First, Canadian imperial mesurements are mostly but not allways the same as american "standard" mesurements. The gallon for example is a different size. I think there's no difference in the feet/miles/inches department though.
Speaking as a canadian, I use imperial as much as metric on a daily basis. Metric is used for weights and volumes, but not the weights of people. I don't know my height in metres and houses are built all in imperial but our highway speeds and distances are in Km. Metres are actually not in as common use as feet.
It's probably at least as easy for most canadians to understand something's height etc. in feet as in metres. If you're going to list some stats in imperial you may as well list them all that way, to be consistant.
I don't mean steal the hash, I mean steal your fingerprint or a raw immage of your retina. You leave fingerprints all over, or I could put a tap into a login terminal and steal the info that way.
It doesn't matter if it's impossible to reconstruct the hash either. I could make a fingerprint dictionary with a fingerprint for each desired hash. Not easy, but possible.
If you have a pin or passphrase then you are not replacing passwords, you're augmenting them. I'm all for that.
How does it "cheapen" a man to have more than one interest? It does not lessen his scientific achievements that he did not singly devote his life to them.
This should be modded insightful. These kind of forced password-change policies do one thing only: encourage people to choose easy-to-remember (and hence, likely easy-to-crack) passwords. Even worse, it encourages people to write their passwords down and store them in what is probably a very insecure location! So, in the end, you get only a marginal increase in security.
Frankly, I think the best bet is to encourage users to just select longish (>8 characters), complex password (no word substrings, more than just alphabetic characters, etc), but don't force them to change it. After all, brute-forcing a complex, 8-character password is still a fairly difficult process.
It may be a difficult process, but if you don't change your passwords I've got all the time in the world to get them.
The key thing is to educate users and not to set the password change period too short. It's a balance between more secure passwords and incovienience. If it's too much of a hassle people will look for a way around it.
You probably also need a corprate policy on passwords so that it's their boss telling them to act this way, not just some "clueless geek from IT". You should also have some written rules in said policy about what's an acceptible password. You'd be wise to also try your best to get the users to understand why this is important, or at least to convince them it is important.
It strikes me that if you have to require your end users to constantly change their passwords in order to prevent them from being cracked, that's your entire problem.
Instead, you should be securing your system to prevent password lists being downloaded and to prevent multiple subsequent incorrect logins.
Secure your own system. Don't expect your users to do it for you.
No matter how secure you think your system is, you should not act as if it was invincible. Requiring password lenth and periodic changes is an additional layer of security, and more security is better than less.
As long as you balance your password requirements against the potential for users to start messing them up out of frustration then you should be ok.
If you use biometric data for your passwords then you can never change your passwords. The first time you use a cracked login terminal you've lost security forever, unless you have surgery.
Sure, 128 may be too little, but my 512MB are essentially never more than half used even with a few firefoxes, thunderbirds and visual studios open.
If you're confident in the ammount of ram you have, just turn off swap. Make sure you have enough ram for everything inside both your ram and your pagefile/swap to all live in ram first though.
The problem is that that was a short term replacement. It could be that problems don't show up till you've had a beatless heart for years, so we can't rule out difficulties yet.
But OTOH there may be no problems at all, so if it's more reliable than existing artificial hearts I'd probably take it over the old design, if I needed a new heart. (I'm planning to keep my current one for a while yet though)
RFID chips could simply be implanted with the ability to deactivate once the transaction is complete.
This can't be done simply at all. Part of the advantage of the chips is they can be used as an anti theft device, which means they have to be hard to find and remove. If they are hard to find and remove you can still send a deactivation signal, but what's to stop me from walking around your store broadcasting that signal? Making them be deactivateable for only the people you want deactivating them is far from simple, and possiblt not practical at all.
There are 3 or 4 roads where I live that have more than 2 lanes. Tailgating is not limited to freeways, it happens plenty on 2 lane roads. The whole right/left lane issue is a red herring.
Tailgating doesn't take "balls", it takes stupidity and a disregard for the safety of others. If you need to prove your manhood by driving recklessly then there isn't much there to prove the existance of anyway.
What about Japan, or hong kong, or taiwan? Most western european nations have pretty much mined out the easy mineral veins and cut down many of their forests but they're ok.
You can make good farming land as long as you have water.
I hadn't considered antique books. You could minimize dammage by using a small sticker on the inside of the cover, but that might still detract from their antique value.
Actually thats a great idea, but I'd go one further. This is my 3 step plan:
1 Have the robot as it is now get the addition of a sticker printer and the ability to tag the books with RFID tags as it works with them, and have it work through the inventory in it's spare time.
2 Make a cheaper bot that uses the RFID to locate the books and have it handle requests for all tagged books.
3 When all your books are tagged, you trade in the deluxe bot for a regular one and get a cash back thing from the manufacturer. New books are tagged by hand using a label gun before they go to the shelves.
RFID isn't long range, so triangulation in a large building is out. Besides, if you are in a library the books get filed by author if fiction, or duey decimal if not. The robot knows where to look.
Or, instead of new bar codes on stickers, RFID chips in stickers. Just slap them on the inside of the cover. You could hit both bases by using new barcode stickers on the spine with RFID chips in them.
Yes, indeed, we should have. That's not only because it is the just and equitable thing to do (we demand the same of other nations, and it is, in fact, a cornerstone of our trade policy), it is also because it is in our own interest.
What, you mean how the US insists that others not put up one way trade barriers or they will? Oooh, pretty villinous that. The US trades for their own profit and if other countries don't want to trade with the US they don't have to. The point of trade is profit.
Even just from a domestic perspective, US agricultural subsidies are economically inefficient.
It's not an economic issue, it's a strategic one. We are paying for a strategic advantage with an economic cost.
In the long term, the way our subsidies hold back economic development in other nations comes back to haunts us in the form of unskilled and illegal immigration and terrorism. And eventually, they may make the global free trade system collapse, which would hurt us the most, because we have the most to lose.
The unskilled imagrants the US recieves are common to all richer nations without draconian imagration controls. The only way they'll stop is when the US is no longer better off than most other nations.
The terrorism the US is experiencing is not a result of ecconomic policy. It's because they helped Israel.
The "global free trade system"? The US barely has free trade with Canada and Mexico! Proffitable trade has been coping with much higher tarrifs and fees for hundreds of years, it can cope with the fairly low ones we have now.
Countries like Japan that import raw materials and export finished products more would be far worse off if there was a trade disturbance. The US doesn't need trade to survive. America would suffer, japan might starve.
If you look at the list of nations that have historically attempted food self-sufficiency, I think you, too, will come to the conclusion that that is not a club we want to be part of.
Like who, most of western europe? Their subsidies put ours to shame.
Yes, and that is exactly what we are doing: we are giving "a man a fish", year after year, and we are not teaching him how to fish. In fact, we are blowing up his fishing boat and handcuffing him, which pretty much ensures that he will not be able to fish for himself.
What specific trade practices are you comparing to breaking boats and handcuffing?
If everyone knew that open standards are good and supported them by using them then we'd have open standards. "We" may all know this, but then perhaps "we" are not the target of this declaration. Perhaps they hope to convince "corporations, governments, organizations, and individuals" that do not know and believe that open standards are good. Maybe they hope that the people who do know will see their statment and tell people who don't know about it.
Poor nations are poor because they don't produce enough for their own needs, or because internal problems are consuming the resources.
How does farming subsidies harm them? Only by makking imports to the subsidising nation less competitive. They don't have a right to sell stuff to the developed nations if the developed nations don't want to buy. Nations do have the right to limit imports and exports. Nobody should force people to trade.
If the trade practices are unfair they shouldn't trade with the US. If I was selling hamburgers for $50 US and wouldn't haggle, would you buy one then complain about unfair trade practices? If you don't think my haburgers are worth the price I'm asking, then don't buy them, I'm not forcing you so go to my competitors or make your own.
All of the US's trade practices are aimed at protecting and growwing their economy. They aren't cheating the developing nations, just dealing sharply. Being mad that they trade for their own benifit is ludicrous. Trading is a for profit activity, and always has been.
If it's a bad deal, trade elsewhere. If it's the same everywhere then the first deal was fair market value. If fair market value isn't enough, don't sell. Nobody said you have to buy from or sell to them, so how can it be unfair?
if I take them out I have to re-seal the package, and the chance of winning in infentesmal. the can would be just as winning in the city I was flying to as where I was flying from.
A far better nit to pick is why would anyone bring something so cheap, easy to find, and heavy onto a plane with them. I don't think you are allowed to drink your own drinks on the flight.
Yeah, we realy should have checked with those other nations before deciding our domestic policies. Shame on us for wanting food if we ever go to war again.
We should try to help other nations feed themselves, not complain that the "scraps" of our economy aren't being distributed evenly enough to feed them. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
First, Canadian imperial mesurements are mostly but not allways the same as american "standard" mesurements. The gallon for example is a different size. I think there's no difference in the feet/miles/inches department though.
Speaking as a canadian, I use imperial as much as metric on a daily basis. Metric is used for weights and volumes, but not the weights of people. I don't know my height in metres and houses are built all in imperial but our highway speeds and distances are in Km. Metres are actually not in as common use as feet.
It's probably at least as easy for most canadians to understand something's height etc. in feet as in metres. If you're going to list some stats in imperial you may as well list them all that way, to be consistant.
I don't mean steal the hash, I mean steal your fingerprint or a raw immage of your retina. You leave fingerprints all over, or I could put a tap into a login terminal and steal the info that way. It doesn't matter if it's impossible to reconstruct the hash either. I could make a fingerprint dictionary with a fingerprint for each desired hash. Not easy, but possible. If you have a pin or passphrase then you are not replacing passwords, you're augmenting them. I'm all for that.
How does it "cheapen" a man to have more than one interest? It does not lessen his scientific achievements that he did not singly devote his life to them.
Oh, most definitely. But you still need a good password, because I can get your biometric data and in many cases make a fake organ to match it.
Biometrics is usefull, but usefull as a suplement not a replacement for a password.
It may be a difficult process, but if you don't change your passwords I've got all the time in the world to get them.
The key thing is to educate users and not to set the password change period too short. It's a balance between more secure passwords and incovienience. If it's too much of a hassle people will look for a way around it.
You probably also need a corprate policy on passwords so that it's their boss telling them to act this way, not just some "clueless geek from IT". You should also have some written rules in said policy about what's an acceptible password. You'd be wise to also try your best to get the users to understand why this is important, or at least to convince them it is important.
No matter how secure you think your system is, you should not act as if it was invincible. Requiring password lenth and periodic changes is an additional layer of security, and more security is better than less.
As long as you balance your password requirements against the potential for users to start messing them up out of frustration then you should be ok.
If you use biometric data for your passwords then you can never change your passwords. The first time you use a cracked login terminal you've lost security forever, unless you have surgery.
Some people think it's wrong to cavalierly profit from the misery of others, even if you don't cause that misery.
Sure, 128 may be too little, but my 512MB are essentially never more than half used even with a few firefoxes, thunderbirds and visual studios open.
If you're confident in the ammount of ram you have, just turn off swap. Make sure you have enough ram for everything inside both your ram and your pagefile/swap to all live in ram first though.
The problem is that that was a short term replacement. It could be that problems don't show up till you've had a beatless heart for years, so we can't rule out difficulties yet.
But OTOH there may be no problems at all, so if it's more reliable than existing artificial hearts I'd probably take it over the old design, if I needed a new heart. (I'm planning to keep my current one for a while yet though)
RFID chips could simply be implanted with the ability to deactivate once the transaction is complete.
This can't be done simply at all. Part of the advantage of the chips is they can be used as an anti theft device, which means they have to be hard to find and remove. If they are hard to find and remove you can still send a deactivation signal, but what's to stop me from walking around your store broadcasting that signal? Making them be deactivateable for only the people you want deactivating them is far from simple, and possiblt not practical at all.
It's really a trade off in any case. They can't make it ergonomic for everyone, there's too much variety to do so.
There are 3 or 4 roads where I live that have more than 2 lanes. Tailgating is not limited to freeways, it happens plenty on 2 lane roads. The whole right/left lane issue is a red herring.
Tailgating doesn't take "balls", it takes stupidity and a disregard for the safety of others. If you need to prove your manhood by driving recklessly then there isn't much there to prove the existance of anyway.
How about you simply move over to the right lane when doing 60 in a 70 zone so that people don't have to tail you?
Atitudes like this are why I like beefed up rear bumpers and "I brake for tailgaters" stickers.
What about Japan, or hong kong, or taiwan? Most western european nations have pretty much mined out the easy mineral veins and cut down many of their forests but they're ok. You can make good farming land as long as you have water.
I hadn't considered antique books. You could minimize dammage by using a small sticker on the inside of the cover, but that might still detract from their antique value.
Actually thats a great idea, but I'd go one further. This is my 3 step plan: 1 Have the robot as it is now get the addition of a sticker printer and the ability to tag the books with RFID tags as it works with them, and have it work through the inventory in it's spare time. 2 Make a cheaper bot that uses the RFID to locate the books and have it handle requests for all tagged books. 3 When all your books are tagged, you trade in the deluxe bot for a regular one and get a cash back thing from the manufacturer. New books are tagged by hand using a label gun before they go to the shelves.
RFID isn't long range, so triangulation in a large building is out. Besides, if you are in a library the books get filed by author if fiction, or duey decimal if not. The robot knows where to look.
Or, instead of new bar codes on stickers, RFID chips in stickers. Just slap them on the inside of the cover. You could hit both bases by using new barcode stickers on the spine with RFID chips in them.
Yes, indeed, we should have. That's not only because it is the just and equitable thing to do (we demand the same of other nations, and it is, in fact, a cornerstone of our trade policy), it is also because it is in our own interest.
What, you mean how the US insists that others not put up one way trade barriers or they will? Oooh, pretty villinous that. The US trades for their own profit and if other countries don't want to trade with the US they don't have to. The point of trade is profit.
Even just from a domestic perspective, US agricultural subsidies are economically inefficient.
It's not an economic issue, it's a strategic one. We are paying for a strategic advantage with an economic cost.
In the long term, the way our subsidies hold back economic development in other nations comes back to haunts us in the form of unskilled and illegal immigration and terrorism. And eventually, they may make the global free trade system collapse, which would hurt us the most, because we have the most to lose.
The unskilled imagrants the US recieves are common to all richer nations without draconian imagration controls. The only way they'll stop is when the US is no longer better off than most other nations.
The terrorism the US is experiencing is not a result of ecconomic policy. It's because they helped Israel.
The "global free trade system"? The US barely has free trade with Canada and Mexico! Proffitable trade has been coping with much higher tarrifs and fees for hundreds of years, it can cope with the fairly low ones we have now.
Countries like Japan that import raw materials and export finished products more would be far worse off if there was a trade disturbance. The US doesn't need trade to survive. America would suffer, japan might starve.
If you look at the list of nations that have historically attempted food self-sufficiency, I think you, too, will come to the conclusion that that is not a club we want to be part of.
Like who, most of western europe? Their subsidies put ours to shame.
Yes, and that is exactly what we are doing: we are giving "a man a fish", year after year, and we are not teaching him how to fish. In fact, we are blowing up his fishing boat and handcuffing him, which pretty much ensures that he will not be able to fish for himself.
What specific trade practices are you comparing to breaking boats and handcuffing?
Or is it simply a case of colonial expansion for its own sake, now that it's not politically correct to colonise other countries on Earth?
Won't someone think of the inocent moon men before we destroy their fragile and beutifull culture??
If everyone knew that open standards are good and supported them by using them then we'd have open standards. "We" may all know this, but then perhaps "we" are not the target of this declaration. Perhaps they hope to convince "corporations, governments, organizations, and individuals" that do not know and believe that open standards are good. Maybe they hope that the people who do know will see their statment and tell people who don't know about it.
Poor nations are poor because they don't produce enough for their own needs, or because internal problems are consuming the resources.
How does farming subsidies harm them? Only by makking imports to the subsidising nation less competitive. They don't have a right to sell stuff to the developed nations if the developed nations don't want to buy. Nations do have the right to limit imports and exports. Nobody should force people to trade.
If the trade practices are unfair they shouldn't trade with the US. If I was selling hamburgers for $50 US and wouldn't haggle, would you buy one then complain about unfair trade practices? If you don't think my haburgers are worth the price I'm asking, then don't buy them, I'm not forcing you so go to my competitors or make your own.
All of the US's trade practices are aimed at protecting and growwing their economy. They aren't cheating the developing nations, just dealing sharply. Being mad that they trade for their own benifit is ludicrous. Trading is a for profit activity, and always has been. If it's a bad deal, trade elsewhere. If it's the same everywhere then the first deal was fair market value. If fair market value isn't enough, don't sell. Nobody said you have to buy from or sell to them, so how can it be unfair?
if I take them out I have to re-seal the package, and the chance of winning in infentesmal. the can would be just as winning in the city I was flying to as where I was flying from. A far better nit to pick is why would anyone bring something so cheap, easy to find, and heavy onto a plane with them. I don't think you are allowed to drink your own drinks on the flight.
Yeah, we realy should have checked with those other nations before deciding our domestic policies. Shame on us for wanting food if we ever go to war again.
We should try to help other nations feed themselves, not complain that the "scraps" of our economy aren't being distributed evenly enough to feed them. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day etc. etc.