Great, thanks for linking the article in your post. Did you read all of it?
You should have also noted that alcohol was highly prevalent in the speeding accidents your percentages came reflect. And not/all/ of the 'innocent' people were wearing their seatbelts. Some of the 'innocent' had also been drinking themselves.
Does this alter the fact that many people lost their lives due to speeding? No. I just wanted to point out that not all the fatalaties were caused by speeding alone, which is what your post implied.
I still don't get the left land lane drivers, who think they're not obligated to get the hell over when someone comes up behind them. If I'm faster than you, regardless of whether or not I'm speeding, GET OVER if it's safe to do so. You're obligated to do so. Otherwise, you're taking the law into your own hands, which is not a wise thing to do. It's these type of people that initiate Road Rage, not the ones who speed, at least in my opinion.
This simple concept is just wasted on most people, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. I'm the type of driver who will go as fast as I feel comfortable driving, and I realize others have different thresholds for this that allow them to drive faster than me. They don't scare me in the least, and I have no intention of intimidating them or blocking them by staying in the left lane when they come up on me. I get over, unlike most other 'friendly' drivers you find on the road.
Back to another point I was trying to make - it's not the 'law-breakers' that initiate Road Rage in my opinion, it's the 'normal' drivers. The people that seemed to get pissed are the ones who finally get over after you've been riding their ass for awhile, then when you pass them give you a dirty look, etc. Hey, buddy...you were SUPPOSED to get over when I came up on you./I/ should be the one give/YOU/ the dirty look, not the other way around. Yes, I hate these types of people, but I don't do anything to intentionally aggravate them. And when I have a free lane I'm gone, out of their hair. They probably fume about it for a long time after I'm gone, too, but that's not my problem. They should learn to respect someone who wants to drive faster than them, not get aggravated at them. Chances are I'll be the one with the expensive ticket, not them.
"No someone did not fall off, the lift was not able to carry me all the way up the lift (I'm working on losing weight and It should be able to carry me in a month or so plus the engine wasn't working up to par due to the 30 degree temperatures)."
On the binary code entry screen, 11000 gets you another hidden interview. Any other binary codes?
I have no link since it's all Flash, but here's how to get to it:
- Once you type in 'Reload' to get to the Reloaded area, you must choose Enhanced Version - On the top right, there's a little vertical bar with a yellow light. This is the Option bar, click it once to expand. - Once expanded, click once on the grey square just to the right of the 'HTML Version' button. - Click the green square you just opened up, and the binary entry terminal drops down.
I fell into the same boat. I was a little upset at how the pacing went, but on the other hand it did leave you a little "unsure" about what was supposed to happen next, etc. In the end, for me, the pacing was definitely too much for me to commit to, so I cancelled after chapter 2 or so as well.
That being said, I do remember a quote or something about Majestic...something along the lines of "You don't play Majestic, Majestic plays you!" Perhaps that's a different game, though.
This isn't entirely true. While there may not have been many news articles, or PR material of the like, they did do some interesting passive promoting in select cities.
If I remember correctly (and I never saw this first hand, only saw the schedules, etc., on their website), they had planned to have "Agents" roaming the streets interacting with people, asking them if they'd heard of Majestic, and only dropping hints about what it was. Also, they were to place elusive ads about strange happenings and whatnot, then hope you visited the website/started playing just out of sheer curiosity.
Did anyone actually see one of these "Agents", or any of the flyer material first hand?
By your logic, a "crash landing" would be a "successfull crash."
A more appropriate definition for "landing" would be "controlled crash."
Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase?
on
Gift Card Hacking
·
· Score: 1
I think there are a couple ways to use a PIN, or similar, feature with Gift Cards, without creating/too much/ of a hassle for consumers. Below are a few examples - do y'all think any of them would fly?
-------
1. At time of purchase, have the card be deactivated. The receipt will print out with a PIN number of some sort, which will have to be activated by phone, web, etc. As part of the activation process, the Gift Card recipient must change the PIN to something of their own choosing. This PIN, of course, must be entered when using the Gift Card for purchasing merchandise.
PROS - It's simple. The mentality of today's society, in general, is capable of handling this, I think. Everyone has an ATM or Credit card these days, all of which require similar PIN expertise. It's definitely tolerable.
CONS - Does no good if someone steals the receipt and the card before you use it/give it away. (see #2)
-------
2. At time of purchase, employee encodes the GiftCard with the purchasers phone number as the PIN. When you give the card, just tell the recipient your phone number is the PIN. The Gift Card recipient, of course, always has the option of changing this to their own phone number later, or to some other 10-digit PIN.
PROS - PIN will be 10 digits, and for the most part random. Unless the hacker had access to the merchant database, or perhaps found the card in someone's wallet and found the phone number based on the wallet owner's address, there should be very little theft.
CONS - If the phone number is entered wrong at time of purchase, you're screwed (well, whoever you give the card to is screwed!:P )
-------
3. Make it a standard requirement that you MUST have the card at time of purchase in order to use it. Plain and simple. (For internet purchases, you could use the same security feature that credit cards use; that small-print 4-digit number printed ON the actual card (ie. not embossed) or sometimes on the back just after the account number where the signature goes.)
PROS - Assuming the card never gets stolen, you're good to go.
CONS - If the card DOES get stolen, good-bye card balance. Oh yeah, don't lose it either.
ALTERNATIVE - Combine the PIN feature with the must-have-card requirement. That way if it IS lost, the "finder" can't do much.
-------
4. Implement an "Authorized Customer" feature for GiftCard recipients. (**NOTE - I don't expect a lot of folks, especially here, to buy into this type of setup, but just hear me out...:P ) Basically, before you can use a Gift Card, you have to set up some kind of Known-Customer account with the merchant. This would require that you fill out some kind of questionaire, provide a valid ID, etc. You'd, of course, get some kind of Store ID card, maybe one of those valued shopper barcodes, or a magstripe card...something along those lines. Anyway, you'd need to have one of these to activate any Gift Card, and when used must be accompanied by your Store ID or whatever.
PROS - Purchases require "light" authentication of the purchaser, which shouldn't be a hassle if you're prepared. Also, not a very difficult challenge/response system.
CONS - Purchase requires authentication, albeit "light." Also, the customer must provide personal information up front, etc. May be considered a hassle/invasion of privacy, etc.
OTHER NOTES - Most grocery stores already implement a "Valued Customer" card or whatever, that provides discounts to the consumer, and good demographics for the merchant. I would embrace this type of setup at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. (CC has requested this information for a long time, if I'm not mistaken.) I'd be willing to give up anonymity for a $1.00 off a CD/DVD coupon, etc., from time to time for being a "repeat" customer or whatever, and knowing that any GiftCards I received would be "protected" would be very comforting. If this was used, per my plans, along with GiftCard PINs, then I think theft, if any, would definitely be reduced. Also, success of this system would only work if the "Known Customer" thing was properly marketed to the public. I think it could work, though, but would require quite a bit of infrastructure to do so.
-------
Hrm, now I'm wondering if there's a market for a third-party Gift Card vendor...? I think Visa or MasterCard already have something similar for kids, right? It's a valid Visa account number, but the parent or guardian can add/remove funds at will...? Kinda similar to a check card, but somehow attached to their own credit card account?
Re:only for 911??
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Symbol Technologies has a device called a MG+ (see link below) that is designed for mobile data access and tracking of vehicles, specifically some type of company fleet. It's basically a RIM modem (aka BlackBerry) with an optional GPS attached.
The company I work for develops custom Proof of Delivery applications for use with these devices, and having been out with some of the drivers I know the majority of them use cell/radio phones to communicate with their home base. If a normal cell phone had basic GPS functionality in it, we could probably save our clients a decent amount of money.
All we need now is a cell phone with a RIM modem and a GPS. That'd be perfect.
MG+ Link - http://www.symbol.com/products/mobile_computers/mo bile_stationaryvmt_gateway_p.html
Yeah, I agree. We kinda figured that once you assumed control of the passenger areas (by knives, brute force, whatever...) you would basically take out the flight attendants and the pilots immediately - no questions asked. This would seem to be the only logical course of action if the hijackers did, in fact, have training in these types of aircraft, as most news sources are estimating. This may explain the crash in PA, as others have pointed out, so I'm thinking this is a decent theory.
The other thing that bothers me is how close the timing of the crashes were. It seems to me that perhaps the hijackers may have attempted to do this before now, maybe even several times before now, and everything worked out just perfect today for some reason. I would think that each member would want to be sure that their counterparts were confirmed to be in/on their respective planes before someone gave the go ahead to execute their evil plans. The fact that the attacks were close together was obviously part of the intended shock value. So, again, making sure everyone was in place and ready to go would seem to be a requirement for execution. Also, the fact that the planes were all bound for LA may support this theory. I know the common thought is that they targeted coast to coast flights to ensure plenty of fuel was on board, but maybe the same destination city was also chosen in case they had to call off their plans? They'd at least all be able to meet up in the same city.
Just my two cents, but unfortunately I guess we'll never truly know what happened up there today.
My thoughts are with all the families who lost loves ones in these terrible events. I truly hope we're able to bring these people to justice, whatever the course of action it takes.
Careful. Just because you have a college education doesn't mean you might not be required to get a cert. from time to time. In fact, a lot of [older] grads that I know are basically required to get them to prove they're/current/ on present day technology.
Unless you're in some kind of management position, or pigeonholed developing in one specific coding language, a cert. may be your only ticket for receiving a hefty raise, moving within your existing company, or crossing the street for a few extra peanuts.
That being said, I also don't think cert. training precludes having the ability to innovate.
I saw "random" PS2's pop up every now and then, days...even weeks after the launch. I don't think he was implying that the same units were sitting there _since_ launch day, just that if you were a) lucky, b) resourceful, or c) , that [some] people _were_ able to find them on shelves post-launch day.
It's a believeable statement, albeit infinitely arguable.
The holiday season is commonly known to bring in a large percentage of any retailers income (excepting a few one-offs, of course.) Why would you purposely slight yourself a profit just to create a sense of demand? It was a well published fact that Sony wasn't making much, if any, money on the console itself, and that they really needed the licensing sales from their developers' products [long term] to make a decent profit. Given this scenario, why would they cut off the _real_ lifeline to their bank account - software sales? Not only would Sony stand to lose money, but so would their developers, who would in turn lose profits, get upset, and either expand their platform coverage or leave the PS2 altogether. This is all excluding the online auction factor, however.
This was a classic set up for consumer-induced product inflation (aka eBay). If Sony didn't see this coming, they were blind. All the folks who were lucky enough to realize they could turn a decent profit if they were willing to auction off their PS2 to the highest bidder all deserve a cookie. These people were able to turn a nice profit (in some cases HUGE profits!) while Sony was scrambling to meet demand, and developers were seeing only pennies trickle into their bank accounts. This, however, was only a side effect of their Award Winning strategy, albeit a humorous one.
Changing sides now, I do think the big N will be able to deliver on their promises. This close to the PS2 launch last year, there were rumors running rampant that they'd never be able to fulfill the expected orders on time. Nintendo knows what they're doing. They're not setting themselves up to fail. I'm predicting a textbook victory for them, and I'll be standing in line just like everyone else on release day to make sure it happens.
Heh, I was wondering this myself. Perhaps the main ship was some kind of "Space Ark" that actually housed many different Earth species, not just the chimps. Who knows!
I find it amusing, though, that everyone has issues with whether or not the "other" planet was earth or not, and missed the most blatant mistake in the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
My company is currently using one of the NetApp filers for a data warehousing solution, and large file storage. Very scalable, very cool.
Check 'em out here.
Great, thanks for linking the article in your post. Did you read all of it?
/all/ of the 'innocent' people were wearing their seatbelts. Some of the 'innocent' had also been drinking themselves.
You should have also noted that alcohol was highly prevalent in the speeding accidents your percentages came reflect. And not
Does this alter the fact that many people lost their lives due to speeding? No. I just wanted to point out that not all the fatalaties were caused by speeding alone, which is what your post implied.
I still don't get the left land lane drivers, who think they're not obligated to get the hell over when someone comes up behind them. If I'm faster than you, regardless of whether or not I'm speeding, GET OVER if it's safe to do so. You're obligated to do so. Otherwise, you're taking the law into your own hands, which is not a wise thing to do. It's these type of people that initiate Road Rage, not the ones who speed, at least in my opinion.
/I/ should be the one give /YOU/ the dirty look, not the other way around. Yes, I hate these types of people, but I don't do anything to intentionally aggravate them. And when I have a free lane I'm gone, out of their hair. They probably fume about it for a long time after I'm gone, too, but that's not my problem. They should learn to respect someone who wants to drive faster than them, not get aggravated at them. Chances are I'll be the one with the expensive ticket, not them.
This simple concept is just wasted on most people, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. I'm the type of driver who will go as fast as I feel comfortable driving, and I realize others have different thresholds for this that allow them to drive faster than me. They don't scare me in the least, and I have no intention of intimidating them or blocking them by staying in the left lane when they come up on me. I get over, unlike most other 'friendly' drivers you find on the road.
Back to another point I was trying to make - it's not the 'law-breakers' that initiate Road Rage in my opinion, it's the 'normal' drivers. The people that seemed to get pissed are the ones who finally get over after you've been riding their ass for awhile, then when you pass them give you a dirty look, etc. Hey, buddy...you were SUPPOSED to get over when I came up on you.
"No someone did not fall off, the lift was not able to carry me all the way up the lift (I'm working on losing weight and It should be able to carry me in a month or so plus the engine wasn't working up to par due to the 30 degree temperatures)."
Read it for yourself here.
Anyone seen these?
The Money Shot!
On the binary code entry screen, 11000 gets you another hidden interview. Any other binary codes?
I have no link since it's all Flash, but here's how to get to it:
- Once you type in 'Reload' to get to the Reloaded area, you must choose Enhanced Version
- On the top right, there's a little vertical bar with a yellow light. This is the Option bar, click it once to expand.
- Once expanded, click once on the grey square just to the right of the 'HTML Version' button.
- Click the green square you just opened up, and the binary entry terminal drops down.
Enjoy!
> Nintendo has rules that specifically state, in the back of their game manuals, that "backup copies aren't necessary".
True, but a company deeming something as unnecessary has no legal implications, at least not that I can think of. That sound right?
While this story gets hammered. You can visit them here.
I fell into the same boat. I was a little upset at how the pacing went, but on the other hand it did leave you a little "unsure" about what was supposed to happen next, etc. In the end, for me, the pacing was definitely too much for me to commit to, so I cancelled after chapter 2 or so as well.
That being said, I do remember a quote or something about Majestic...something along the lines of "You don't play Majestic, Majestic plays you!" Perhaps that's a different game, though.
This isn't entirely true. While there may not have been many news articles, or PR material of the like, they did do some interesting passive promoting in select cities.
If I remember correctly (and I never saw this first hand, only saw the schedules, etc., on their website), they had planned to have "Agents" roaming the streets interacting with people, asking them if they'd heard of Majestic, and only dropping hints about what it was. Also, they were to place elusive ads about strange happenings and whatnot, then hope you visited the website/started playing just out of sheer curiosity.
Did anyone actually see one of these "Agents", or any of the flyer material first hand?
I can't get to the main story link; is this an accurate photo?
By your logic, a "crash landing" would be a "successfull crash."
A more appropriate definition for "landing" would be "controlled crash."
I think there are a couple ways to use a PIN, or similar, feature with Gift Cards, without creating /too much/ of a hassle for consumers. Below are a few examples - do y'all think any of them would fly?
:P )
:P ) Basically, before you can use a Gift Card, you have to set up some kind of Known-Customer account with the merchant. This would require that you fill out some kind of questionaire, provide a valid ID, etc. You'd, of course, get some kind of Store ID card, maybe one of those valued shopper barcodes, or a magstripe card...something along those lines. Anyway, you'd need to have one of these to activate any Gift Card, and when used must be accompanied by your Store ID or whatever.
-------
1. At time of purchase, have the card be deactivated. The receipt will print out with a PIN number of some sort, which will have to be activated by phone, web, etc. As part of the activation process, the Gift Card recipient must change the PIN to something of their own choosing. This PIN, of course, must be entered when using the Gift Card for purchasing merchandise.
PROS - It's simple. The mentality of today's society, in general, is capable of handling this, I think. Everyone has an ATM or Credit card these days, all of which require similar PIN expertise. It's definitely tolerable.
CONS - Does no good if someone steals the receipt and the card before you use it/give it away. (see #2)
-------
2. At time of purchase, employee encodes the GiftCard with the purchasers phone number as the PIN. When you give the card, just tell the recipient your phone number is the PIN. The Gift Card recipient, of course, always has the option of changing this to their own phone number later, or to some other 10-digit PIN.
PROS - PIN will be 10 digits, and for the most part random. Unless the hacker had access to the merchant database, or perhaps found the card in someone's wallet and found the phone number based on the wallet owner's address, there should be very little theft.
CONS - If the phone number is entered wrong at time of purchase, you're screwed (well, whoever you give the card to is screwed!
-------
3. Make it a standard requirement that you MUST have the card at time of purchase in order to use it. Plain and simple. (For internet purchases, you could use the same security feature that credit cards use; that small-print 4-digit number printed ON the actual card (ie. not embossed) or sometimes on the back just after the account number where the signature goes.)
PROS - Assuming the card never gets stolen, you're good to go.
CONS - If the card DOES get stolen, good-bye card balance. Oh yeah, don't lose it either.
ALTERNATIVE - Combine the PIN feature with the must-have-card requirement. That way if it IS lost, the "finder" can't do much.
-------
4. Implement an "Authorized Customer" feature for GiftCard recipients. (**NOTE - I don't expect a lot of folks, especially here, to buy into this type of setup, but just hear me out...
PROS - Purchases require "light" authentication of the purchaser, which shouldn't be a hassle if you're prepared. Also, not a very difficult challenge/response system.
CONS - Purchase requires authentication, albeit "light." Also, the customer must provide personal information up front, etc. May be considered a hassle/invasion of privacy, etc.
OTHER NOTES - Most grocery stores already implement a "Valued Customer" card or whatever, that provides discounts to the consumer, and good demographics for the merchant. I would embrace this type of setup at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. (CC has requested this information for a long time, if I'm not mistaken.) I'd be willing to give up anonymity for a $1.00 off a CD/DVD coupon, etc., from time to time for being a "repeat" customer or whatever, and knowing that any GiftCards I received would be "protected" would be very comforting. If this was used, per my plans, along with GiftCard PINs, then I think theft, if any, would definitely be reduced. Also, success of this system would only work if the "Known Customer" thing was properly marketed to the public. I think it could work, though, but would require quite a bit of infrastructure to do so.
-------
Hrm, now I'm wondering if there's a market for a third-party Gift Card vendor...? I think Visa or MasterCard already have something similar for kids, right? It's a valid Visa account number, but the parent or guardian can add/remove funds at will...? Kinda similar to a check card, but somehow attached to their own credit card account?
Symbol Technologies has a device called a MG+ (see link below) that is designed for mobile data access and tracking of vehicles, specifically some type of company fleet. It's basically a RIM modem (aka BlackBerry) with an optional GPS attached.
o bile_stationaryvmt_gateway_p.html
The company I work for develops custom Proof of Delivery applications for use with these devices, and having been out with some of the drivers I know the majority of them use cell/radio phones to communicate with their home base. If a normal cell phone had basic GPS functionality in it, we could probably save our clients a decent amount of money.
All we need now is a cell phone with a RIM modem and a GPS. That'd be perfect.
MG+ Link - http://www.symbol.com/products/mobile_computers/m
Looks like OBL beat you to it!
Yeah, I agree. We kinda figured that once you assumed control of the passenger areas (by knives, brute force, whatever...) you would basically take out the flight attendants and the pilots immediately - no questions asked. This would seem to be the only logical course of action if the hijackers did, in fact, have training in these types of aircraft, as most news sources are estimating. This may explain the crash in PA, as others have pointed out, so I'm thinking this is a decent theory.
The other thing that bothers me is how close the timing of the crashes were. It seems to me that perhaps the hijackers may have attempted to do this before now, maybe even several times before now, and everything worked out just perfect today for some reason. I would think that each member would want to be sure that their counterparts were confirmed to be in/on their respective planes before someone gave the go ahead to execute their evil plans. The fact that the attacks were close together was obviously part of the intended shock value. So, again, making sure everyone was in place and ready to go would seem to be a requirement for execution. Also, the fact that the planes were all bound for LA may support this theory. I know the common thought is that they targeted coast to coast flights to ensure plenty of fuel was on board, but maybe the same destination city was also chosen in case they had to call off their plans? They'd at least all be able to meet up in the same city.
Just my two cents, but unfortunately I guess we'll never truly know what happened up there today.
My thoughts are with all the families who lost loves ones in these terrible events. I truly hope we're able to bring these people to justice, whatever the course of action it takes.
Careful. Just because you have a college education doesn't mean you might not be required to get a cert. from time to time. In fact, a lot of [older] grads that I know are basically required to get them to prove they're /current/ on present day technology.
Unless you're in some kind of management position, or pigeonholed developing in one specific coding language, a cert. may be your only ticket for receiving a hefty raise, moving within your existing company, or crossing the street for a few extra peanuts.
That being said, I also don't think cert. training precludes having the ability to innovate.
I saw "random" PS2's pop up every now and then, days...even weeks after the launch. I don't think he was implying that the same units were sitting there _since_ launch day, just that if you were a) lucky, b) resourceful, or c) , that [some] people _were_ able to find them on shelves post-launch day. It's a believeable statement, albeit infinitely arguable.
1 - You're right.
2 - I agree.
The holiday season is commonly known to bring in a large percentage of any retailers income (excepting a few one-offs, of course.) Why would you purposely slight yourself a profit just to create a sense of demand? It was a well published fact that Sony wasn't making much, if any, money on the console itself, and that they really needed the licensing sales from their developers' products [long term] to make a decent profit. Given this scenario, why would they cut off the _real_ lifeline to their bank account - software sales? Not only would Sony stand to lose money, but so would their developers, who would in turn lose profits, get upset, and either expand their platform coverage or leave the PS2 altogether. This is all excluding the online auction factor, however.
This was a classic set up for consumer-induced product inflation (aka eBay). If Sony didn't see this coming, they were blind. All the folks who were lucky enough to realize they could turn a decent profit if they were willing to auction off their PS2 to the highest bidder all deserve a cookie. These people were able to turn a nice profit (in some cases HUGE profits!) while Sony was scrambling to meet demand, and developers were seeing only pennies trickle into their bank accounts. This, however, was only a side effect of their Award Winning strategy, albeit a humorous one.
Changing sides now, I do think the big N will be able to deliver on their promises. This close to the PS2 launch last year, there were rumors running rampant that they'd never be able to fulfill the expected orders on time. Nintendo knows what they're doing. They're not setting themselves up to fail. I'm predicting a textbook victory for them, and I'll be standing in line just like everyone else on release day to make sure it happens.
Heh, I was wondering this myself. Perhaps the main ship was some kind of "Space Ark" that actually housed many different Earth species, not just the chimps. Who knows!
I find it amusing, though, that everyone has issues with whether or not the "other" planet was earth or not, and missed the most blatant mistake in the movie.