Not sure about your bank, but mine made sure that they disclaimed all responsibility when I signed up for online banking. Fortunately they do offer two-factor transaction authorisation, so a thief has to go to quite a bit more effort to get at my balance. I also have no idea how much responsibility the law (here in Australia) allows the bank to disclaim; typically one can't abrogate negligence via contract, but I sure wouldn't like to take a bank to court to find out.
Why should the customer be held responsible for something that is clearly the bank's responsibility? ie, using a valid certificate, providing two-factor authentication of transactions, and instigating sensible daily transaction limits?
A completely clean computer system is still vulnerable to infrastructure attacks such as homoglyphs, cache poisoning, and certificate fraud.
Or, in other words, there should be responsibility and accountability on both sides of the exchange.
The only way microwave radiation is going to sterilise someone is by cooking their reproductive cells. These HERF devices would have to be pointed right at a crotch, and used for enough time for all the flesh in the area to be cooked, for sterilisation to occur. I rather suspect that even the dimmest of backyard tinkerer might figure out to point the device in another direction when they start to smell the pork.
To help you understand the large gap between the amount of microwave radiation necessary to harm humans, and the amount necessary to harm electronics, try microwaving your phone for 15 seconds. Then try microwaving some raw chicken for 15 seconds.
Don't eat the chicken, it's been irradiated. Also, it's raw.
Probably the toxic nature of the clove oil makes it unsafe:-) It's the stuff most generally recommended for euthanising fish (I have a small bottle of it in case of infection in my bettas, having watched a few die slowly and painfully in the past).
Topical application, even in the mouth, is pretty safe; toxic levels are typically well in excess of the amount you can buy in one hit, but you should most definitely be careful to use only as much as needed. And I probably don't need to tell you it tastes awful, if you've been using it for any length of time:-)
Did you see the plate glass window collapse at 5:13 or so? I'm not sure if plastic sheets and file cabinets would be enough against the pressure of that much water.
There are few languages that are powerful enough to use practically, yet not powerful enough to dynamically load object code into the current runtime. Objective-C certainly supports a whole host of dynamic loading and class rebinding options. I don't think eval() counts for squat.
There's a large number of reasons to be cautious about investing capital into an iPhone development program, but I don't think choosing C# as your implementation language instead of Objective-C is one of them. (Well, the $399 personal yearly fee for MonoTouch would cut into your profits, I guess).
You are suggesting the creation of a new address space. The specific details of the packet header are irrelevant to the fact I present here, that is, to support your new address space a large number of protocols must be changed to understand the new address format (34 bits, in your case) and direct packets to the right place.
Yes. The shake-up I would expect from that, though, would be for the Internet industry to just go ahead and use an alternative root for DNS, and an alternative addressing registry.
Health cover is insurance. Insurance does not profit by refusing to honour legal contracts, insurance profits by correctly assessing risks and charging a price for insurance that means the sum of the fees is greater than the sum of the payouts: most insurance policies are never called in.
Shady insurance companies may use contracts that reduce their risks by eliminating medical conditions or causes that would cause more frequent payouts, but like all insurance, if you do not understand the PDS, do not sign up: get legal advice or find a provider whose PDS is not obtuse.
The problem is not that capitalism drives insurance providers to refuse payouts, the problem is that consumerism creates a race to the bottom: consumers select primarily on price, damn the quality. Flown economy lately?
Universal set union universal set = universal set.
If you define a minimum frequency of violation the sets may be more interesting:-)
(Or are you or anyone else able to honestly claim that you have never in your life knowingly or unknowingly violated copyright law for both software and music?)
I am amazed and enraged that in 2009 the best vehicle for video on the web is flash. We, as an industry, have failed so hard we shouldn't be willing to show our faces outside for the next five years.
Inconsistent approaches to tags has been only a tiny part of that. It's not really that hard to do the object/embed dance, the trouble is codecs. They change frequently, they're largely non-free and thus next to impossible to see in a free browser, and everyone insists on their specific kind. With images, there's really only three contenders with little qualitative difference between them, and plenty of accessible software to convert between them. With video, there's at least 20 codec families, and literally hundreds of variants across all the families; that's before you even get into the problem with containers.
Or, in other words, the <video> element with no specified codecs to be supported is not very likely to succeed.
(Not that I have high hopes for HTML5 in the first place)
Out of curiosity, which languages are these? I've been writing commercial software for 15 years. I try to learn a new language each year (ruby in 2006, php in 2008, python in 2009). But I currently have very little idea what "more safe" or "less safe" mean when describing a computer language. Any pointers?
"More safe" would imply language features designed to limit the scope of your mistakes. The language features that I see most commonly causing whole-application errors are memory management, typecasting, and resource locking.
So eliminate or mitigate those, and you're safer. Garbage collection with cycle detection eliminates dangling pointers and vastly reduces the chance of memory leaks. Strong static typing with generics removes the most common cause of casting in OO languages. Erlang solves resource locking by making 'variables' write-once -- or you could move away from procedural development and take full advantage of scalability without side effects:-)
Try learning Erlang (functional) or Prolog (logical) for some views of languages that escape many of the pitfalls of imperative/procedural, although of course, those paradigms have their own pitfalls to be aware of:-)
That would depend on your perspective. If you consider the motivation behind both actions, they're pretty similar: a thorough disdain for the customer and for the consequences of the action.
And hey, let's face it, there were no real consequences to the root kit fiasco ($7.50 per claimant in a class action is peanuts for a crime which carries a maximum penalty of $100,000 per violation).
(Also expressed as: you can't apply technological solutions to sociological problems.)
Re:It's called "fiction" for a reason
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
Good example!
Science fiction is best separated from space opera by determining if the events and circumstances in the book are at least self consistent, and preferably consistent with current scientific understanding. Exceptions should be explained, eg, faster than light travel. The explanation does not need to be rigorous, obviously, but it should be self consistent.
From the Earth to the Moon didn't take into account the massive forces involved in launching something from a cannon into space, but those forces weren't understood at the time. The rest of it was pretty sound.
And in computer science, if you say that something has been proven, or you say that something has been demonstrated by empirical evidence, you get laughed out of all respectable circles.
Instead, you need to shout louder than the other participants in the debate.
Very clever. But scientific hypotheses are not mathematical proofs: they do not need to be proven, they need to closely fit the best available evidence, predict results, and not be falsified either experimentally or evidentially.
If I offer "Obama was not born on the North Pole" as a scientific hypothesis, it is of course unprovable. No matter what evidence I provide, you could always claim that God has changed all evidence to hide Obama's true birth place, or every gradation of evidence tampering below that down to a photoshopped birth certificate. Fortunately, you also can't prove that my statement is not true. Thus, to resolve the question, we resort to the balance of evidence. There's no evidence that Obama was born on the North Pole. There's plenty of evidence that he was born in Honolulu: the above linked birth certificate, two papers with birth notices, records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health, and testimony from witnesses. No evidence for North Pole, weighed against more evidence for Honolulu than is required to become President of the United States of America... hmm. Tough one.
And of course, so it is with anthropogenic global warming. It's not proven. It could be wrong. It could be a war on polar bears waged by the seals via means of a concerted flatulence attack, or it could be solar activity, or it could be that we're not really warming at all. But the evidence is against all those things: methane levels are not rising appreciably enough to account for the changes we see, solar activity has been discredited in several ways, and the best measurements we can take strongly indicate a global temperature increase. If we're not seeing anthropogenic global warming, we're seeing something that's doing a damn good job of faking it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes :(
Not sure about your bank, but mine made sure that they disclaimed all responsibility when I signed up for online banking. Fortunately they do offer two-factor transaction authorisation, so a thief has to go to quite a bit more effort to get at my balance. I also have no idea how much responsibility the law (here in Australia) allows the bank to disclaim; typically one can't abrogate negligence via contract, but I sure wouldn't like to take a bank to court to find out.
Most of that transfer time is due to the slow write speed of your iPhone's flash drive, not the transfer medium.
Dust-proof has a certain appeal right now...
My two responses:
Or, in other words, there should be responsibility and accountability on both sides of the exchange.
The only way microwave radiation is going to sterilise someone is by cooking their reproductive cells. These HERF devices would have to be pointed right at a crotch, and used for enough time for all the flesh in the area to be cooked, for sterilisation to occur. I rather suspect that even the dimmest of backyard tinkerer might figure out to point the device in another direction when they start to smell the pork.
To help you understand the large gap between the amount of microwave radiation necessary to harm humans, and the amount necessary to harm electronics, try microwaving your phone for 15 seconds. Then try microwaving some raw chicken for 15 seconds.
Don't eat the chicken, it's been irradiated. Also, it's raw.
Yeah, I use "at 23:47 mail boss@company imworkinglol.txt" too.
Probably the toxic nature of the clove oil makes it unsafe :-) It's the stuff most generally recommended for euthanising fish (I have a small bottle of it in case of infection in my bettas, having watched a few die slowly and painfully in the past).
Topical application, even in the mouth, is pretty safe; toxic levels are typically well in excess of the amount you can buy in one hit, but you should most definitely be careful to use only as much as needed. And I probably don't need to tell you it tastes awful, if you've been using it for any length of time :-)
Did you see the plate glass window collapse at 5:13 or so? I'm not sure if plastic sheets and file cabinets would be enough against the pressure of that much water.
There are few languages that are powerful enough to use practically, yet not powerful enough to dynamically load object code into the current runtime. Objective-C certainly supports a whole host of dynamic loading and class rebinding options. I don't think eval() counts for squat.
There's a large number of reasons to be cautious about investing capital into an iPhone development program, but I don't think choosing C# as your implementation language instead of Objective-C is one of them. (Well, the $399 personal yearly fee for MonoTouch would cut into your profits, I guess).
Then jailbreak it and run a voip-over-3g app, and you're a telco's worst nightmare!
I am proud to live in a country where we can eat the animals on our national emblem.
You are suggesting the creation of a new address space. The specific details of the packet header are irrelevant to the fact I present here, that is, to support your new address space a large number of protocols must be changed to understand the new address format (34 bits, in your case) and direct packets to the right place.
That work has been done: it's called IPv6.
Yes. The shake-up I would expect from that, though, would be for the Internet industry to just go ahead and use an alternative root for DNS, and an alternative addressing registry.
Health cover is insurance. Insurance does not profit by refusing to honour legal contracts, insurance profits by correctly assessing risks and charging a price for insurance that means the sum of the fees is greater than the sum of the payouts: most insurance policies are never called in.
Shady insurance companies may use contracts that reduce their risks by eliminating medical conditions or causes that would cause more frequent payouts, but like all insurance, if you do not understand the PDS, do not sign up: get legal advice or find a provider whose PDS is not obtuse.
The problem is not that capitalism drives insurance providers to refuse payouts, the problem is that consumerism creates a race to the bottom: consumers select primarily on price, damn the quality. Flown economy lately?
Universal set union universal set = universal set.
If you define a minimum frequency of violation the sets may be more interesting :-)
(Or are you or anyone else able to honestly claim that you have never in your life knowingly or unknowingly violated copyright law for both software and music?)
I prefer to just swipe my card.
I am amazed and enraged that in 2009 the best vehicle for video on the web is flash. We, as an industry, have failed so hard we shouldn't be willing to show our faces outside for the next five years.
Inconsistent approaches to tags has been only a tiny part of that. It's not really that hard to do the object/embed dance, the trouble is codecs. They change frequently, they're largely non-free and thus next to impossible to see in a free browser, and everyone insists on their specific kind. With images, there's really only three contenders with little qualitative difference between them, and plenty of accessible software to convert between them. With video, there's at least 20 codec families, and literally hundreds of variants across all the families; that's before you even get into the problem with containers.
Or, in other words, the <video> element with no specified codecs to be supported is not very likely to succeed.
(Not that I have high hopes for HTML5 in the first place)
"More safe" would imply language features designed to limit the scope of your mistakes. The language features that I see most commonly causing whole-application errors are memory management, typecasting, and resource locking.
So eliminate or mitigate those, and you're safer. Garbage collection with cycle detection eliminates dangling pointers and vastly reduces the chance of memory leaks. Strong static typing with generics removes the most common cause of casting in OO languages. Erlang solves resource locking by making 'variables' write-once -- or you could move away from procedural development and take full advantage of scalability without side effects :-)
Try learning Erlang (functional) or Prolog (logical) for some views of languages that escape many of the pitfalls of imperative/procedural, although of course, those paradigms have their own pitfalls to be aware of :-)
That would depend on your perspective. If you consider the motivation behind both actions, they're pretty similar: a thorough disdain for the customer and for the consequences of the action.
And hey, let's face it, there were no real consequences to the root kit fiasco ($7.50 per claimant in a class action is peanuts for a crime which carries a maximum penalty of $100,000 per violation).
(Also expressed as: you can't apply technological solutions to sociological problems.)
Good example!
Science fiction is best separated from space opera by determining if the events and circumstances in the book are at least self consistent, and preferably consistent with current scientific understanding. Exceptions should be explained, eg, faster than light travel. The explanation does not need to be rigorous, obviously, but it should be self consistent.
From the Earth to the Moon didn't take into account the massive forces involved in launching something from a cannon into space, but those forces weren't understood at the time. The rest of it was pretty sound.
And in computer science, if you say that something has been proven, or you say that something has been demonstrated by empirical evidence, you get laughed out of all respectable circles.
Instead, you need to shout louder than the other participants in the debate.
Very clever. But scientific hypotheses are not mathematical proofs: they do not need to be proven, they need to closely fit the best available evidence, predict results, and not be falsified either experimentally or evidentially.
If I offer "Obama was not born on the North Pole" as a scientific hypothesis, it is of course unprovable. No matter what evidence I provide, you could always claim that God has changed all evidence to hide Obama's true birth place, or every gradation of evidence tampering below that down to a photoshopped birth certificate. Fortunately, you also can't prove that my statement is not true. Thus, to resolve the question, we resort to the balance of evidence. There's no evidence that Obama was born on the North Pole. There's plenty of evidence that he was born in Honolulu: the above linked birth certificate, two papers with birth notices, records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health, and testimony from witnesses. No evidence for North Pole, weighed against more evidence for Honolulu than is required to become President of the United States of America... hmm. Tough one.
And of course, so it is with anthropogenic global warming. It's not proven. It could be wrong. It could be a war on polar bears waged by the seals via means of a concerted flatulence attack, or it could be solar activity, or it could be that we're not really warming at all. But the evidence is against all those things: methane levels are not rising appreciably enough to account for the changes we see, solar activity has been discredited in several ways, and the best measurements we can take strongly indicate a global temperature increase. If we're not seeing anthropogenic global warming, we're seeing something that's doing a damn good job of faking it.
Maybe Obama is in cahoots with the seals.
You're right, I didn't read and understand your comment well enough, so perhaps I should've started with your signature :-)
Sorry for my reply, but rest assured, my incompetence doesn't get hidden in AC posts, and I don't post with the intent of trolling.