It's not like you're missing anything, if the plane comes crashing down having your tray table up won't safe you...
This is an example of where a lack of understanding of the risks involved leads to a lack of appreciation of the safety requirement.
You're right: in a "falling out of the air" crash where the aircraft is destroyed, having the tray table secured won't save you.
However, the vast majority of aircraft don't fall out of the sky.
Let's consider the real likely outcomes:
The plane touches down a little too fast, and decelerates particularly hard. Almost certainly all the passengers will survive. Having your tray table down allows it to fly upwards as a result of the braking force, hitting your chin on the way through and giving you either severe whiplash, a broken jaw, or a concussion. Having your tray table secured will ensure that none of those happen, and the worst possible outcome is moderate whiplash.
Similarly with having the seat back upright vs reclined: a passenger thrown forward as a result of the rapid deceleration is more likely to hit a reclined seat (which is thus closer to them) than an upright one.
Being in the brace position means that your body is as far forward as it physically can go, which reduces the likelihood that your head or arms are thrown forward into the seat in front.
The safety instructions are not there to help you survive a destructive crash, they're there to reduce the number of injuries you receive in a non-fatal crash.
I really don't know the indie game industry very well so I don't know what constitutes "mildly successful", but based on the numbers given, the break-even point is $5m-$10m (so that 5% is $250k-$500k)... So if your expected gross income from the game is less than $5 million, then this is a good deal, and if not, it's a bad deal.
Even if your expected gross is $10 million over the life of the game, if that's made up of $2 million a year for 5 years, this might be an attractive option given the following choices:
Spend $250,000 now, hope and pray that you make some money, gross $2 million in the first year (so that costed you 12.5%!!!!), then recoup the expense over the next few years, or
Spend $20 now, gross $2 million each year, then from that income spend $100,000 each year.
You end up spending more in the second situation, but you spend it after you've earned it, with the risk transferred to the vendor. Not always the right option, but often worth considering even if it's not the chosen path.
Low power? Is this really an issue for children...
Given the OLPC's target market, developing countries, yes, this is an issue. There isn't a stable grid, so you can only get electricity a few hours a day, at most, and there is not much of it...
That hides the content of your communication, but it still shows that you're communicating, and with whom. So the "metadata" that the NSA and/or FB are interested in is still available...
Ostensibly using TOR hides the fact that you're the one communicating, and who you're communicating with... (Whether that's still true in practice is another question...)
... the desired control moves in place to always be at your fingertips
What I don't understand is, if it knows which control I desire, then why do I need to touch it?.
Also, HOW does it know which control I desire?
(For the record - I'm not a fan of voice-operated interfaces, I've seen too many distracting oddities to believe that people will continue to use them long-term.)
Except that in that brave new future, the keypresses are navigating a round trip - see "google instant search" or just about any textbox now having "completion suggestions" which respond to each keypress...
So it's true that they don't have to, in principle, but in many usecases they are anyway.
It is irrational to remain ignorant if you care about principles.
Actually, as was pointed out, it's irrational to care about principles. Rationality dictates that your principles are actually worth far less than they cost.
At least do 5 minutes of fucking research.
And therein lies the rub - where? That 5 minutes of research has to be done somewhere... TV? Internet? Radio? Newspapers? The library?
If you go to Google, (or Bing), thanks to the filter bubble which knows that you lean Right, it sends you to Fox, where your 5 minutes of research tells you that the Right is all right. It knows that I lean Left, so it sends me to CNN which tells me that the Right is full of Tea Party derpers.
So how do I, an average voter, know where I should be doing my "5 minutes of fucking research"?
I assume by "salt" you guys are referring to a different salt per session (a.k.a. a nonce).
If you really mean just an ordinary salted hash, then you still haven't changed anything - the salted hash is the "real" password, and any intermediary or eavesdropper can see it.
If you're talking about a nonce, then yes, now you're protected from eavesdropping - but the machine doing the verification needs to have your secret available in cleartext. This requires that you have a locked-down verification server probably separate from your application server.
Contrast this situation with a cryptographic system: The server stores your public key. When you attempt to connect, the server provides you with a nonce. You encrypt with your private key. The server can verify your connection, and your secret is never stored or seen by anyone except yourself. Nothing that the server has visiblity of, nor anything overheard in transit can be used to impersonate you in the future.
You're just hiding the weakness: in this scenario, your "password hash" is becomes your real password. Anyone who steals the hash can now impersonate you, which means that your real password is also being saved in cleartext on the server.
There were fewer than 200,000 votes cast last year - they've sampled close to 10% of the actual votes, so I'm sure they'll have a reasonable approximation of the final result...
I think we're in agreement, where the issue you reference is the agenda I reference. There's every possibility that it's valid.
I guess you could be suggesting that there's an issue with the browser extension which does not apply to the infringing site - admittedly, that is a possiblity.
But if Yale goes after the browser extension, they have to give a reason for that. If it does not apply to site, then we simply repeat the process - create a method for browsing the Yale site in the manner we prefer, which does not trigger either of the known complaints, and then wait to see what complaint they bring against it, if any...
Yale had it's own ratemyprofessor implementation, which only displayed each course's scores separately, never comparing them.
Some students decided that it would be good to see the scores side-by-side, so they built a site that allowed comparisons of the data (by scraping the original site).
Two years later, Yale decided that they didn't like the comparison site, and blocked its IP so it couldn't scrape the data.
Although the reason for Yale not liking the site is alleged to be because it makes comparisons easy, Yale is claiming that the block is for protection of their copyright material.
So someone with suitable skills built the equivalent functionality as the banned site into a browser extension, which therefore has no copyright implications (since the data is never scraped/served by another server), and is harder to block (since the server doesn't know which students are using the extension).
The idea is that if the only issue was one of copyright, the browser extension is fine. And if Yale challenges the browser extension, then they clearly have some agenda which is not about copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an example of where a lack of understanding of the risks involved leads to a lack of appreciation of the safety requirement.
You're right: in a "falling out of the air" crash where the aircraft is destroyed, having the tray table secured won't save you.
However, the vast majority of aircraft don't fall out of the sky.
Let's consider the real likely outcomes:
The plane touches down a little too fast, and decelerates particularly hard. Almost certainly all the passengers will survive. Having your tray table down allows it to fly upwards as a result of the braking force, hitting your chin on the way through and giving you either severe whiplash, a broken jaw, or a concussion. Having your tray table secured will ensure that none of those happen, and the worst possible outcome is moderate whiplash.
Similarly with having the seat back upright vs reclined: a passenger thrown forward as a result of the rapid deceleration is more likely to hit a reclined seat (which is thus closer to them) than an upright one.
Being in the brace position means that your body is as far forward as it physically can go, which reduces the likelihood that your head or arms are thrown forward into the seat in front.
The safety instructions are not there to help you survive a destructive crash, they're there to reduce the number of injuries you receive in a non-fatal crash.
By "touchscreen" he means trackpad...
HP Chromebook?
I really don't know the indie game industry very well so I don't know what constitutes "mildly successful", but based on the numbers given, the break-even point is $5m-$10m (so that 5% is $250k-$500k)... So if your expected gross income from the game is less than $5 million, then this is a good deal, and if not, it's a bad deal.
Even if your expected gross is $10 million over the life of the game, if that's made up of $2 million a year for 5 years, this might be an attractive option given the following choices:
You end up spending more in the second situation, but you spend it after you've earned it, with the risk transferred to the vendor. Not always the right option, but often worth considering even if it's not the chosen path.
I recently heard the phrase "politician's syllogism" to refer to this statement...
Given the OLPC's target market, developing countries, yes, this is an issue. There isn't a stable grid, so you can only get electricity a few hours a day, at most, and there is not much of it...
(By which I mean: you need both... OTR and TOR aim to protect you from different threats.)
I think most people are suggesting that you would take an FPGA and synthesize this source onto it, not that this is the source for an FPGA...
That hides the content of your communication, but it still shows that you're communicating, and with whom. So the "metadata" that the NSA and/or FB are interested in is still available...
Ostensibly using TOR hides the fact that you're the one communicating, and who you're communicating with... (Whether that's still true in practice is another question...)
... Keeping Tabs ON Wikileaks Visitors...
What I don't understand is, if it knows which control I desire, then why do I need to touch it?.
Also, HOW does it know which control I desire?
(For the record - I'm not a fan of voice-operated interfaces, I've seen too many distracting oddities to believe that people will continue to use them long-term.)
Except that in that brave new future, the keypresses are navigating a round trip - see "google instant search" or just about any textbox now having "completion suggestions" which respond to each keypress...
So it's true that they don't have to, in principle, but in many usecases they are anyway.
Actually, as was pointed out, it's irrational to care about principles. Rationality dictates that your principles are actually worth far less than they cost.
And therein lies the rub - where? That 5 minutes of research has to be done somewhere... TV? Internet? Radio? Newspapers? The library?
If you go to Google, (or Bing), thanks to the filter bubble which knows that you lean Right, it sends you to Fox, where your 5 minutes of research tells you that the Right is all right. It knows that I lean Left, so it sends me to CNN which tells me that the Right is full of Tea Party derpers.
So how do I, an average voter, know where I should be doing my "5 minutes of fucking research"?
Sure, but does Netcraft confirm it???
I assume by "salt" you guys are referring to a different salt per session (a.k.a. a nonce).
If you really mean just an ordinary salted hash, then you still haven't changed anything - the salted hash is the "real" password, and any intermediary or eavesdropper can see it.
If you're talking about a nonce, then yes, now you're protected from eavesdropping - but the machine doing the verification needs to have your secret available in cleartext. This requires that you have a locked-down verification server probably separate from your application server.
Contrast this situation with a cryptographic system: The server stores your public key. When you attempt to connect, the server provides you with a nonce. You encrypt with your private key. The server can verify your connection, and your secret is never stored or seen by anyone except yourself. Nothing that the server has visiblity of, nor anything overheard in transit can be used to impersonate you in the future.
You're just hiding the weakness: in this scenario, your "password hash" is becomes your real password. Anyone who steals the hash can now impersonate you, which means that your real password is also being saved in cleartext on the server.
A news service called Domain Newswire is claiming to have gotten confirmation from Web.com: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/21/network-solutions-auto-enrolls-customer-into-1850-weblock-service/
More platters, slower seek.
Fewer platters, slower seek.
Where's the peak?
Yeah, I never knew myself. When I looked for the stats from last year, I found this article, claiming 187,975 voters casting 1,516,765 votes. Since I didn't know which number would reflect what they were collecting, I looked at #hottest100 on twitter to see what kind of images people were sharing. The ones I found looked like http://instagram.com/p/jX3m6pMTsy/, https://twitter.com/andrewyesterday/status/424445352557547520/, and https://twitter.com/Natalia_Cooper9/status/424770515027623936/, so I assumed the 187k number was the correct comparison...
There were fewer than 200,000 votes cast last year - they've sampled close to 10% of the actual votes, so I'm sure they'll have a reasonable approximation of the final result...
I think we're in agreement, where the issue you reference is the agenda I reference. There's every possibility that it's valid.
I guess you could be suggesting that there's an issue with the browser extension which does not apply to the infringing site - admittedly, that is a possiblity.
But if Yale goes after the browser extension, they have to give a reason for that. If it does not apply to site, then we simply repeat the process - create a method for browsing the Yale site in the manner we prefer, which does not trigger either of the known complaints, and then wait to see what complaint they bring against it, if any...
I agree with your perspective. Unfortunately, the other details muddy the water:
The Nagios project on sourceforge was set up in May 2001.
The Nagios Plugins project on sourceforge was set up in June 2001.
The owner of the Nagios project later went on to create Nagios Enterprises and register the trademark.
So while the enterprise didn't exist back then, it is the successor of the project which was using the name first...
Yale had it's own ratemyprofessor implementation, which only displayed each course's scores separately, never comparing them.
Some students decided that it would be good to see the scores side-by-side, so they built a site that allowed comparisons of the data (by scraping the original site).
Two years later, Yale decided that they didn't like the comparison site, and blocked its IP so it couldn't scrape the data.
Although the reason for Yale not liking the site is alleged to be because it makes comparisons easy, Yale is claiming that the block is for protection of their copyright material.
So someone with suitable skills built the equivalent functionality as the banned site into a browser extension, which therefore has no copyright implications (since the data is never scraped/served by another server), and is harder to block (since the server doesn't know which students are using the extension).
The idea is that if the only issue was one of copyright, the browser extension is fine. And if Yale challenges the browser extension, then they clearly have some agenda which is not about copyright.
In fact, it is wrong in exactly the way that TFA suggests: you're describing the mean deviation...