I'm a big fan of random phonetic passwords. The work well for my brain. Even a short base64 random letter password is harder for me to recall than a long phonetic password. Look at that co-author's butter tasting name " Maurizio Filippone". It's totally awesome to say that out loud. And do that 7 times right now and this evening you will still be able to say it. But you won't be able to recall 5(F{!X45*~d tonight. It's pretty easy to generate these where each phonem or di-phonem component has a very large library. I once wrote such a generator as a test and would just give people ten at a time to choose a password from. One person said it was a good way to choose baby names too.
A way I've experimented with password recovery is to generate a very long sentence I can remember and hash this to a random number seed. Then generate rememberable phonetic passwords in order starting from that seed, then pick one of the first hundred you are offered. If you need to recover your password later you just have it recreate the password list again from that sentence. Your brain can easily spot the password you picked the first time.
This latter test convinced me that phonetic passwords are easy to remember. If I had tried the same seeded passwrod generator on base64 passwords it less likely i'd spot my favorite in the mix.
Linda's cedar homes has specialized in custom homes from logs milled to perfection so that snap assemble without much nailing or insulation. They are not milled locally but that's a good thing. Shipping raw logs or having large mills distributed around the country would be more wasteful than shipping the final logs. The homes they make are stunning custom masterpeices not prefab panel houses.
According to the open secrets link you must not have looked at before providing a knee jerk response, bernie sanders has very few union contributors for president and the largest of those is less than google gave. Technology corporations and educational institutions are has major contributer classes. If one looks instead at his senate contributors there we do indeed see more union presence but even so the largest is $150,000 which, while a lot, is still far less than the individual contributions other candidates have received ( in the millions according to open secrets.). So if you assert $150,000 K is the mount required to own a candidate then the other candidates are ten times more owned.
finally, you use the term Union like it was a bad thing. It's not.
Just because you can sneak into the theater doesn't mean you should. Sure if you need a quick peak inside the tent I would imagine NY times is happy to have you interested in their added value news products. They do have a fairly reasonable policy of 10 free articles per month. And in doing that they leave themselves open to the work around you suggest. Would you recommend they discontinue that nice porous paywall because of cretons like you? The good news for them is you are not really their customer and you still get to see their advertisements while you gloat over your cleverness.
I'm all for acceptable ads and acceptable tracking, afterall we all liked the benefit we got from durable cookies in the early pre-cancerous stages of the internet. that sort of tracking is not inherently bad by itself. But then it metastisized and it became neccessary to block it. So yay for ad blockers.
But that just becomes an arms race. So enter "acceptable ads" in which certain ads are allowed in hopes of creating a viable not escalating equilibrium where the commercialization model of the internet is not soley based on pernicious forms of advertising. I don't know if this new equilibrium can be forced but as the new york times demonstrated the tracking and targeting consumes at least 1/3 of the web bandwidth we pay for, so it's worthy just to check that aspect.
But when it becomes commercialized like ad block or ghostery one feels like it's a symbiotic parasite. It leaves you vulnerable to smaller subset of actors who did nothing more than pay to have access to you, the meat being sold by ghostery and ad block. it's like paying off the somali pirates or highway robbers to let coiaches pass. I became the product. yet at the same time it gives me a free benefit.
Should I like this tapeworm that helps me shed unwanted pounds of bandwidth destroying ads and infective tracking systems? At the moment, the answer is there is no other answer.
Either way, letting in the big corp. ads deemed acceptable-for-cash or going nuclear on all ads indiscimiately, ultimately narrows the information I get. However in one case, it limits which ads I see, and in the other it limits the profitability of sites trying to make a living with ad based bussiness models. I'd not want to choke off the free content I get, just to see fewer ads.
I think think acceptable ads, as competition heats up for the service will let me pick gate keepers that force advertisers not to chew up my bandwidth or "excessively" track me.
Despite my claim that it may have been an accident of optimization I do have an alternative theory. I imagine that the VW designers got up against a deadline. Perhaps the above referenced possibility of an optimization error had actually led them down the wrong track to a point were it was too late, things were tooled, people trained etc... Have to forge ahead. So plan B becomes, well let's fake it to buy some time to build the right engine. they already know how to fake it since they had managed to fool themsleves. So they go big, boast of clean deisel and then try to make the engine achieves that. When they find they can't they have a problem. If they put in the new engine it would be clearly worse than the old engine and that would bring scrutiny. And for some reason they figure, well no one noticed to maybe we can just keep pushing this out longer till the next round of emission laws gives us cover for a change of engine.
The mantra of optimization is you get what you optimize for. It's amazing how that seemingly innocuous phrase is something every person doing optimization has at some point been bitten in the ass by at least twice. Once when you do something stupid as you are learning and once later when the optimization produces some completely perplexing result leaving you in awe of the power of that mantra.
There was likely no conspiracy precisely because of the difficulty of maintaining the conspiracy at this scale. A much simpler explanation is that they had the system train itself. There's no reason to leave out certain features in the input vector so all the sensors go in. The car learns that when there's no frequent steering input and the cost function is dominated by emissions then you minimize the emissions. And later on the test track, where there is no emissions term in the cost function, the car learns to anticipate accelerations when there is steering input, so the cost function optimizes for performance and fuel economy not emissions. and so on.
One can see how this could happen so easily. And even if one group thought about it they didn't control the whole cost function and were exploring one part of it. Component manufacturers might notice this too but assume it's fixed in the full system. indeed one report said that there was some internal review of some odd issues.
But if you aren't expecting this and you are relying on the model training to integrate many different team testing one can see how this could accumulate.
It's also easy to see how this could even be seen and not noticed. For example, shutting down emission controls and air conditioning and other things is completely the norm in perfromance tuning. When you stomp on your accelerator the clutch in your Air conditioner disengages to give more power. THe exhaust gas recrculator shuts off. You want those things to happen, just as you want the turbo to kick in before you need it and to kick out when it won't be needed. Thus cars that anticipate these changes rather than wait for then feel much more responsive yet can get much better emissions and fuel milage.
But one can see that these traits could accidentally "cheat" when ever two different optimization features come into conflict.
I get so frustrated with people always having to analyze their datasets in some "app" and having a hell of a time sorting data in some special way, computing non-canned statistics in R, or just all the other ad hoc things that happen daily that the app maker never could have anticiapted. For sysadmin tasks a well tested perl script is so much more visible about what is happening than an app. I like flat files instead of data bases for the same reason. But I can see the virtue in these--keeps things nice and neat- just not very visible and hard to port or provision without some other app tha tknows how to do it.
Well I'd disagree. There's lots of studies and google is your friend if you want to leard the actual fraud rates for card not present with chip and pin. One of the many loopholes is that the chip and pins from europe can easily be used in the US without a password or a pin.
So no this isn't going to do much about fraud since card-not-present is actually goging to become the dominant mode of sales (internet). But the pin doesn't help much.
Not always true. With the heavy use of digipasses in which you insert your (European-issue) cards when you shop online, this becomes a card-is-present transaction. The digipass validates it with an extra online handshake with the bank servers or payment processors -- and prompts for your PIN, which the CHIP on the card verifies, and generates a signature challenge, which the bank servers verify. This is card-is-present and bank-is-present-too.
My expectation is that merchants are not going limit themselves to only the few customers with a card reader. On the otherhand, they obviously could limit themselves to customers with internet so apple-pay or similar to generate a transaction token would be easy
Samsung Pay still provides a virtual card number, so there's some benefit to it. And it can be used now, unlike Apple/Android Pay (which may very well never have anywhere near 100% acceptance if most retailers choose to keep NFC support on their brand new terminals turned off).
So following up my own post, notice that paypal and apple pay both have the means to verify the user of the transaction for card-not-present transactions. Other card methods like say samsung-pay are just wrappers around the card right now and emulate the old swipe system. Thus samsung pay is actually obsolete before it even happened. Chip and Pin now forces you to carry your credit card not just the credit card number. Thus you will already have the credit card in your wallet making samsung pay replace exactly nothing you would have carried anyhow. Apple pay and pay-pal don't have that problem because they can conduct secure transactions through the stores payment mechanism.
Studies in europe showed that when chip and pin nearly eliminated point-of-sale (in store) fraud, that within a year or so the fraud moved to card-not-present sales (that is, the fraud occured by european cards used on the internet, phone, and also countries where the Pin network was not integrated back to europes clearinghouses like brazil, the US, and off-the-grid stores). The total amount of fraud was roughly the same as it had been (one can argue about details or if it's less than it would have been).
For in-store (card present) sales, It isn't lost cards that are the biggest problem. It's stolen card numbers being either cloned onto forged plastic. Stolen card numbers are easily transmitted faster and also can be replicated many times, which is better than the original card itself. Just having the chip there can shut this down. You don't have to have the pin. thus card+signature is just as good as chip and pin for practical purposes. The pin just shuts down people using the original stolen card which is a small slice of the problem.
So no this isn't going to do much about fraud since card-not-present is actually goging to become the dominant mode of sales (internet). But the pin doesn't help much.
here's what's at the download instructions say: System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO: Latest OS: Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
Okay. good for you. But I had windows 8. and the described story was how to upgrade from windows 8 to widows 8.1 update which is the stated system requirement. You had windows 8.1 update so were talking apples and oranges. So did you have a point?
here's what's at the link you gave: System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO: Latest OS: Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
Because you cannot run this tool from windows 8, nor even an non-updated windows 8.1
here's what's at the link you gave: System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO: Latest OS: Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a big fan of random phonetic passwords. The work well for my brain. Even a short base64 random letter password is harder for me to recall than a long phonetic password. Look at that co-author's butter tasting name " Maurizio Filippone". It's totally awesome to say that out loud. And do that 7 times right now and this evening you will still be able to say it. But you won't be able to recall 5(F{!X45*~d tonight. It's pretty easy to generate these where each phonem or di-phonem component has a very large library. I once wrote such a generator as a test and would just give people ten at a time to choose a password from. One person said it was a good way to choose baby names too.
A way I've experimented with password recovery is to generate a very long sentence I can remember and hash this to a random number seed. Then generate rememberable phonetic passwords in order starting from that seed, then pick one of the first hundred you are offered. If you need to recover your password later you just have it recreate the password list again from that sentence. Your brain can easily spot the password you picked the first time.
This latter test convinced me that phonetic passwords are easy to remember. If I had tried the same seeded passwrod generator on base64 passwords it less likely i'd spot my favorite in the mix.
Will these teeth be used by Russian CyberSpies or Bond Villains?
Why is anyone making a fuss over Hilaries private e-mail server. Gov't comms are a mess. and then there's GWB43.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wow. So you seem to think that business with union shops are therefore union boosters. they are union adversaries usually.
Linda's cedar homes has specialized in custom homes from logs milled to perfection so that snap assemble without much nailing or insulation. They are not milled locally but that's a good thing. Shipping raw logs or having large mills distributed around the country would be more wasteful than shipping the final logs. The homes they make are stunning custom masterpeices not prefab panel houses.
I think you need to learn something about unions. Perhaps start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to the open secrets link you must not have looked at before providing a knee jerk response, bernie sanders has very few union contributors for president and the largest of those is less than google gave. Technology corporations and educational institutions are has major contributer classes. If one looks instead at his senate contributors there we do indeed see more union presence but even so the largest is $150,000 which, while a lot, is still far less than the individual contributions other candidates have received ( in the millions according to open secrets.).
So if you assert $150,000 K is the mount required to own a candidate then the other candidates are ten times more owned.
finally, you use the term Union like it was a bad thing. It's not.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
bernie sanders largest contribution out of ~15 million is 15,000 from google.
On Hawaii 5-0, Lo Mien is the arch underworld rival of Lo Fat. Log Mein is what I see in my toilet.
Just because you can sneak into the theater doesn't mean you should. Sure if you need a quick peak inside the tent I would imagine NY times is happy to have you interested in their added value news products. They do have a fairly reasonable policy of 10 free articles per month. And in doing that they leave themselves open to the work around you suggest. Would you recommend they discontinue that nice porous paywall because of cretons like you? The good news for them is you are not really their customer and you still get to see their advertisements while you gloat over your cleverness.
I'm all for acceptable ads and acceptable tracking, afterall we all liked the benefit we got from durable cookies in the early pre-cancerous stages of the internet. that sort of tracking is not inherently bad by itself. But then it metastisized and it became neccessary to block it. So yay for ad blockers.
But that just becomes an arms race. So enter "acceptable ads" in which certain ads are allowed in hopes of creating a viable not escalating equilibrium where the commercialization model of the internet is not soley based on pernicious forms of advertising. I don't know if this new equilibrium can be forced but as the new york times demonstrated the tracking and targeting consumes at least 1/3 of the web bandwidth we pay for, so it's worthy just to check that aspect.
But when it becomes commercialized like ad block or ghostery one feels like it's a symbiotic parasite. It leaves you vulnerable to smaller subset of actors who did nothing more than pay to have access to you, the meat being sold by ghostery and ad block. it's like paying off the somali pirates or highway robbers to let coiaches pass. I became the product. yet at the same time it gives me a free benefit.
Should I like this tapeworm that helps me shed unwanted pounds of bandwidth destroying ads and infective tracking systems? At the moment, the answer is there is no other answer.
Either way, letting in the big corp. ads deemed acceptable-for-cash or going nuclear on all ads indiscimiately, ultimately narrows the information I get.
However in one case, it limits which ads I see, and in the other it limits the profitability of sites trying to make a living with ad based bussiness models. I'd not want to choke off the free content I get, just to see fewer ads.
I think think acceptable ads, as competition heats up for the service will let me pick gate keepers that force advertisers not to chew up my bandwidth or "excessively" track me.
Legacy? come on. how about License regulated taxi drivers lawyer up against illegal gypsy cabs.
Despite my claim that it may have been an accident of optimization I do have an alternative theory. I imagine that the VW designers got up against a deadline. Perhaps the above referenced possibility of an optimization error had actually led them down the wrong track to a point were it was too late, things were tooled, people trained etc... Have to forge ahead. So plan B becomes, well let's fake it to buy some time to build the right engine. they already know how to fake it since they had managed to fool themsleves. So they go big, boast of clean deisel and then try to make the engine achieves that. When they find they can't they have a problem. If they put in the new engine it would be clearly worse than the old engine and that would bring scrutiny. And for some reason they figure, well no one noticed to maybe we can just keep pushing this out longer till the next round of emission laws gives us cover for a change of engine.
The mantra of optimization is you get what you optimize for. It's amazing how that seemingly innocuous phrase is something every person doing optimization has at some point been bitten in the ass by at least twice. Once when you do something stupid as you are learning and once later when the optimization produces some completely perplexing result leaving you in awe of the power of that mantra.
There was likely no conspiracy precisely because of the difficulty of maintaining the conspiracy at this scale. A much simpler explanation is that they had the system train itself. There's no reason to leave out certain features in the input vector so all the sensors go in. The car learns that when there's no frequent steering input and the cost function is dominated by emissions then you minimize the emissions. And later on the test track, where there is no emissions term in the cost function, the car learns to anticipate accelerations when there is steering input, so the cost function optimizes for performance and fuel economy not emissions. and so on.
One can see how this could happen so easily. And even if one group thought about it they didn't control the whole cost function and were exploring one part of it. Component manufacturers might notice this too but assume it's fixed in the full system. indeed one report said that there was some internal review of some odd issues.
But if you aren't expecting this and you are relying on the model training to integrate many different team testing one can see how this could accumulate.
It's also easy to see how this could even be seen and not noticed. For example, shutting down emission controls and air conditioning and other things is completely the norm in perfromance tuning. When you stomp on your accelerator the clutch in your Air conditioner disengages to give more power. THe exhaust gas recrculator shuts off. You want those things to happen, just as you want the turbo to kick in before you need it and to kick out when it won't be needed. Thus cars that anticipate these changes rather than wait for then feel much more responsive yet can get much better emissions and fuel milage.
But one can see that these traits could accidentally "cheat" when ever two different optimization features come into conflict.
I get so frustrated with people always having to analyze their datasets in some "app" and having a hell of a time sorting data in some special way, computing non-canned statistics in R, or just all the other ad hoc things that happen daily that the app maker never could have anticiapted. For sysadmin tasks a well tested perl script is so much more visible about what is happening than an app. I like flat files instead of data bases for the same reason. But I can see the virtue in these--keeps things nice and neat- just not very visible and hard to port or provision without some other app tha tknows how to do it.
I'm afraid you're *very* misinformed.
Well I'd disagree. There's lots of studies and google is your friend if you want to leard the actual fraud rates for card not present with chip and pin. One of the many loopholes is that the chip and pins from europe can easily be used in the US without a password or a pin.
interesting. News reports said CVS and Walmart didn't do it because they are launching a competitor.
So no this isn't going to do much about fraud since card-not-present is actually goging to become the dominant mode of sales (internet). But the pin doesn't help much.
Not always true. With the heavy use of digipasses in which you insert your (European-issue) cards when you shop online, this becomes a card-is-present transaction.
The digipass validates it with an extra online handshake with the bank servers or payment processors -- and prompts for your PIN, which the CHIP on the card verifies, and generates a signature challenge, which the bank servers verify. This is card-is-present and bank-is-present-too.
My expectation is that merchants are not going limit themselves to only the few customers with a card reader. On the otherhand, they obviously could limit themselves to customers with internet so apple-pay or similar to generate a transaction token would be easy
Samsung Pay still provides a virtual card number, so there's some benefit to it. And it can be used now, unlike Apple/Android Pay (which may very well never have anywhere near 100% acceptance if most retailers choose to keep NFC support on their brand new terminals turned off).
Why would they turn it off?
So following up my own post, notice that paypal and apple pay both have the means to verify the user of the transaction for card-not-present transactions. Other card methods like say samsung-pay are just wrappers around the card right now and emulate the old swipe system. Thus samsung pay is actually obsolete before it even happened. Chip and Pin now forces you to carry your credit card not just the credit card number. Thus you will already have the credit card in your wallet making samsung pay replace exactly nothing you would have carried anyhow. Apple pay and pay-pal don't have that problem because they can conduct secure transactions through the stores payment mechanism.
Studies in europe showed that when chip and pin nearly eliminated point-of-sale (in store) fraud, that within a year or so the fraud moved to card-not-present sales (that is, the fraud occured by european cards used on the internet, phone, and also countries where the Pin network was not integrated back to europes clearinghouses like brazil, the US, and off-the-grid stores). The total amount of fraud was roughly the same as it had been (one can argue about details or if it's less than it would have been).
For in-store (card present) sales, It isn't lost cards that are the biggest problem. It's stolen card numbers being either cloned onto forged plastic. Stolen card numbers are easily transmitted faster and also can be replicated many times, which is better than the original card itself. Just having the chip there can shut this down. You don't have to have the pin. thus card+signature is just as good as chip and pin for practical purposes. The pin just shuts down people using the original stolen card which is a small slice of the problem.
So no this isn't going to do much about fraud since card-not-present is actually goging to become the dominant mode of sales (internet). But the pin doesn't help much.
here's what's at the download instructions say:
System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO:
Latest OS:
Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
Okay. good for you. But I had windows 8. and the described story was how to upgrade from windows 8 to widows 8.1 update which is the stated system requirement. You had windows 8.1 update so were talking apples and oranges. So did you have a point?
here's what's at the link you gave:
System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO:
Latest OS:
Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.
No you can't. read the page you linked to.
Why didn't you just use the windows media creation tool and skip all of that work? http://windows.microsoft.com/e...
Because you cannot run this tool from windows 8, nor even an non-updated windows 8.1
here's what's at the link you gave:
System Requirements for Windows 10 ISO:
Latest OS:
Make sure you are running the latest version of either Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 Update.