Same. I moved in with my partner in early 2004 and being poor and in love, we couldn't afford a TV and found other ways (ahem) to spend our time. We've never got round to buying one. We did inherit one when we moved into our current place, and I'm glad it's there, because when the next 9/11 hits, the internet will be a dead zone (it was bad enough last time). Useful to know I can still get BBC One if I have to.
Nope. Porn went for VHS: it was more prosaic economics that did it for Betamax. Porn hasn't created the One Streaming Format yet, either. The porn industry went for HD-DVD over Bluray, an expensive mistake. The one thing they've done right is accepting and working with piracy to increase the size of the market.
If I was the US Navy, I'd let my opponents think they were better than they are too. Though since the US hasn't fought any meaningful naval engagements lately, it's difficult to tell.
MacDonald's provide an unbelievably good service. They serve something like half a billion Big Macs a year and vanishingly few of them contain cockroaches or dead rats or severed employee fingers. I'd like to see you do better;)
Actually, many US states and countries have laws specifically encompassing the work that journalists do. Whether or not those laws should exist is an interesting question, but not the one at issue here, because in Chen's home state, they do.
This site is intended to be a lesson for people who are susceptible to getting phished. The goal here is for no credit card information to ever be sent across the wire. To accomplish this, all credit card info is outside the form. That way, clicking on the submit button doesn't submit any credit card info.
Godaddy was smart enough to detect some evil keywords in the domain and require a human being to look at the site. If you are reading this, Godaddy: Our intention is to educate and inform people of phishing, in a particularly memorable way: http://ismycreditcardstolen.com/anti-phishing.jpg
BTW there is no form validation so just click the submit button if you want to see the "you have failed" message, visible here: http://ismycreditcardstolen.com/check.html
In the sixties, actors were all stage trained, and did their craft directed towards an audience thirty feet away. No-one can see the tears welling up or the nervous tic in the face at that distance, so that was what acting looked like: big, strong, clear expression. It took quite a while before television realised that the audience was only six inches away - and if you watch Patrick Stewart closely, you can see, particularly in the early seasons, he is still playing to the big stage most of the time. He's just such a good actor you never pick it up.
On the other hand, it is surprising how often you can get away with handing over £3 notes:D Actually, in the UK, one Scottish banks still issues £1 notes. If you take them down into Englandshire, they are regularly mistaken for £5 notes, since they never see the ones. Profit, and it's sort of legal.
The problem is another order more interesting than that. For example, someone interested in stock market variability might ask: what is the density of stock market returns? You get something that looks vaguely normal. However, you can fit any number of distributions and get models that fit extremely closely. Where they break down is the extreme returns: you might have accepted any one of these models, but if you look at the tails of all of them the divergence is huge, meaning you have no real idea what the probability of a large shift actually is. So the problem is that models do not always tell a complete story, particularly for anything with any degree of complexity. In turn, when you do get events that exceed the model's normal operating paramters, suddenly you get equations not solving, run-times exploding, and output that is deemed unacceptable. This leads to the second problem, which is that inside any particular companies, you get micro-economic incentives not to investigate and use models properly (think of how computer users make decisions that work against good security practices - the process is analogous). Senior managers demand that modellers provide summaries, single numbers, and dashboards, and then treat this information as if it were the model. This problem is the biggest topic for discussion around regulatory water-coolers at the moment, and other than demanding increased technical capability from senior staff, there aren't any easy answers in this area.
That is my problem with this proposal. It seems reasonable on the surface, but anyone who has sat through CS101 should know that programs can be significantly more complex than they appear (the halting problem et al.). A real world financial model would be extremely easy to insert a depth charge into - the academic research has already been done showing how easy it is to create models that are computationally intractable. And yes, this would make an excellent subject for the underhanded C contest.
I've no idea what the impact of exercise is, but certainly the impact of diet on milk is vast. You can if you know what you're doing make a pretty good estimate of what a cow was fed on and even where it lives from its milk.
Nope. It's in your best interests for me to do what's safe for me. Killing a cyclist really puts a dampener on your day. If it takes you an extra thirty seconds or so - which is the order of delay we're talking about - to reach the next red light, well, boo hoo. Yes, it probably does irritate you, but I prefer you irritated to me dead. As vexing as that is for you, I've been run over twice since January - both times in clear view by idiots - and so I really have very little interest in shaving a few seconds off your journey time. Sorry.
Usually, I stay away from the kerb to force vehicles to pass me when it's safe, because I don't appreciate being ground against the side of the kerb by idiots who don't seem to appreciate the width of the road in comparison to my vehicle. I'd be the first to agree some cyclists are damn fools, but at the end of the day cyclists are *incredibly* vulnerable. I have close calls on a monthly basis, and it happens no matter how safely you ride. It's not surprising that a lot of us behave like dicks.
The problem with asteroid hunting is that something big enough to do serious damage is not actually very big, in real terms. Think the size of a big house, not a small moon. There are millions of these things zipping around in various directions and for each one, you have to compute their orbits, our orbit, and decide if they coincide at any point. Although we know how to do all this, there's just huge amounts of it to do and it's difficult to convince anyoen to give you enough funding to make a worthwhile job of it.
Oh no, they would have jobs, they would have income. Specifically, they would have worse jobs and lower income. Now I'm not defending the example given - it sounds like it is in blatant violation of Chinese law, never mind anything else - but throughout history people move to specialisation of labour because of the economic freedom it brings. And that is a history I've experienced at the sharp end.
You're thinking of something rather akin to a Laffer curve, the idea that taxing income at 0% and 100% will both realise zero revenue (the latter since no-one would work as you'd receive no income for yourself). Similarly, if we impose no requirements whatsoever on passwords, we end up with no security, since people will leave them blank. If we demand 128 character passwords with maximum entropy, we have no security, since it will be guaranteed to be written down somewhere stupid. Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium (hooray, a use for Rolle's theorem!).
Here's another argument for combinatorial maths fans. Calculate the expected time to guess a password of length n bits when the password is changed (1) never (2) after every attempt. Does the difference justify the effort?
(Late reply, been away for a week, apologies). Actually, Justice Eady is the most knowledgeable judge around on libel and privacy issues, having spent his career as a barrister working on both sides of the fence. His name comes up on controversial cases precise because they *are* difficult cases. Read his judgements sometime: while we may disagree with his conclusions, his reasoning is sound and well evidenced and narrowly ruled within existing case law.
I don't see a problem with this. The vendor has replied that it doesn't consider this to be a security issue, so surely a public notification isn't going to hurt anyone, right? Right? Oh, your customers are cancelling? I thought it wasn't an issue? What can I say, silly me.
Slashdot Mirror
Same. I moved in with my partner in early 2004 and being poor and in love, we couldn't afford a TV and found other ways (ahem) to spend our time. We've never got round to buying one. We did inherit one when we moved into our current place, and I'm glad it's there, because when the next 9/11 hits, the internet will be a dead zone (it was bad enough last time). Useful to know I can still get BBC One if I have to.
Nope. Porn went for VHS: it was more prosaic economics that did it for Betamax. Porn hasn't created the One Streaming Format yet, either. The porn industry went for HD-DVD over Bluray, an expensive mistake. The one thing they've done right is accepting and working with piracy to increase the size of the market.
And as well as being burned alive, he was also let go.
Have they given up on the Second Coming?
McBride was sacked in October last year.
If I was the US Navy, I'd let my opponents think they were better than they are too. Though since the US hasn't fought any meaningful naval engagements lately, it's difficult to tell.
MacDonald's provide an unbelievably good service. They serve something like half a billion Big Macs a year and vanishingly few of them contain cockroaches or dead rats or severed employee fingers. I'd like to see you do better ;)
Actually, many US states and countries have laws specifically encompassing the work that journalists do. Whether or not those laws should exist is an interesting question, but not the one at issue here, because in Chen's home state, they do.
In the sixties, actors were all stage trained, and did their craft directed towards an audience thirty feet away. No-one can see the tears welling up or the nervous tic in the face at that distance, so that was what acting looked like: big, strong, clear expression. It took quite a while before television realised that the audience was only six inches away - and if you watch Patrick Stewart closely, you can see, particularly in the early seasons, he is still playing to the big stage most of the time. He's just such a good actor you never pick it up.
On the other hand, it is surprising how often you can get away with handing over £3 notes :D Actually, in the UK, one Scottish banks still issues £1 notes. If you take them down into Englandshire, they are regularly mistaken for £5 notes, since they never see the ones. Profit, and it's sort of legal.
The problem is another order more interesting than that. For example, someone interested in stock market variability might ask: what is the density of stock market returns? You get something that looks vaguely normal. However, you can fit any number of distributions and get models that fit extremely closely. Where they break down is the extreme returns: you might have accepted any one of these models, but if you look at the tails of all of them the divergence is huge, meaning you have no real idea what the probability of a large shift actually is. So the problem is that models do not always tell a complete story, particularly for anything with any degree of complexity. In turn, when you do get events that exceed the model's normal operating paramters, suddenly you get equations not solving, run-times exploding, and output that is deemed unacceptable. This leads to the second problem, which is that inside any particular companies, you get micro-economic incentives not to investigate and use models properly (think of how computer users make decisions that work against good security practices - the process is analogous). Senior managers demand that modellers provide summaries, single numbers, and dashboards, and then treat this information as if it were the model. This problem is the biggest topic for discussion around regulatory water-coolers at the moment, and other than demanding increased technical capability from senior staff, there aren't any easy answers in this area.
That is my problem with this proposal. It seems reasonable on the surface, but anyone who has sat through CS101 should know that programs can be significantly more complex than they appear (the halting problem et al.). A real world financial model would be extremely easy to insert a depth charge into - the academic research has already been done showing how easy it is to create models that are computationally intractable. And yes, this would make an excellent subject for the underhanded C contest.
I've no idea what the impact of exercise is, but certainly the impact of diet on milk is vast. You can if you know what you're doing make a pretty good estimate of what a cow was fed on and even where it lives from its milk.
Nope. It's in your best interests for me to do what's safe for me. Killing a cyclist really puts a dampener on your day. If it takes you an extra thirty seconds or so - which is the order of delay we're talking about - to reach the next red light, well, boo hoo. Yes, it probably does irritate you, but I prefer you irritated to me dead. As vexing as that is for you, I've been run over twice since January - both times in clear view by idiots - and so I really have very little interest in shaving a few seconds off your journey time. Sorry.
Usually, I stay away from the kerb to force vehicles to pass me when it's safe, because I don't appreciate being ground against the side of the kerb by idiots who don't seem to appreciate the width of the road in comparison to my vehicle. I'd be the first to agree some cyclists are damn fools, but at the end of the day cyclists are *incredibly* vulnerable. I have close calls on a monthly basis, and it happens no matter how safely you ride. It's not surprising that a lot of us behave like dicks.
Hah. He doesn't even secure his Wi-Fi.
The problem with asteroid hunting is that something big enough to do serious damage is not actually very big, in real terms. Think the size of a big house, not a small moon. There are millions of these things zipping around in various directions and for each one, you have to compute their orbits, our orbit, and decide if they coincide at any point. Although we know how to do all this, there's just huge amounts of it to do and it's difficult to convince anyoen to give you enough funding to make a worthwhile job of it.
Oh no, they would have jobs, they would have income. Specifically, they would have worse jobs and lower income. Now I'm not defending the example given - it sounds like it is in blatant violation of Chinese law, never mind anything else - but throughout history people move to specialisation of labour because of the economic freedom it brings. And that is a history I've experienced at the sharp end.
You're thinking of something rather akin to a Laffer curve, the idea that taxing income at 0% and 100% will both realise zero revenue (the latter since no-one would work as you'd receive no income for yourself). Similarly, if we impose no requirements whatsoever on passwords, we end up with no security, since people will leave them blank. If we demand 128 character passwords with maximum entropy, we have no security, since it will be guaranteed to be written down somewhere stupid. Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium (hooray, a use for Rolle's theorem!).
Five replies, and not one person has "hunter2"?
Here's another argument for combinatorial maths fans. Calculate the expected time to guess a password of length n bits when the password is changed (1) never (2) after every attempt. Does the difference justify the effort?
What are you talking about? Real Radio only broadcast on FM.
(Late reply, been away for a week, apologies). Actually, Justice Eady is the most knowledgeable judge around on libel and privacy issues, having spent his career as a barrister working on both sides of the fence. His name comes up on controversial cases precise because they *are* difficult cases. Read his judgements sometime: while we may disagree with his conclusions, his reasoning is sound and well evidenced and narrowly ruled within existing case law.
I don't see a problem with this. The vendor has replied that it doesn't consider this to be a security issue, so surely a public notification isn't going to hurt anyone, right? Right? Oh, your customers are cancelling? I thought it wasn't an issue? What can I say, silly me.