ATT and TMO use different frequencies/etc, so it isn't just a matter of letting phones roam across both for free. That will work for the voice service I imagine - probably fairly quickly. It would work for 2G data as well. However, the networks aren't compatible for 3G+ speeds.
I'm sure they'll maintain the TMO 3G network for some period of time, but they may never expand it. Plus, in a few years I'll be told to get a new phone or go back to 2G. Sure, a new phone will be free, but only if I like the phones they're offering. ATT has fairly lousy smartphone options.
Oh good, I can look forward to my nice new shiny T-Mobile 4G phone never getting an extension in coverage area again. Why would AT&T expand the T-Mobile network? No doubt they'll give me a chance to purchase a crippled super-locked-down android phone from them, and the sales guy will be trying to convince me that an iphone is what I need...
Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.
Uh, cite? Seriously, I mean it...:)
You'd actually be hard-pressed to find prohibitions against polygamy in the bible. During the periods of time that "goat herding" were prominent economic activities it was actually fairly mainstream for the well-off.
Yes, and what percentage of the average $1M+ per year wage earners income is subject to those taxes in the first place?
First, those brackets only apply after deductions. The number of shell games you can play with that kind of income is incredible.
Second, those brackets only apply to REGULAR income. You know, where you show up for n hours and make $x per hour? Probably 90% of the income of the wealthy is not REGULAR income and those brackets do not apply at all.
Much of the income of the wealthy is in the form of capital gains. Those are only taxed when they are realized, and at a rate of 15% much of the time (in fact, it can be 0% if your regular income is very low). There are lots of games that can be played with this as well.
Oh, and many of the wealthy have a lifestyle that is at least in part paid for by corporations (their own or somebody else's). When Bill Gates gets a private jet ride to NYC, how much of that do you think he actually pays? That is non-monetary compensation of a sort, and may or may not even be taxable depending on how good a job you spin the justification for it from a corporate perspective, and even if it is taxable it is rarely reported. I doubt the typical CEO pays for more than a meal or two per week...
Ok, so ask him the question anyway, and then ask him the follow-up "and is it still going on today?"
If he can't answer the first question straight, when he wasn't even responsible for those things, can we really be sure he's answering the second question straight?
And yet, he seemed to lack your insight when he was campaigning, since he didn't go on the record saying "well, from where I'm sitting I can't see why Bush has us in Iraq, but he is a lot better informed than me and I'm sure there is a really good reason for it."
That kind of logic works both ways. If it is good enough to knock the last president, then it is good enough to knock the current one. And I'm no fan of Bush...
Ok, but I'm sure anybody making decisions in those banks did rather well.
Very few executives actually have financial incentives that are aligned with their shareholders. I'm not of the mindset that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want in the interests of their shareholders, but I will say that if that was what actually happened it would be a step up from what we have now...
Agree on your costs, but what I was getting at was saving a million dollars on a munition doesn't get you much if you lose a $50M plane in the process. Even if 95% of the planes get through fine you're still coming out behind on costs, assuming you don't even care about pilots (and they cost money too).
By a few days into a serious war the SAM sites are all crippled, and then you can rain JDAMs all day long...
1. Wait for them to charge you a termination fee and refuse to pay it until they put a black mark on your credit record (which might involve a fight with your credit card company if they have your number - which they probably do). Then sue the phone company and possibly your credit card company as well to have them remove the credit report. Most likely you'll get a day in court, but have a damaged credit history in the meantime.
2. Sue first and ask for injunctive relief against the phone company and/or credit card company to try to protect your credit history before the fact. Now you have to convince a court to even hear the case as an added bonus.
At best you'll just end up spending a lot of time and possibly money (lost wages at least) fighting over court just to end up not having to pay a $200 bill.
It is WAY to easy to put a black mark on a credit history. Credit histories should only reflect civil judgments awarded by a court. Right now anybody can say anything bad about you that they want (especially if they are a big corporation). The only thing you can do is say something good about yourself in response. Most companies don't care if you have a good reason for not paying a bill, so they will ignore anything you write. Why? Simple - they know that someday they too might want to charge you for something that you have a good reason not to pay, but they still want you to pay it. They want to know that you roll over and pay bills, not that you need to be persuaded or given good service.
Think about it - you are considering loaning money to a guy to buy a house. A credit search indicates that the last three times a bank did this, they were sued by the borrower over doing something improper and the court ruled that the borrower didn't have to pay the loan but got to keep the house. Now, legally the borrower is in the right. However, nobody would want to lend money to that guy anyway, since they don't want a court to rule against them if they do something wrong.
For this reason companies shouldn't even be able to find out if you had disputes with other companies if they were decided in your favor.
Probably not - most likely this is just using NAT or whatever which isn't easily detected.
More likely as others have suggested they're looking at:
1. Bandwidth use (what they really care about anyway). 2. User-agent strings. 3. Various fingerprinting techniques like browser-specific behavior or OS-specific behavior if it leaks through the NAT.
It isn't like the phone can get multiple IP leases, so there is no routing visible to the outside network.
I don't think the bad readings originated in a software failure. The sensors froze up - so any airspeed indicator design would have bad readings. The computer just pointed out that they were bad, disconnected the autopilot, and gave the pilots full manual control of everything with no safeguards (since the computer knew that it couldn't do a better job than a pilot).
The pilots failed to notice that their throttle was too low. This may have been exhasperated by the airbus throttle control design, although conceivably the same could happen in a boeing if nobody looked at the setting.
Once the stall happened in a boeing I would think that a pilot would be more likely to reach for the throttle and push it forward - and not just leave it at the 100% auto setting on an airbus (which to a pilot not thinking clearly might SEEM like full power but it isn't except on takeoff/etc).
If your pitot tubes freeze, your airspeed will be wrong, period. In fact, a glass cockpit lets the computer factor in input from multiple sources and provide the pilot with the best indications possible given the sensor data available. It could also detect an unreliable airspeed and just red out the display or strongly hint at unreliability to help avoid confusing the pilot. A conventional gauge just gives a reading most of the time (maybe with a big X dropping in or something).
The one airbus-vs-boeing issue that was highlighted in the NOVA episode I saw was the somewhat unusual throttle control design on airbuses. However, if the pilot doesn't move the handle, the outcome is the same on either a boeing or airbus design. Perhaps on a boeing it might be more obvious that the throttle is fairly low if that is where the autothrottle left it.
Disclaimer - I'm not a pilot but a flight/sim enthusiast, and have flown PC-based simulations of boeing and airbus airliners with fairly realistic implementations of their throttles/etc, and some of their failure modes. I can't say I tried flying into a thunderstorm with a pitot failure, or that the multiple inputs would have been well-modeled.
From the NOVA episode it seemed like the airspeed would have been marked as invalid in the pitot failure situation. So, the pilots were informed that they couldn't trust the measurement.
Of course, this is a difficult situation to handle, and it isn't surprising that sometimes even good pilots don't handle it right. Commercial pilots actually are very experienced at what they do, but many things can go wrong, and a situation like this demands a near-perfect response.
The pitot is an external sensor, that is only needed for speed-related measurements. Closely related is the static air sensor which usually gets lumped in which is needed for altitude and speed measurements. You can lose one without the other, and on a sophisticated aircraft I suspect the instrumentation will give the pilot as much info as it can.
Vacuum air powers SOME of the gyros - it is more of a power source than anything else. Usually the attitude indicator uses vacuum air, and the turn coordinator uses electrical power. This is done to create some redundancy since either system can fail independently and the two intruments provide somewhat redundant information.
All involve air, but for different reasons. Only the pitot and static sources are exposed to the outside and could theoretically ice up. The pitot is most susceptible to this, since it has to open forward. The static sensor needs to be exposed to air, but it can't be exposed to moving air per se - usually it is a sensor inside a tube along the bottom of the plane or something like that, and since the tube doesn't face the airstream it isn't very prone to icing. It also need not be a small opening. It is vulnerable to bad mechanics and duct tape like anything else.
Disclaimer - I'm not a pilot at all, but am a flight/sim enthusiast.
The software issue is obviously going to be a big one here. The logic in the design was that in the absence of reliable input the autopilot should do nothing, and the fly-by-wire should accept any manual input and not try to override the pilot, since this could not be done reliably.
I'm not sure there was really any safe alternative. You don't want a computer overriding the pilot when the machine has no idea what the airspeed is, and at least the pilot can tell if the wings are about to be ripped off or whatever.
The only real solution is more redundant pitots.
The fundamental problem is that airliners fly very close to the edge of the flight envelope to make travel economical. When they're on approach at moderate speed there is lots of room for error, but on landing approach or during cruise they're very close to the edges. Large airliners are also very difficult to recover from stalls/etc - they're just so big and heavy relative to their control surfaces when compared to smaller aircraft.
When over the middle of the ocean the situation is even more complex (though I wouldn't say this was really over the middle of the ocean - not like a flight to hawaii or whatever). An aircraft can't simply fly lower or slower to make things easier, because at that those operating conditions the range won't be sufficient to reach land.
Incremental improvements can of course be made, and will be made. The only fundamental solutions to these kinds of problems would probably make air travel uneconomical. If airliners were built so that they could cruise and land much further in their envelopes it would make manual flight in these conditions much easier. However, it would also limit weight and range most likely, compared to what you could get if you pushed the envelope. It is very hard to justify that economically.
I'd also be satisfied with cruise missiles taking out SAM sites and airfields, although thats quite a bit more expensive than B-52s carpet bombing those sites.
Uh, I can guarantee that cruise missiles are a lot cheaper than what would happen if you had B-52s carpet bomb SAM sites.
There is a reason the cruise missiles go in first. Their job is to get rid of the serious anti-air threats before you send in aircraft. If the SAM sites are even worth bombing in the first place then they're more than capable of shooting down an aircraft like a B-52 well before it can get within range to drop anything that would resemble "carpet bombing". Of course, the B-52 could launch a cruise missile from a long distance, or maybe a glide bomb that isn't much different.
What would really happen is that a combination of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft would be the first in, suppressing air defense networks and attacking airfields. In the early days high performance aircraft (not all stealth) would be the main ones around, until air defenses are not a major concern (that includes both missile and air threats). Then if necessary lower performance aircraft like the B-52 can be brought to bear.
B-52s would never be the first on the scene in a war like this. The only time they would go in first is for WWIII, and there the goal is to avoid air defenses and wipe out strategic targets. I wouldn't be surprised if they have all kinds of ECM technology that would make them more survivable, but they're not going to deploy that stuff against Lybia, since any intercepts for the ECM signals would help design countermeasures so that they don't work when WWIII breaks out.
As far as paperwork goes - you need strong international support so that you don't win the battle but lose the war. The new government in Lybia needs international support, and ticking off the entire Middle East isn't a good way to get that. Plus, if it is perceived as "Western" intervention the rebels might lose internal support as well. Keep in mind we're all the devils.
I do agree that time does not serve the rebels - we can't wait forever either.
Of course, the solution to this is to just randomly generate all the keys as pairs, load one key onto the fob, and the other key into a database for dissemination. The private key doesn't get retained at all, and should not be generated in a deterministic fashion.
Ideally the fob generates both and exports the public key so that the private one never leaves the chip it originated on.
If that process is followed then getting the contents of every hard drive owned by RSA doesn't let you compromise a single fob.
Of course, such a process doesn't let the CIA back-door RSA installs, or whatever, and provides no mechanism for key recovery. The latter shouldn't be necessary in any sane implementation (other ways to handle this). The former is a feature or a bug depending on your perspective.
Agreed. I'd think that the purpose of header files is to allow code interoperability, and as a result they would not be copyrightable (or subject to enforcement). Courts have ruled that copying code simply to allow devices to interface is not a violation (a Nintendo Gameboy case comes to mind).
The only time it might get dicey is if the header contained defines with code in them, unless that code mainly was for the purpose of defining some kind of communication standard (true = foo, false = !true and so on). If it is just defining constants and error codes and function prototypes, that is defining an interface, which of course is intended to be a way for other works to interface with the work in question.
The purpose of the permanent veto powers was to prevent WWIII. As in, UN votes to allow US to take over Cuba, US takes over Cuba, USSR nukes US, US nukes USSR, game over.
Gridlock was considered preferable to adding "international legitimacy" to a move that would just cause a lot of pain and turmoil.
Plus, that was really the only way the major powers were going to agree. Why would one of the major powers allow a majority vote to dictate its actions?
Dozens of reactors, and one REALLY big dam. Of course, I'm sure they keep a close eye on the quality of their cement, just like they monitor baby formula.
On the other hand, an extremely capable clerk can perform almost as well as a competent manager.
For a lot less pay, and without all the side benefits like getting to pick what they work on, going on junkets, etc. They also don't get to sit in rooms all day talking about work - they have to do work.
For this reason, everybody wants to be a manager.
Corporations have also learned that instead of paying people more you can just call everybody a manager and give them something to manage and they end up being almost as happy. Of course, nothing actually gets done that way, but that only hurts the shareholders - not the executives.
The headline is even more misleading than that. It makes it sound like this is something new, but this has been a capability that has existed for many years - in the Pacific ocean only.
The Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago illustrated that the same coverage doesn't exist elsewhere.
Perhaps a coalition of nations in that region should offer to pay the US to extend its network, or create one of their own?
Yup - I used to love KDE (had functionality but didn't kill the system). The new versions are only somewhat more functional than 3.5, but they suck so much RAM that they're unusable on my older desktop (which runs a lot of other stuff too).
About the only thing I miss in xfce is stuff like fish:// or smb://, but that's about it. It basically does what I need - it is a window manager and launcher...
Slashdot Mirror
For how long, and will they really expand both.
ATT and TMO use different frequencies/etc, so it isn't just a matter of letting phones roam across both for free. That will work for the voice service I imagine - probably fairly quickly. It would work for 2G data as well. However, the networks aren't compatible for 3G+ speeds.
I'm sure they'll maintain the TMO 3G network for some period of time, but they may never expand it. Plus, in a few years I'll be told to get a new phone or go back to 2G. Sure, a new phone will be free, but only if I like the phones they're offering. ATT has fairly lousy smartphone options.
Oh good, I can look forward to my nice new shiny T-Mobile 4G phone never getting an extension in coverage area again. Why would AT&T expand the T-Mobile network? No doubt they'll give me a chance to purchase a crippled super-locked-down android phone from them, and the sales guy will be trying to convince me that an iphone is what I need...
Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.
Uh, cite? Seriously, I mean it... :)
You'd actually be hard-pressed to find prohibitions against polygamy in the bible. During the periods of time that "goat herding" were prominent economic activities it was actually fairly mainstream for the well-off.
Yes, and what percentage of the average $1M+ per year wage earners income is subject to those taxes in the first place?
First, those brackets only apply after deductions. The number of shell games you can play with that kind of income is incredible.
Second, those brackets only apply to REGULAR income. You know, where you show up for n hours and make $x per hour? Probably 90% of the income of the wealthy is not REGULAR income and those brackets do not apply at all.
Much of the income of the wealthy is in the form of capital gains. Those are only taxed when they are realized, and at a rate of 15% much of the time (in fact, it can be 0% if your regular income is very low). There are lots of games that can be played with this as well.
Oh, and many of the wealthy have a lifestyle that is at least in part paid for by corporations (their own or somebody else's). When Bill Gates gets a private jet ride to NYC, how much of that do you think he actually pays? That is non-monetary compensation of a sort, and may or may not even be taxable depending on how good a job you spin the justification for it from a corporate perspective, and even if it is taxable it is rarely reported. I doubt the typical CEO pays for more than a meal or two per week...
Ok, so ask him the question anyway, and then ask him the follow-up "and is it still going on today?"
If he can't answer the first question straight, when he wasn't even responsible for those things, can we really be sure he's answering the second question straight?
And yet, he seemed to lack your insight when he was campaigning, since he didn't go on the record saying "well, from where I'm sitting I can't see why Bush has us in Iraq, but he is a lot better informed than me and I'm sure there is a really good reason for it."
That kind of logic works both ways. If it is good enough to knock the last president, then it is good enough to knock the current one. And I'm no fan of Bush...
Ok, but I'm sure anybody making decisions in those banks did rather well.
Very few executives actually have financial incentives that are aligned with their shareholders. I'm not of the mindset that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want in the interests of their shareholders, but I will say that if that was what actually happened it would be a step up from what we have now...
Agree on your costs, but what I was getting at was saving a million dollars on a munition doesn't get you much if you lose a $50M plane in the process. Even if 95% of the planes get through fine you're still coming out behind on costs, assuming you don't even care about pilots (and they cost money too).
By a few days into a serious war the SAM sites are all crippled, and then you can rain JDAMs all day long...
Or sue. Of course there you have two choices:
1. Wait for them to charge you a termination fee and refuse to pay it until they put a black mark on your credit record (which might involve a fight with your credit card company if they have your number - which they probably do). Then sue the phone company and possibly your credit card company as well to have them remove the credit report. Most likely you'll get a day in court, but have a damaged credit history in the meantime.
2. Sue first and ask for injunctive relief against the phone company and/or credit card company to try to protect your credit history before the fact. Now you have to convince a court to even hear the case as an added bonus.
At best you'll just end up spending a lot of time and possibly money (lost wages at least) fighting over court just to end up not having to pay a $200 bill.
It is WAY to easy to put a black mark on a credit history. Credit histories should only reflect civil judgments awarded by a court. Right now anybody can say anything bad about you that they want (especially if they are a big corporation). The only thing you can do is say something good about yourself in response. Most companies don't care if you have a good reason for not paying a bill, so they will ignore anything you write. Why? Simple - they know that someday they too might want to charge you for something that you have a good reason not to pay, but they still want you to pay it. They want to know that you roll over and pay bills, not that you need to be persuaded or given good service.
Think about it - you are considering loaning money to a guy to buy a house. A credit search indicates that the last three times a bank did this, they were sued by the borrower over doing something improper and the court ruled that the borrower didn't have to pay the loan but got to keep the house. Now, legally the borrower is in the right. However, nobody would want to lend money to that guy anyway, since they don't want a court to rule against them if they do something wrong.
For this reason companies shouldn't even be able to find out if you had disputes with other companies if they were decided in your favor.
Probably not - most likely this is just using NAT or whatever which isn't easily detected.
More likely as others have suggested they're looking at:
1. Bandwidth use (what they really care about anyway).
2. User-agent strings.
3. Various fingerprinting techniques like browser-specific behavior or OS-specific behavior if it leaks through the NAT.
It isn't like the phone can get multiple IP leases, so there is no routing visible to the outside network.
I don't think the bad readings originated in a software failure. The sensors froze up - so any airspeed indicator design would have bad readings. The computer just pointed out that they were bad, disconnected the autopilot, and gave the pilots full manual control of everything with no safeguards (since the computer knew that it couldn't do a better job than a pilot).
The pilots failed to notice that their throttle was too low. This may have been exhasperated by the airbus throttle control design, although conceivably the same could happen in a boeing if nobody looked at the setting.
Once the stall happened in a boeing I would think that a pilot would be more likely to reach for the throttle and push it forward - and not just leave it at the 100% auto setting on an airbus (which to a pilot not thinking clearly might SEEM like full power but it isn't except on takeoff/etc).
I don't think this is a glass cockpit issue.
If your pitot tubes freeze, your airspeed will be wrong, period. In fact, a glass cockpit lets the computer factor in input from multiple sources and provide the pilot with the best indications possible given the sensor data available. It could also detect an unreliable airspeed and just red out the display or strongly hint at unreliability to help avoid confusing the pilot. A conventional gauge just gives a reading most of the time (maybe with a big X dropping in or something).
The one airbus-vs-boeing issue that was highlighted in the NOVA episode I saw was the somewhat unusual throttle control design on airbuses. However, if the pilot doesn't move the handle, the outcome is the same on either a boeing or airbus design. Perhaps on a boeing it might be more obvious that the throttle is fairly low if that is where the autothrottle left it.
Disclaimer - I'm not a pilot but a flight/sim enthusiast, and have flown PC-based simulations of boeing and airbus airliners with fairly realistic implementations of their throttles/etc, and some of their failure modes. I can't say I tried flying into a thunderstorm with a pitot failure, or that the multiple inputs would have been well-modeled.
From the NOVA episode it seemed like the airspeed would have been marked as invalid in the pitot failure situation. So, the pilots were informed that they couldn't trust the measurement.
Of course, this is a difficult situation to handle, and it isn't surprising that sometimes even good pilots don't handle it right. Commercial pilots actually are very experienced at what they do, but many things can go wrong, and a situation like this demands a near-perfect response.
I think you're mixing up pitot vs vacuum air.
The pitot is an external sensor, that is only needed for speed-related measurements. Closely related is the static air sensor which usually gets lumped in which is needed for altitude and speed measurements. You can lose one without the other, and on a sophisticated aircraft I suspect the instrumentation will give the pilot as much info as it can.
Vacuum air powers SOME of the gyros - it is more of a power source than anything else. Usually the attitude indicator uses vacuum air, and the turn coordinator uses electrical power. This is done to create some redundancy since either system can fail independently and the two intruments provide somewhat redundant information.
All involve air, but for different reasons. Only the pitot and static sources are exposed to the outside and could theoretically ice up. The pitot is most susceptible to this, since it has to open forward. The static sensor needs to be exposed to air, but it can't be exposed to moving air per se - usually it is a sensor inside a tube along the bottom of the plane or something like that, and since the tube doesn't face the airstream it isn't very prone to icing. It also need not be a small opening. It is vulnerable to bad mechanics and duct tape like anything else.
Disclaimer - I'm not a pilot at all, but am a flight/sim enthusiast.
The software issue is obviously going to be a big one here. The logic in the design was that in the absence of reliable input the autopilot should do nothing, and the fly-by-wire should accept any manual input and not try to override the pilot, since this could not be done reliably.
I'm not sure there was really any safe alternative. You don't want a computer overriding the pilot when the machine has no idea what the airspeed is, and at least the pilot can tell if the wings are about to be ripped off or whatever.
The only real solution is more redundant pitots.
The fundamental problem is that airliners fly very close to the edge of the flight envelope to make travel economical. When they're on approach at moderate speed there is lots of room for error, but on landing approach or during cruise they're very close to the edges. Large airliners are also very difficult to recover from stalls/etc - they're just so big and heavy relative to their control surfaces when compared to smaller aircraft.
When over the middle of the ocean the situation is even more complex (though I wouldn't say this was really over the middle of the ocean - not like a flight to hawaii or whatever). An aircraft can't simply fly lower or slower to make things easier, because at that those operating conditions the range won't be sufficient to reach land.
Incremental improvements can of course be made, and will be made. The only fundamental solutions to these kinds of problems would probably make air travel uneconomical. If airliners were built so that they could cruise and land much further in their envelopes it would make manual flight in these conditions much easier. However, it would also limit weight and range most likely, compared to what you could get if you pushed the envelope. It is very hard to justify that economically.
Agreed. The pirating developer should have to spend another $100 to set up a new account. That will stop them for sure! :)
I'd also be satisfied with cruise missiles taking out SAM sites and airfields, although thats quite a bit more expensive than B-52s carpet bombing those sites.
Uh, I can guarantee that cruise missiles are a lot cheaper than what would happen if you had B-52s carpet bomb SAM sites.
There is a reason the cruise missiles go in first. Their job is to get rid of the serious anti-air threats before you send in aircraft. If the SAM sites are even worth bombing in the first place then they're more than capable of shooting down an aircraft like a B-52 well before it can get within range to drop anything that would resemble "carpet bombing". Of course, the B-52 could launch a cruise missile from a long distance, or maybe a glide bomb that isn't much different.
What would really happen is that a combination of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft would be the first in, suppressing air defense networks and attacking airfields. In the early days high performance aircraft (not all stealth) would be the main ones around, until air defenses are not a major concern (that includes both missile and air threats). Then if necessary lower performance aircraft like the B-52 can be brought to bear.
B-52s would never be the first on the scene in a war like this. The only time they would go in first is for WWIII, and there the goal is to avoid air defenses and wipe out strategic targets. I wouldn't be surprised if they have all kinds of ECM technology that would make them more survivable, but they're not going to deploy that stuff against Lybia, since any intercepts for the ECM signals would help design countermeasures so that they don't work when WWIII breaks out.
As far as paperwork goes - you need strong international support so that you don't win the battle but lose the war. The new government in Lybia needs international support, and ticking off the entire Middle East isn't a good way to get that. Plus, if it is perceived as "Western" intervention the rebels might lose internal support as well. Keep in mind we're all the devils.
I do agree that time does not serve the rebels - we can't wait forever either.
Of course, the solution to this is to just randomly generate all the keys as pairs, load one key onto the fob, and the other key into a database for dissemination. The private key doesn't get retained at all, and should not be generated in a deterministic fashion.
Ideally the fob generates both and exports the public key so that the private one never leaves the chip it originated on.
If that process is followed then getting the contents of every hard drive owned by RSA doesn't let you compromise a single fob.
Of course, such a process doesn't let the CIA back-door RSA installs, or whatever, and provides no mechanism for key recovery. The latter shouldn't be necessary in any sane implementation (other ways to handle this). The former is a feature or a bug depending on your perspective.
Agreed. I'd think that the purpose of header files is to allow code interoperability, and as a result they would not be copyrightable (or subject to enforcement). Courts have ruled that copying code simply to allow devices to interface is not a violation (a Nintendo Gameboy case comes to mind).
The only time it might get dicey is if the header contained defines with code in them, unless that code mainly was for the purpose of defining some kind of communication standard (true = foo, false = !true and so on). If it is just defining constants and error codes and function prototypes, that is defining an interface, which of course is intended to be a way for other works to interface with the work in question.
The purpose of the permanent veto powers was to prevent WWIII. As in, UN votes to allow US to take over Cuba, US takes over Cuba, USSR nukes US, US nukes USSR, game over.
Gridlock was considered preferable to adding "international legitimacy" to a move that would just cause a lot of pain and turmoil.
Plus, that was really the only way the major powers were going to agree. Why would one of the major powers allow a majority vote to dictate its actions?
Dozens of reactors, and one REALLY big dam. Of course, I'm sure they keep a close eye on the quality of their cement, just like they monitor baby formula.
Yes. And more senior managers ensure that all the incentives are in place to avoid having their subordinate managers pull off those scabs...
On the other hand, an extremely capable clerk can perform almost as well as a competent manager.
For a lot less pay, and without all the side benefits like getting to pick what they work on, going on junkets, etc. They also don't get to sit in rooms all day talking about work - they have to do work.
For this reason, everybody wants to be a manager.
Corporations have also learned that instead of paying people more you can just call everybody a manager and give them something to manage and they end up being almost as happy. Of course, nothing actually gets done that way, but that only hurts the shareholders - not the executives.
Depends on how you look at it. If the Geeks are creating innovative value for the platform they might just end up leading the way someplace else...
The headline is even more misleading than that. It makes it sound like this is something new, but this has been a capability that has existed for many years - in the Pacific ocean only.
The Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago illustrated that the same coverage doesn't exist elsewhere.
Perhaps a coalition of nations in that region should offer to pay the US to extend its network, or create one of their own?
Yup - I used to love KDE (had functionality but didn't kill the system). The new versions are only somewhat more functional than 3.5, but they suck so much RAM that they're unusable on my older desktop (which runs a lot of other stuff too).
About the only thing I miss in xfce is stuff like fish:// or smb://, but that's about it. It basically does what I need - it is a window manager and launcher...