Teachers aren't allowed to have a say in what they teach
GOOD!
Teachers are not scientists. They are not the ones performing experiments and establishing the most likely theory. They should not be the ones deciding willy nilly to teach their hypothesis over the scientifically backed theory.
If a teacher decided to teach what they wanted, and taught my child bollocks then I would be absolutely furious, I'm absolutely ecstatic that the teachers are explicitly banned from doing that.
Yes, it would. The pin is given to the chip without it ever interacting with firmware or RAM (it's transmitted from keypad to chip).
Even if that weren't so though, the terminal never knows what account is processing the transaction. It simply sends the transaction details to the chip, which produces a signed transaction (with the pin, and some secured data stored on it). The signed transaction is sent to the bank, who can then use it to extract money from the correct account.
Some one is going to have to explain how chips are more secure than a mag strip. If it can be read it can be copied.
It can't be read. It can only be queried. You give it an input, it gives you an output.
In the same way as you can't get from a hash (the output) to the actual stored contents, you can't get from the output of a credit card chip, to the stored contents of the chip.
Seriously... Why have the US banks not rolled Chip & Pin out yet? This wouldn't be an issue if they had, and it's almost certainly costing them a lot more in refunded transactions than a roll out would have.
You never sleep? Surely if the car can charge within 4 hours, then being able to drive it continuously for 20 means that you would exceed even the most ridiculous requirements for a car?
And of course under john naish's explanation, we can have a more subtle interpretation that the government is just a player in the game acting in (hopefully) the interest of the many. The businesses don't stop playing the game, they just have to satisfy extra constraints now.
And the modems you bought to do that were free, right? And the cable TV cable was free too, right? And the research to improve the data rate on them was free too, right?
Why on earth do so many people have this weird idea that bandwidth is unlimited, and free, and that there's not limited supply of it?
Do you think it's free to install switches, and filtering gear, and cables? Do you think that once you've installed it, you can magically transfer any amount of data through those cables you like?
It absolutely costs more to install a bigger pipe for the ISP. The fact that the ISP has to over provision, and hence a small increase in bandwidth can be absorbed without instantly needing to upgrade the pipe does not mean that that extra bandwidth is free.
Switches, cables and admin systems all cost money, and these costs all increase with the amount of bandwidth running through the system.
I actually applaud them for moving to a metered bandwidth model – it makes sense. What I don't applaud is the blatant gouging. The prices should be roughly 100 times lower than the ones they are offering.
Bear in mind while you're staring at an american car getting 36mpg, and a british car getting 45mpg that American gallons are about 20% smaller than british ones. So actually, you're looking at very similar fuel economy there.
Those images are going to be shown on a HTML page, and probably going to involve some sort of script to pick an image or insert it into the page.
Why is that? If they're going out of their way to make it hard to detect that these are adverts, then of course no such script will exist.
You can block this 2 ways: 1) block the script so it never gets that far, 2) remove the page element where the ad is displayed.
And how do you identify that the script or the page element is the one you want to block?
Attempting to scramble the file names will not help you, I'll just remove all the ".ad" CSS class elements from the page, done.
And when they then proceed to use the same CSS class as they use for other content on the page, how will that work?
Now, you can try to scramble the HTML on the server
It doesn't need to be scrambled, it only needs to be rendered in the exact same way as legitimate content on the page, and come from the exact same source as legitimate content on the page.
Not necessarily, the software could easily enough generate images hosted on the company's CDN, of random sizes. Then about the only way to detect the ads would be to compare the image against a giant database of adverts, which would be hugely inefficient.
No, this works fine in the UK –the police interview you, and the first question is "would you like a lawyer present". If you answer yes, the interview pauses until your lawyer is present.
As with most of the Bill of Rights, this was something that the British were using against the colonists. Some printer guy got forced to testify against himself IIRC.
There's a difference between being allowed to not give false testimony against yourself, (or to not be forced to give testimony against yourself at all), and being allowed to deny information to one party, but then use it in court anyway.
If they don't, the 5th amendment says they can't arrest you for not admitting to something they *think* you've done.
No it doesn't. The 5th amendment says nothing about whether they can arrest you, or how much evidence they need before they arrest you. It merely says something about whether you're allowed to hide the truth of the situation from one investigating party, and then pull it out at the last minute.
Without the 5th amendment, an innocent man in prison could be punished for saying he is innocent.
Why on earth would that be true? What law would he be held in prison under?
The reason it may hurt you is because certain types of evidence will become inadmissible in court if you did not reveal them to both prosecution and defence prior to the trial. Both sides need all the information to be able to build their cases, you can not simply deny information to one side arbitrarily. The goal is to get to the truth, not to protect some weird right you have not to own up to things (aside, seriously, what *is* the logic behind the 5th? Why should you have the right to not own up to things you've done?)
It's different in one important respect – "it may harm your defence if when questioned you do not mention something which you later rely on in court". In the US, you can simply remain silent, and then pull surprises in the court room. In the UK, if you didn't tell the police when they were investigating, you can't tell the jury either.
Slashdot Mirror
Teachers aren't allowed to have a say in what they teach
GOOD!
Teachers are not scientists. They are not the ones performing experiments and establishing the most likely theory. They should not be the ones deciding willy nilly to teach their hypothesis over the scientifically backed theory.
If a teacher decided to teach what they wanted, and taught my child bollocks then I would be absolutely furious, I'm absolutely ecstatic that the teachers are explicitly banned from doing that.
Yes, it would. The pin is given to the chip without it ever interacting with firmware or RAM (it's transmitted from keypad to chip).
Even if that weren't so though, the terminal never knows what account is processing the transaction. It simply sends the transaction details to the chip, which produces a signed transaction (with the pin, and some secured data stored on it). The signed transaction is sent to the bank, who can then use it to extract money from the correct account.
Some one is going to have to explain how chips are more secure than a mag strip. If it can be read it can be copied.
It can't be read. It can only be queried. You give it an input, it gives you an output.
In the same way as you can't get from a hash (the output) to the actual stored contents, you can't get from the output of a credit card chip, to the stored contents of the chip.
Who says external access was required?
Seriously... Why have the US banks not rolled Chip & Pin out yet? This wouldn't be an issue if they had, and it's almost certainly costing them a lot more in refunded transactions than a roll out would have.
You never sleep? Surely if the car can charge within 4 hours, then being able to drive it continuously for 20 means that you would exceed even the most ridiculous requirements for a car?
Right, just like you have the right to freedom, and the government can never take that away, even if you break the law... wait...
And of course under john naish's explanation, we can have a more subtle interpretation that the government is just a player in the game acting in (hopefully) the interest of the many. The businesses don't stop playing the game, they just have to satisfy extra constraints now.
And the modems you bought to do that were free, right? And the cable TV cable was free too, right? And the research to improve the data rate on them was free too, right?
The fact that the bandwidth available at one time is not always used does not imply that there is not an upper limit on the bandwidth used.
Why on earth do so many people have this weird idea that bandwidth is unlimited, and free, and that there's not limited supply of it?
Do you think it's free to install switches, and filtering gear, and cables? Do you think that once you've installed it, you can magically transfer any amount of data through those cables you like?
Score: -1 Factually incorrect.
It absolutely costs more to install a bigger pipe for the ISP. The fact that the ISP has to over provision, and hence a small increase in bandwidth can be absorbed without instantly needing to upgrade the pipe does not mean that that extra bandwidth is free.
Switches, cables and admin systems all cost money, and these costs all increase with the amount of bandwidth running through the system.
I actually applaud them for moving to a metered bandwidth model – it makes sense. What I don't applaud is the blatant gouging. The prices should be roughly 100 times lower than the ones they are offering.
Bear in mind while you're staring at an american car getting 36mpg, and a british car getting 45mpg that American gallons are about 20% smaller than british ones. So actually, you're looking at very similar fuel economy there.
I don't buy this argument, because the same is being seen in europe, where the price of gas is (and was) 4 times higher.
He said C. ++i and i++ are the same thing.
You... you don't understand how operating systems page memory.
Hint: both applications will get access to the same (read only) pages that contain the library.
Those images are going to be shown on a HTML page, and probably going to involve some sort of script to pick an image or insert it into the page.
Why is that? If they're going out of their way to make it hard to detect that these are adverts, then of course no such script will exist.
You can block this 2 ways: 1) block the script so it never gets that far, 2) remove the page element where the ad is displayed.
And how do you identify that the script or the page element is the one you want to block?
Attempting to scramble the file names will not help you, I'll just remove all the ".ad" CSS class elements from the page, done.
And when they then proceed to use the same CSS class as they use for other content on the page, how will that work?
Now, you can try to scramble the HTML on the server
It doesn't need to be scrambled, it only needs to be rendered in the exact same way as legitimate content on the page, and come from the exact same source as legitimate content on the page.
Okay then, what's your magical way of determining which arbitrarily sized image from the same CDN is content, and which one's an advert?
Not necessarily, the software could easily enough generate images hosted on the company's CDN, of random sizes. Then about the only way to detect the ads would be to compare the image against a giant database of adverts, which would be hugely inefficient.
Right, because someone curling up to go to sleep wants to wear headphones.
No, this works fine in the UK –the police interview you, and the first question is "would you like a lawyer present". If you answer yes, the interview pauses until your lawyer is present.
As with most of the Bill of Rights, this was something that the British were using against the colonists. Some printer guy got forced to testify against himself IIRC.
There's a difference between being allowed to not give false testimony against yourself, (or to not be forced to give testimony against yourself at all), and being allowed to deny information to one party, but then use it in court anyway.
If they don't, the 5th amendment says they can't arrest you for not admitting to something they *think* you've done.
No it doesn't. The 5th amendment says nothing about whether they can arrest you, or how much evidence they need before they arrest you. It merely says something about whether you're allowed to hide the truth of the situation from one investigating party, and then pull it out at the last minute.
Without the 5th amendment, an innocent man in prison could be punished for saying he is innocent.
Why on earth would that be true? What law would he be held in prison under?
The reason it may hurt you is because certain types of evidence will become inadmissible in court if you did not reveal them to both prosecution and defence prior to the trial. Both sides need all the information to be able to build their cases, you can not simply deny information to one side arbitrarily. The goal is to get to the truth, not to protect some weird right you have not to own up to things (aside, seriously, what *is* the logic behind the 5th? Why should you have the right to not own up to things you've done?)
It's different in one important respect – "it may harm your defence if when questioned you do not mention something which you later rely on in court". In the US, you can simply remain silent, and then pull surprises in the court room. In the UK, if you didn't tell the police when they were investigating, you can't tell the jury either.