be required to make a sale. If they can't make $1,250 of profit per response, they can't make money by using Amazon to send their spam.
My house mortgage is denominated in dollars. Dollars are backed by all the mortgaged real estate for which the mortgages are denominated in dollars.
If the keys moved around randomly on the screen at the beginning of typing the password and after typing each character, the positions of smudges on the screen would not give any information about the password. (Yes, this does have an obviously funny reply. Not sure how to upstage it from here. Go ahead and say it, then.)
Why attack twitter? http://www.twitter.com/wikileaks seems to be working fine, and the explanation at http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958285 for why Wikileaks didn't appear in trending topics makes sense to me. Everyone seems to agree that #cablegate did trend. The issue of why Twitter should be attacked is not mentioned at all in the original article.
The article said AT&T's "dropped call rate is within 1/10 of a percent – the equivalent of just one call in a thousand – of the industry leader". So if the industry leader drops 5% of the calls, AT&T drops 5.1%.
So he's spending 16 weeks in jail. At the end of those 16 weeks, can they ask him for the password again and throw him in jail again if he does not divulge it?
The article mentions "dark transistors", which are transistors on the chip that can't be powered because you can't get enough power onto the chip. This is the problem that reversible computing was supposed to solve.
If not, that's a bug in their recommendation system.
In other words, I have no idea WTF you mean and I think you're spewing word salad. :-)
The URL from The Register is: ht tp://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_main.php?region=Sector81
(I have no clue what an arc magnet is.)
Please provide figures saying how long it would take to consume the existing supply of plutonium. The Wikipedia article about the IFR says 700 years for existing depleted uranium stores. Surely there's much more depleted uranium than plutonium?
The Wikipedia article says the waste would have to be stored ~400 years. You don't have to store the waste in the reactor, of course.
I couldn't quickly find evidence for this via Google. Surely we have some real dentists around. Do you take chelation drugs to avoid harmful effects from the fillings you install?
If it's converted to methane, that would be funny because a carbon atom in methane aggravates global warming more than a carbon atom in CO2.
I run OpenWRT on a Linksys WRT54GS. Up 403 days right now.
StupidFilter is redundant.
It bugs me when people include unavailable documents by reference. Is there a non-evil reason to scatter the terms of the contract among several documents?
Mod parent up. Excellent point.
I haven't read their entire website, so I can't say what they do and don't explain.
Wikipedia claims that they have changed management since the time they failed to distribute their contributions. The executive director then is not listed as a board member or officer now. So if that's the sort of charity you want to do, it's plausible that linuxfund is a good way to do it.
I could imagine that replacing a bunch of little computers with a few big ones would result in saved electricity, rent, and maintenance cost. Those are all ongoing expenses, so I could believe that they save $250M per year or decade or whatever, but the claim was that they saved a lump sum of $250M. If they were thinking of buying that pile of little computers, I could also believe that they saved $250M by buying a few big ones instead of a bunch of little ones; however, they said they were replacing the little ones. I can't find an interpretation of the article that makes any sense; can anyone else do better?
This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that the presence of microbial life on Mars increases the probability that we're probably doomed soon, since if there's microbial life on Mars then the formation of microbial life must not have been one of the very improbable pieces of luck in our past.
How can the weight of the emissions coming out be anything other than proportional to the number of gallons of gas going in? Shifting the discussion from gas mileage to tonnage of emissions shouldn't change anything.
What do you mean there? Can you cite a reference for this?
If I think of the most obvious definition of "secure", then it's pretty clear to me that it might be possible to prove that a system built for the purpose of being secure is actually secure.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that it's theoretically undecidable to prove that an arbitrary system is secure, but that's not a problem we care about. Our systems aren't arbitrary. They're supposed to be constructed for a purpose.
Microsoft called build 5600 of Vista RC1, not build 5728. The headline is misleading. The cited article correctly states that build 5728 is an update to RC1.