If I, a cash customer, can stop paying your fees, I'll happily shop at the retailer you boycott.
I wholeheartedly agree. Putting the cost on the card users is the right way.
Oh, really? Perhaps you guys are conveniently forgetting how you keep one of the nations biggest crimes intact: armed robberies. Without cash paying customers, stores would not need to have cash at hand. No cash means no risk for armed robberies. Which means less cost for insurances etc, etc, etc.
So tell me, who is putting the cost on whom? Not to mention the fact that I simply despise people who keep up the lines trying to find exactly $7.62. "There must be a penny buried in there somewhere".
That said, the 1/4 mile is often considered the ultimate test of a car, and I'll mention about the first fucking thing they do on Top Gear UK with very nearly every-single-car they bring on there. If they do a comparison test its always either 1/4 mile, standing mile, or 0-100 and back to 0, which are all essentially the same thing.
You mean
That said, the 400 meters is often considered the ultimate test of a car, and I'll mention about the first fucking thing they do on Top Gear UK with very nearly every-single-car they bring on there. If they do a comparison test its always either 400 meters, 1.6km, or 0-100 and back to 0, which are all essentially the same thing.
I've also been looking for a good dash cam and would love some input from Slashdotters.
Here is the cam I bought to replace my DOD-TEC, you can buy it off Ebay. Daytime quality is much better than night time, but as long as it records without crashing I'm happy.
Or the "best" one I ever caught: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9g7H0-NelI
Skip to 00:50 for the action. You can clearly see the red car turning left on a red light. After the accident I provided first aid until CHP arrived (none of the injured had life threatening injuries). I lived close to the accident site so I drove home and burned the 1080p video on a DVD and gave it to the police.
Two months later I get a call from the insurer of the red car. Apparently they were unaware of the existence of the video: "Are you sure you saw that the light was red? Are you really really sure? Really??". So I answer "I got it on video on my dashcam". "Oh, ok, thanks -click".
No, not like this. At least I've never seen it before. This is intrusive. I've had it show up in my browser at least 3 times in the past couple of hours and it's about a service I don't even use. I don't care if their e-mail is out. I don't use their e-mail. I don't want this stuff and there ought to be a simple way to opt out.
I have been saying this in earlier news about the UK's police state as well: avoid the damn country like the plague. They have more CCTV camera's than population and if it were up to the Brits, every citizen or tourist would be forced to give up their DNA at birth or when entering the country, after which they would be eligible to receive their GPS tracking collar.
While I like many of my British friends a lot, the country as a whole is a despicable state.
It's the potential to brick the receivers which is new.
Which is why I find it interesting that 60% of the authors of the paper (3 out of 5) are employees of a commercial entity that.... creates "coherent" navigation equipment.
Perhaps it's just one big advertisement for their solutions?
Er disable the vulnerable file? You either seem to be confusing an infection for a vulnerability, or you have no idea how web services like this actually work.
Yes. A simple chown root:wheel and chmod 000 will usually do the trick*. And I'm pretty familiar with webhosting services, I used to work for the largest hosting provider in that country.
*yes, I know that is easily circumvented. However, someone proficient enough to circumvent that would be proficient enough to fix the root cause as well.
So, if you're running WordPress or a popular message board (e.g. phpBB, vBulletin, whatever, take your pick) and the developer releases a general security update that applies to everyone, you'd be fine with your host disabling essentially your entire site until you fixed it? And if you're on vacation for a week or two when it happens? What then? I rather like the fact that the stuff I run can essentially sustain itself in my absence.
I might be okay with it if it was in the terms of service and the customer had been given fair warning that their site would be disabled if they didn't take action (though I'd never host with them). I may also be okay with it in cases where a vulnerability is actively being exploited and it's causing some form of harm to the host. But to pro-actively disable "vulnerable files" which may be necessary to the functioning of a site without first providing notice is not something that I could condone. I'm still undecided on even having them apply their own fixes, to be honest.
I partly agree with you. If it is a general security update that is not actively being exploited: let it be. However, if it concerns a widely exploited problem, then yes: disable either the vulnerable script or the entire website, if you are hosted on a shared platform. Reason for this is that your script may open the entire server for malicious users and be a stepping stone to exploit local vulnerabilities. So by keeping your vulnerable site enabled, the hoster would be risking damages to all other sites hosted on that system. If I'm the hoster, I would prefer having 1 lawsuit with a good chance to win rather than tens of suits for negligent behavior.
You're talking about customer data here. They may have some customizations in the code that break if you allow yourself to patch it.
I would take another approach: disable the vulnerable file until the customer fixes it. By fixing it for them you may generate expectations which you'll not be able to match in the long run: "don't worry about software updating, the hosting company will do it for us".
Torvalds is a celebrity among the Open Source community, and has notoriety among some of the general public. I think it was completely out of line for Torvalds to call Romney a fucking moron, and the referring to the Mormons as battshit crazy. I am so disappointed in Linus.
I don't know the man personally, but this article comes to mind...
When the Chinese outnumber the United States, militarily by nearly 2:1 and in terms of raw population, by over 4:1, the only advantage the US has over China is technologically. That said, China easily outperforms the US military-industrial complex in arms production, and with her next door neighbour India (who has the strange habit of aligning with whomever serves her political ambition best - during the Cold War it was the USSR, lately it's been the EU and US) adding another billion or so heads, the US could find herself alone in the World (with the possible exception of her lapdog, the UK) and facing down three billion very angry people.
What the US does have, which should be cause for concern for every single person on the planet, is one-button access to the largest consolidated nuclear arsenal the World has ever seen. They want to talk about terrorism? How about "You're not allowed to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes but we'll just keep these multi-megaton warheads pointed at your Capital cities".
There is one big difference between the US and China: democracy and public control of the government.
I have yet to see the US government force American women to undergo abortions against their will, for example.
While I do not necessarily fully agree with what is going on with Assange, the U.S. has done nothing so far that comes even close to holding him without a trial. It is Assange's own choice to stay locked up after he was allegedly unable to control his sexual impulses. Sweden has a fairly good justice system. Let him face his accusers so he can either be cleared of or punished for what the alleged crimes.
The limit for H1B's for FY2013 was reached on June 11, 2012 already. The filing of H1B's for FY2014 will (probably) open up on April 1st, 2013. I'm sure a number of corporations have a few petitions ready to be filed.
You missed the obvious "RF" equipment. The radio and transponder.
Good point. In theory, an MP3 player could disturb the radio and transponder. My counterarguments would be that first of all chances of that happening are very low, and second of all, issues with radio and/or transponder are easier to detect than minor GPS/VOR-DME interference.
But, it's not just RF. What if the installer of the uncertified equipment were to make a subtle mistake? Like run an unfused wire from the battery, put through a hole that has no grommet? Or it uses a power connector that isn't FAA approved.. In case you can't see where I'm going, think dead short and electrical fire mid-flight.
This would apply to any installation of chassis-mounted equipment. I don't think this would apply to a plugged-in Ipod.
(but yes, you are right, an electrical fire would be nasty)
Or, to put it another way - when you are flying an airplane with 4 people say and the pilot pushes the PTT--does ATC hear the conversation of the other three? Of course not.
Not always true, especially on older systems. Especially on aircraft that are also used for flight training, and that comes from experience.
We are talking about a helicopter - something that flies
Would it help if I'd let you know that I am in the proud possession of an Airman Certificate as well?
The most important flight instruments are based on air pressure (speed, altitude, vertical speed) and gyroscopic systems (heading indicator, attitude indicator, artificial horizon). The only "RF sensitive equipment" on board of a chopper is limited to either a VOR/DME or a GPS receiver.
None if which will be used for a sightseeing flight, since there is no fun sightseeing if you're flying IFR. And if you're not flying IFR, you'll be flying VFR on your basic six, so you won't need your navaids.
And that's in the highly unlikely case that your navaids will receive interference from your mp3 player.
Don't forget this requirement: whenever the airman presses the push-to-talk button, you want the music to stop. I'm pretty sure the ATC controller will not be interested in your playlist...
Other than that: why don't you just use the auxiliary input of the 4-way intercom?
How can they not understand that volunteers are exactly that: someone volunteering. And their volunteering can cease at any time. They should be countersued for abuse of legal procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
If I, a cash customer, can stop paying your fees, I'll happily shop at the retailer you boycott.
I wholeheartedly agree. Putting the cost on the card users is the right way.
Oh, really? Perhaps you guys are conveniently forgetting how you keep one of the nations biggest crimes intact: armed robberies. Without cash paying customers, stores would not need to have cash at hand. No cash means no risk for armed robberies. Which means less cost for insurances etc, etc, etc.
So tell me, who is putting the cost on whom? Not to mention the fact that I simply despise people who keep up the lines trying to find exactly $7.62. "There must be a penny buried in there somewhere".
Do they have a Stargate?
I am an Australian.
Find the nearest Equadorian embassy and request political asylum :-)
The response to DigiNotar was an quick and almost-complete revocation of trust of the DigiNotar root certificate.
And the response to that was that Diginotar went bankrupt.
The US is officially Metric, right?
I have yet to see a single road sign that says "1200m until exit" rather than "3/4m until exit). US != metric.
That said, the 1/4 mile is often considered the ultimate test of a car, and I'll mention about the first fucking thing they do on Top Gear UK with very nearly every-single-car they bring on there. If they do a comparison test its always either 1/4 mile, standing mile, or 0-100 and back to 0, which are all essentially the same thing.
You mean
That said, the 400 meters is often considered the ultimate test of a car, and I'll mention about the first fucking thing they do on Top Gear UK with very nearly every-single-car they bring on there. If they do a comparison test its always either 400 meters, 1.6km, or 0-100 and back to 0, which are all essentially the same thing.
I've also been looking for a good dash cam and would love some input from Slashdotters.
Here is the cam I bought to replace my DOD-TEC, you can buy it off Ebay. Daytime quality is much better than night time, but as long as it records without crashing I'm happy.
Daytime quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9xBNcfQ8sI
Nighttime quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaZWpMMLYME
Not linking to the actual product, I don't want to spam. But if you're interested you'll be able to find it.
Seriously, Dash Cams are the best defense against scam artists.
Or to prove that you weren't the culprit. Have a look at these videos, taken from my own dashcam in San Jose, CA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BgkCUbeuck
This is my wife driving. Watch the grey SUV on the right lane at 00:09.
Or the "best" one I ever caught: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9g7H0-NelI
Skip to 00:50 for the action. You can clearly see the red car turning left on a red light. After the accident I provided first aid until CHP arrived (none of the injured had life threatening injuries). I lived close to the accident site so I drove home and burned the 1080p video on a DVD and gave it to the police.
Two months later I get a call from the insurer of the red car. Apparently they were unaware of the existence of the video: "Are you sure you saw that the light was red? Are you really really sure? Really??". So I answer "I got it on video on my dashcam". "Oh, ok, thanks -click".
No, not like this. At least I've never seen it before. This is intrusive. I've had it show up in my browser at least 3 times in the past couple of hours and it's about a service I don't even use. I don't care if their e-mail is out. I don't use their e-mail. I don't want this stuff and there ought to be a simple way to opt out.
There is, it is called: Vote With Your Money...
Mod parent up.
I have been saying this in earlier news about the UK's police state as well: avoid the damn country like the plague. They have more CCTV camera's than population and if it were up to the Brits, every citizen or tourist would be forced to give up their DNA at birth or when entering the country, after which they would be eligible to receive their GPS tracking collar.
While I like many of my British friends a lot, the country as a whole is a despicable state.
It's the potential to brick the receivers which is new.
Which is why I find it interesting that 60% of the authors of the paper (3 out of 5) are employees of a commercial entity that.... creates "coherent" navigation equipment.
Perhaps it's just one big advertisement for their solutions?
Er disable the vulnerable file? You either seem to be confusing an infection for a vulnerability, or you have no idea how web services like this actually work.
Yes. A simple chown root:wheel and chmod 000 will usually do the trick*. And I'm pretty familiar with webhosting services, I used to work for the largest hosting provider in that country.
*yes, I know that is easily circumvented. However, someone proficient enough to circumvent that would be proficient enough to fix the root cause as well.
So, if you're running WordPress or a popular message board (e.g. phpBB, vBulletin, whatever, take your pick) and the developer releases a general security update that applies to everyone, you'd be fine with your host disabling essentially your entire site until you fixed it? And if you're on vacation for a week or two when it happens? What then? I rather like the fact that the stuff I run can essentially sustain itself in my absence.
I might be okay with it if it was in the terms of service and the customer had been given fair warning that their site would be disabled if they didn't take action (though I'd never host with them). I may also be okay with it in cases where a vulnerability is actively being exploited and it's causing some form of harm to the host. But to pro-actively disable "vulnerable files" which may be necessary to the functioning of a site without first providing notice is not something that I could condone. I'm still undecided on even having them apply their own fixes, to be honest.
I partly agree with you. If it is a general security update that is not actively being exploited: let it be. However, if it concerns a widely exploited problem, then yes: disable either the vulnerable script or the entire website, if you are hosted on a shared platform. Reason for this is that your script may open the entire server for malicious users and be a stepping stone to exploit local vulnerabilities. So by keeping your vulnerable site enabled, the hoster would be risking damages to all other sites hosted on that system. If I'm the hoster, I would prefer having 1 lawsuit with a good chance to win rather than tens of suits for negligent behavior.
In two weeks it might be too late.
You're talking about customer data here. They may have some customizations in the code that break if you allow yourself to patch it.
I would take another approach: disable the vulnerable file until the customer fixes it. By fixing it for them you may generate expectations which you'll not be able to match in the long run: "don't worry about software updating, the hosting company will do it for us".
Torvalds is a celebrity among the Open Source community, and has notoriety among some of the general public. I think it was completely out of line for Torvalds to call Romney a fucking moron, and the referring to the Mormons as battshit crazy. I am so disappointed in Linus.
I don't know the man personally, but this article comes to mind...
When the Chinese outnumber the United States, militarily by nearly 2:1 and in terms of raw population, by over 4:1, the only advantage the US has over China is technologically. That said, China easily outperforms the US military-industrial complex in arms production, and with her next door neighbour India (who has the strange habit of aligning with whomever serves her political ambition best - during the Cold War it was the USSR, lately it's been the EU and US) adding another billion or so heads, the US could find herself alone in the World (with the possible exception of her lapdog, the UK) and facing down three billion very angry people. What the US does have, which should be cause for concern for every single person on the planet, is one-button access to the largest consolidated nuclear arsenal the World has ever seen. They want to talk about terrorism? How about "You're not allowed to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes but we'll just keep these multi-megaton warheads pointed at your Capital cities".
There is one big difference between the US and China: democracy and public control of the government.
I have yet to see the US government force American women to undergo abortions against their will, for example.
While I do not necessarily fully agree with what is going on with Assange, the U.S. has done nothing so far that comes even close to holding him without a trial. It is Assange's own choice to stay locked up after he was allegedly unable to control his sexual impulses. Sweden has a fairly good justice system. Let him face his accusers so he can either be cleared of or punished for what the alleged crimes.
Did they exhaust the H1B limit already?
The limit for H1B's for FY2013 was reached on June 11, 2012 already. The filing of H1B's for FY2014 will (probably) open up on April 1st, 2013. I'm sure a number of corporations have a few petitions ready to be filed.
One more reason to stay away from the U.K.
(but don't say that out loud, you'll be modded down and attacked by the Brits).
If only my modpoints would have lasted one day longer... MOD PARENT UP.
(but citation needed)
You missed the obvious "RF" equipment. The radio and transponder.
Good point. In theory, an MP3 player could disturb the radio and transponder. My counterarguments would be that first of all chances of that happening are very low, and second of all, issues with radio and/or transponder are easier to detect than minor GPS/VOR-DME interference.
But, it's not just RF. What if the installer of the uncertified equipment were to make a subtle mistake? Like run an unfused wire from the battery, put through a hole that has no grommet? Or it uses a power connector that isn't FAA approved.. In case you can't see where I'm going, think dead short and electrical fire mid-flight.
This would apply to any installation of chassis-mounted equipment. I don't think this would apply to a plugged-in Ipod.
(but yes, you are right, an electrical fire would be nasty)
Or, to put it another way - when you are flying an airplane with 4 people say and the pilot pushes the PTT--does ATC hear the conversation of the other three? Of course not.
Not always true, especially on older systems. Especially on aircraft that are also used for flight training, and that comes from experience.
We are talking about a helicopter - something that flies
Would it help if I'd let you know that I am in the proud possession of an Airman Certificate as well?
The most important flight instruments are based on air pressure (speed, altitude, vertical speed) and gyroscopic systems (heading indicator, attitude indicator, artificial horizon). The only "RF sensitive equipment" on board of a chopper is limited to either a VOR/DME or a GPS receiver. None if which will be used for a sightseeing flight, since there is no fun sightseeing if you're flying IFR. And if you're not flying IFR, you'll be flying VFR on your basic six, so you won't need your navaids.
And that's in the highly unlikely case that your navaids will receive interference from your mp3 player.
Don't forget this requirement: whenever the airman presses the push-to-talk button, you want the music to stop. I'm pretty sure the ATC controller will not be interested in your playlist...
Other than that: why don't you just use the auxiliary input of the 4-way intercom?
How can they not understand that volunteers are exactly that: someone volunteering. And their volunteering can cease at any time. They should be countersued for abuse of legal procedures.
American spaceship, Russian spaceship: all fixed with toothbrush!