Indeed, I seem to recall that a germanium diode had a ~0.2V forward voltage drop which made them better in rectifiers and such than the silicon diodes with ~0.6V.
At high currents, that voltage drop means less power wasted by the device. With transistors, that means a much lower base open voltage, though I don't remember exactly why or if that was useful...
most all wheel drive cars are slower off the line than their two wheel drive counterparts.
That's plain wrong. All else being equal, AWD is always faster off the line because you are usually traction limited at launch, and AWD allows you to hook up all your tires when you dump the clutch.
They are slower afterwards because of the extra weight and drivetrain losses, but no doubt they can take off like a bat outta hell from a full stop.
All the laws about mandating electronic records need a provision that forbids all entities that handle the data from "exporting" it overseas in any way.
Whether that is storage or processing or analysis, do not send my data overseas. Period.
The same standard should be retroactively applied to bank records, credit data and the like.
This is an example of what to expect if we let the Government aggregate various sources of data on the people, both from their own records and from private companies via "patriotic" and "for safety" laws.
Couple this massive database with the phenomenon of law enforcement favoring the more "profitable" side (traffic tickets, etc), which probably leaves less personnel for the parts involving heavy thinking, I expect that a lot of the research process for narrowing down (or indeed, generating) suspect lists will happen in the computer. Which, I should remind you, "does not lie".
Not to mention the obvious possibility of blanket application of "the law" via simple matches in a database, kind of what RIAA is doing currently. Only that when the government does it, there will be much less recourse, what with the imposed gags, secrecy and unaccountability they seek.
After the DST change, how will accounting records for the past years be handled ? The OS or software will have to remember the DST rules both before and after the cut-off, to do date conversions in a meaningful way.
If the machine has been keeping GMT records (as it should most of the time), then viewing old records would show an incorrect time on some of them, if this is not taken into account.
If it kept local times, then the interval calculations will be off (I imagine those require conversion to GMT to make any sense).
I suppose they ran out of meaningful questions that contain the "Ajax" term, but they still need to maintain constant fire to keep the term fresh in our minds.
If this technique is successful, and all signs point to "yes", expect to see more development houses coin new terms for existing technology, to be remembered as the "inventors" of said technology.
If the second circuit is through the same provider, I would think it's likely going through the same physical conduits as the first one, so I am not sure you're protected from the accidental fiber cut.
I keep reading posts from proud Americans how the bombs were justified, saved x lives and the world should be thankful for the guardian angel that US is.
Yet no word on the point of view (that I assume was never taught in US schools) that the bombing was unnecessary, as Japan was about to surrender, the wheels were in motion but accidental/intentional communication problems prevented that from happening before the bombs were dropped.
I also cannot discount the point of view that US had used this opportunity to do a real-life test and show the world its new weapon technology, just like recently in Iraq with the bunker busters and stealth fighters, and to ensure its uncontended first page in the world superpower book.
No words on that fact that mostly CIVILIANS were killed in a horrible way in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Before everyone starts posting "I've been doing that for ten years" and "of course, firewalls are teh suk", let me say that while TFA does make some good points (about "perceived safety" of firewalls), I still do not see any way that its conclusion would be correct.
First off, redundancy in security is good. You want multiple layers of security. It does not make sense to remove a layer just because you installed a different (non-overlapping) mechanism in place.
Second, firewalls are a policy enforcement mechanism, and a single point of control. Under stress it is much easier to control access from a firewall than the eclectic mix of machines behind it. The point needs to be made that while securing each machine is a good idea, that should not be done to replace the firewall.
Visible services can't be assumed to be bulletproof. Compromising the frontend machines can result in them becoming rogue agents (DDOS and whatnot). Firewalls attempt to mitigate this risk by blocking outgoing access and thus rendering the network less useful to the attacker. Without a firewall, well...
The network of machines is secure today, after a lot of careful design work. Is it stable ? Will it still be secure after the next site upgrade ?
While more complex systems can occasionally be more secure by their inherent obfuscation, verifying such systems from the inside is also difficult, but manageable given the manpower. When the security components are mutable though (they are OS services and custom software which are upgraded often), the complexity of the system works against us, making it that much harder to verify that all the combinations still result in a secure system. Not to mention that the machine verification involves application-level checking which is either laborious or impossible for the network admin to do.
From TFA:
Meanwhile, the clients sit in the clear. We protect them by boosting their immunity levels so that they can exist in harsher conditions. They run secure OSs, fully patched with current anti-virus protection.
So our definition of a secure OS is Windows (what other OS needs to have "current anti-virus protection"). That sure explains a lot. I suppose those machines wouldn't happen to have the firewall enabled, would they ?
I just cannot help noticing that the name of Microsoft's software "Atlas" appears in the text only three times, while the detergent name is in almost every paragraph, a whopping eight times.
Is Microsoft pushing someone else's "technology" in their press releases, or is someone else spinning their release in their favor ?
Camera sensors usually have 10 or 12 bits per color. TIFF uses 8, so some of that info is chopped. It's the least significant bits, sure, but sometimes that extra shadow or highlight detail is quite useful.
It seems that when page A redirects to B, Google not only considers that a hit for A, but also assigns B's content to A (I just skimmed through all the posts here so maybe that's not what happens).
In that case, it seems to make more sense to just ignore A altogether since the hit and content rightfully belong to B.
This could be done by treating redirects as empty one-link pages, thus unifying the handlers and defeating this practice.
The phone is an appliance. I didn't install, nor do I manage its software. The phone company does. Same with the software in my car's ECU, or in the microwave, or any other embedded system.
The provider, or failing that, the company who made the phone should clearly be responsible.
...has always been to never click on emailed links pertaining to anything important, especially banking and such.
Bookmark all the financial sites you use, and whenever you receive emails with such "friendly" links, use your bookmark instead, to log in to the site. If it was important, you will see it on the next page there.
I never click on the links even when I know they are legit (to avoid forming a habit).
As in my previous post, page two of the fake website asks for credit card. Since the sheep never wonder why a certain piece of private information is "required" on a form, I bet a lot of people actually filled that in too.
The link in the scam email eventually redirects to this IP address in France, *after* ebay verifies your login. Incidentally, the one I received came through a server in Korea.
They've been doing that for a while. The antivirus just scans for the signature of the "self-extract and execute" code piece, and in some occasions implements the unpacker itself so it can scan the content, once the packed object's signature has been detected.
Even for polymorphic code, you can still find the unpacker's signature, albeit with a bit more difficulty.
Thanks. It's not very intuitive, but I suppose it'll have to do.
Maybe it's just me accustomed to the "old ways", but it seems that Gnome is following the "Windows way", that is, make it easy for the idiots and god help anyone else, what with the pretty icons and the amount of clicks (and only clicks) you need to do things.
I just hope they fix that godawful file selection thing. I have never found a tool so unfriendly to "power users". I mean, what's up with forcing people to browse instead of letting them type the path.
I mean having to browse through to/usr/bin and waiting minutes for it to build a fancy list so I can finally select what I already knew I wanted, that annoyance is worth wanting to switch to KDE or something else that allows me to TYPE stuff. Yaknow, like the old interface.
Dude, think before you type, especially after touting how illogical people are.
Murder happens to *also* be an immoral act. However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person.
To put it in another words. Just because an illegal activity happens to be immoral does not imply that a connection between legality and morality.
if it's cheap to bring the suit, it's cheap to defend it, and if you're doing nothing wrong, then you should be safe from bankruptcy
There is no relationship between how easy it is to file the suit and how easy would be to defend it. Defending depends on the merits of the suit and the pocket of the defendant.
You are also confusing law with ethics. You can certainly go bankrupt even if you did nothing wrong, if someone wants it really bad.
In an environment like email where 90% of traffic is noise (spam), it is very likely that such emails would get lost, and I am sure ICANN are aware of this.
Not to mention that this opens the possibility of bombing (i.e. send 100 transfer requests, you only need one to go unanswered). This ruling is idiotic and makes no sense. A domain is a lease, if it's paid up then it doesn't matter that you ignore somebody else wanting it. It's still yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I seem to recall that a germanium diode had a ~0.2V forward voltage drop which made them better in rectifiers and such than the silicon diodes with ~0.6V. At high currents, that voltage drop means less power wasted by the device. With transistors, that means a much lower base open voltage, though I don't remember exactly why or if that was useful...
most all wheel drive cars are slower off the line than their two wheel drive counterparts.
That's plain wrong. All else being equal, AWD is always faster off the line because you are usually traction limited at launch, and AWD allows you to hook up all your tires when you dump the clutch. They are slower afterwards because of the extra weight and drivetrain losses, but no doubt they can take off like a bat outta hell from a full stop.
All the laws about mandating electronic records need a provision that forbids all entities that handle the data from "exporting" it overseas in any way. Whether that is storage or processing or analysis, do not send my data overseas. Period. The same standard should be retroactively applied to bank records, credit data and the like.
This is an example of what to expect if we let the Government aggregate various sources of data on the people, both from their own records and from private companies via "patriotic" and "for safety" laws.
Couple this massive database with the phenomenon of law enforcement favoring the more "profitable" side (traffic tickets, etc), which probably leaves less personnel for the parts involving heavy thinking, I expect that a lot of the research process for narrowing down (or indeed, generating) suspect lists will happen in the computer. Which, I should remind you, "does not lie".
Not to mention the obvious possibility of blanket application of "the law" via simple matches in a database, kind of what RIAA is doing currently. Only that when the government does it, there will be much less recourse, what with the imposed gags, secrecy and unaccountability they seek.
After the DST change, how will accounting records for the past years be handled ? The OS or software will have to remember the DST rules both before and after the cut-off, to do date conversions in a meaningful way.
If the machine has been keeping GMT records (as it should most of the time), then viewing old records would show an incorrect time on some of them, if this is not taken into account.
If it kept local times, then the interval calculations will be off (I imagine those require conversion to GMT to make any sense).
I suppose they ran out of meaningful questions that contain the "Ajax" term, but they still need to maintain constant fire to keep the term fresh in our minds.
If this technique is successful, and all signs point to "yes", expect to see more development houses coin new terms for existing technology, to be remembered as the "inventors" of said technology.
If the second circuit is through the same provider, I would think it's likely going through the same physical conduits as the first one, so I am not sure you're protected from the accidental fiber cut.
I keep reading posts from proud Americans how the bombs were justified, saved x lives and the world should be thankful for the guardian angel that US is.
Yet no word on the point of view (that I assume was never taught in US schools) that the bombing was unnecessary, as Japan was about to surrender, the wheels were in motion but accidental/intentional communication problems prevented that from happening before the bombs were dropped.
I also cannot discount the point of view that US had used this opportunity to do a real-life test and show the world its new weapon technology, just like recently in Iraq with the bunker busters and stealth fighters, and to ensure its uncontended first page in the world superpower book.
No words on that fact that mostly CIVILIANS were killed in a horrible way in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What do you use to make sure your boxes do not make outgoing calls ?
Would you notice a new "app" that only accepts connections from a specific IP address ?
Before everyone starts posting "I've been doing that for ten years" and "of course, firewalls are teh suk", let me say that while TFA does make some good points (about "perceived safety" of firewalls), I still do not see any way that its conclusion would be correct.
First off, redundancy in security is good. You want multiple layers of security. It does not make sense to remove a layer just because you installed a different (non-overlapping) mechanism in place.
Second, firewalls are a policy enforcement mechanism, and a single point of control. Under stress it is much easier to control access from a firewall than the eclectic mix of machines behind it. The point needs to be made that while securing each machine is a good idea, that should not be done to replace the firewall.
Visible services can't be assumed to be bulletproof. Compromising the frontend machines can result in them becoming rogue agents (DDOS and whatnot). Firewalls attempt to mitigate this risk by blocking outgoing access and thus rendering the network less useful to the attacker. Without a firewall, well...
The network of machines is secure today, after a lot of careful design work. Is it stable ? Will it still be secure after the next site upgrade ?
While more complex systems can occasionally be more secure by their inherent obfuscation, verifying such systems from the inside is also difficult, but manageable given the manpower. When the security components are mutable though (they are OS services and custom software which are upgraded often), the complexity of the system works against us, making it that much harder to verify that all the combinations still result in a secure system. Not to mention that the machine verification involves application-level checking which is either laborious or impossible for the network admin to do.
From TFA: Meanwhile, the clients sit in the clear. We protect them by boosting their immunity levels so that they can exist in harsher conditions. They run secure OSs, fully patched with current anti-virus protection.
So our definition of a secure OS is Windows (what other OS needs to have "current anti-virus protection"). That sure explains a lot. I suppose those machines wouldn't happen to have the firewall enabled, would they ?
I just cannot help noticing that the name of Microsoft's software "Atlas" appears in the text only three times, while the detergent name is in almost every paragraph, a whopping eight times. Is Microsoft pushing someone else's "technology" in their press releases, or is someone else spinning their release in their favor ?
Camera sensors usually have 10 or 12 bits per color. TIFF uses 8, so some of that info is chopped. It's the least significant bits, sure, but sometimes that extra shadow or highlight detail is quite useful.
It seems that when page A redirects to B, Google not only considers that a hit for A, but also assigns B's content to A (I just skimmed through all the posts here so maybe that's not what happens).
In that case, it seems to make more sense to just ignore A altogether since the hit and content rightfully belong to B.
This could be done by treating redirects as empty one-link pages, thus unifying the handlers and defeating this practice.
The phone is an appliance. I didn't install, nor do I manage its software. The phone company does. Same with the software in my car's ECU, or in the microwave, or any other embedded system.
The provider, or failing that, the company who made the phone should clearly be responsible.
Bookmark all the financial sites you use, and whenever you receive emails with such "friendly" links, use your bookmark instead, to log in to the site. If it was important, you will see it on the next page there.
I never click on the links even when I know they are legit (to avoid forming a habit).
As in my previous post, page two of the fake website asks for credit card. Since the sheep never wonder why a certain piece of private information is "required" on a form, I bet a lot of people actually filled that in too.
The link in the scam email eventually redirects to this IP address in France, *after* ebay verifies your login. Incidentally, the one I received came through a server in Korea.
http://62.193.217.91/eBayISAPI.php
Page two asks for your credit card, which answers the questions about the benefits of ebay phishing.
They've been doing that for a while. The antivirus just scans for the signature of the "self-extract and execute" code piece, and in some occasions implements the unpacker itself so it can scan the content, once the packed object's signature has been detected.
Even for polymorphic code, you can still find the unpacker's signature, albeit with a bit more difficulty.
Does this cover autolinking of URLs, like every decent mail or IM client does with text messages ?
Thanks. It's not very intuitive, but I suppose it'll have to do.
Maybe it's just me accustomed to the "old ways", but it seems that Gnome is following the "Windows way", that is, make it easy for the idiots and god help anyone else, what with the pretty icons and the amount of clicks (and only clicks) you need to do things.
Open a file of unknown type in Mozilla.
Yes I can configure Mozilla to know about it, but there is no reason why this particular dialog should be made more difficult than before.
I just hope they fix that godawful file selection thing. I have never found a tool so unfriendly to "power users". I mean, what's up with forcing people to browse instead of letting them type the path.
I mean having to browse through to
Dude, think before you type, especially after touting how illogical people are.
Murder happens to *also* be an immoral act. However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person.
To put it in another words. Just because an illegal activity happens to be immoral does not imply that a connection between legality and morality.
if it's cheap to bring the suit, it's cheap to defend it, and if you're doing nothing wrong, then you should be safe from bankruptcy
There is no relationship between how easy it is to file the suit and how easy would be to defend it. Defending depends on the merits of the suit and the pocket of the defendant.
You are also confusing law with ethics. You can certainly go bankrupt even if you did nothing wrong, if someone wants it really bad.
In an environment like email where 90% of traffic is noise (spam), it is very likely that such emails would get lost, and I am sure ICANN are aware of this. Not to mention that this opens the possibility of bombing (i.e. send 100 transfer requests, you only need one to go unanswered). This ruling is idiotic and makes no sense. A domain is a lease, if it's paid up then it doesn't matter that you ignore somebody else wanting it. It's still yours.