Oh and your recycled paper? It is *more* environmentally destructive to produce, and will always be. Re-use it, compost it, or burn it.
Why? Not having looked into the processes involved in exhaustive detail, my naive understanding is that you make recycled paper by shredding and bleaching old paper. To make new paper, you need to plant trees, let them grow, then cut them down, mulch them, add a few other things and then go through basically the same process as making recycled paper. What are the extra processes involved in making recycled paper that aren't required for new paper and offset the other costs?
The more expensive drip filter machines have a vacuum flask for storing the coffee rather than a hot plate. As a result, the coffee doesn't taste burned if you leave it for a while (but does stay hot for a few hours) and, as a result, you don't even need to time it particularly carefully for the start of the meeting.
They're in most hotels. They produce a brown liquid that is a vague approximation of coffee. After an 8-hour flight with a couple of hours of travel at each end, if it's a choice between that or leaving the hotel to find good coffee, the machine wins. I've never understood them for home or office use though - they're more expensive than most ways of producing better coffee.
And that artillery is well dug-in in mountainous terrain so even nuking them wouldn't stop the carnage.
Nuking within 50 miles of Seoul would be counterproductive if your goal were to avoid deaths in South Korea, but I wouldn't be too sure about the above claim. 1950s-era artillery typically requires manual operation - killing the soldiers near it will prevent it from firing. Even if it's dug in, fuel-air bombs that either burn them out or make the air unbreathable would likely remove the threat, though it may not be politically feasible to kill that many people.
The backlash against the US happens when a company in country A does business with an individual in country B and the US decides that its laws should apply (e.g. enforcement of US patents). No one objects when the US decides that companies trading in the USA have to obey US laws, any more than they object when the US insists that people living in the USA have to obey US laws.
When that gets tested in court, they'll likely have to show that this statistical data can no be deanonymised which, given the fact that that's been shown to be basically impossible for any data and still have it remain useful, should be a good time to invest in shares of popcorn merchants.
The air does blow slightly downwards. You put your hands in, then slowly pull them upwards and all of the water is blown downwards (where, apparently, it collects in a sludgy pool in the base of the machine). I'm a bit surprised by the point of this article though, because you only use the machine after you wash your hands. The washing process is the bit that's supposed to remove the germs, not the drying!
That depends on whether it's an exemption for a category of person or for a category of activity. For example, I disagree with the laws against torturing animals having exemptions for certain religions - either it's acceptable for anyone to do it or it's unacceptable for anyone to do it and the lawmakers should decide. Having public interest exceptions are fine though. We used to have exemptions to the official secrets act like this, so if you disclosed state secrets that it was in the public interest to know then you could use that as a defence. Similarly, a defence for revealing trade secrets if it is to expose illegal behaviour sounds like a good exemption to have.
In this context, the guy is the cloud provider. His customers, if they're sensible, will have their own backups and so will be able to recover, but they also won't trust his business much if that's their recovery strategy from his incompetence.
Even with online backups, there's no way that this should happen. The backup system should be taking read-only snapshots at periodic intervals, so even if you rm -rf you'll only delete the live data and be able to revert to the snapshot from an hour ago.
The short amber phase is for people to slow down because the light is about to turn red. If it just turned red, you'd have people slamming on their breaks at every light
I think you misunderstood. I'm not suggesting removing the amber phase, I'm suggesting making it longer. In various places in the US (including Washington DC) it's been shortened to make more people accidentally run red lights and get fines.
The short amber phase is dangerous, but the thing that amazes me is that a lot of US states have zero delay between the light going red in one direction and going green in the other. In the UK, that's been illegal for several decades and makes a noticeable difference to the number of accidents.
Your argument is illogical. Tremendous amounts of money have been spent trying to make cars safer. Laws regulating driving and car safety are stricter than ever
And yet very little effort is put into making the roads safer, in spite of the fact that many of them are under direct government control. Things like traffic light timings would be relatively easy to change and could have a big impact on road safety.
They're also employing a lot fewer people. One of the problems that cities that relied on various forms of manufacturing have seen is that greater automation means fewer employees per factory. It's then also easier for the company to pay them well, because labour is a far smaller proportion of their total costs. When a factory is employing 10,000 people to manually assemble whatever it's producing, a 5% pay increase is a huge cut of their profits and may be enough to push them into the red. When they're paying 100-1000 people to manage, maintain, and repair automated assembly lines, a 10-20% pay increase has a far smaller effect on the balance sheet. The 9,000 other people still need to make a living somehow though.
There isn't likely to be any complaint. The British government is currently a little bit shaky over the Panama leaks. It turns out that the Prime Minister blocked previous EU plans to strengthen disclosure rules for off-shore trusts, and is the beneficiary of an off-shore trust. The Chancellor wasn't popular even before the current revelations, but it turns out that both he and the PM have benefitted from the lower tax rate for high income holders and a large chunk of his income comes from dividends in a company that hasn't paid any UK tax for years. They're playing up the fact that it was a British commissioner who is pushing this because they want to make it look as if the British Government is in favour of this kind of thing. Now, of course, they may try to block it in a year's time when people have all forgotten about the current scandals...
The authors say they "assume that the attacker already has control over the victim's PC," but that's not right. They assume that they not only have the PC, but a running browser which the user left logged into Google services
If the user is using much Google stuff, then that's pretty easy. Just wait until they log into gmail and open an invisible tab with the same cookie. And if that asks for authentication then pop up a thing in the gmail tab saying 'for extra security, Google needs you to authenticate again'. Now you've compromised their Google account and you can install the 2FA trojans for everything else.
Designing a sandbox that provides/emulates a basic CPU while PROVABLY not allowing access to any resource outside of the sandbox would be a comp sci project that could advance security in a huge way.
It exists. You might want to look up Google Native Client. The verifier for it has been formally verified and guarantees that no memory accesses can be to the outside of the sandbox. Of course, that's not the entire problem. It's trivial to prove that a program that has no side effects is secure, but anything useful in a sandbox has to be able to communicate with the world outside of the sandbox. And as soon as it can communicate with the outside world, it becomes a staging ground for attacking the bits that are outside of the sandbox and are not verified.
Even if you're doing a very theoretical CS course, cryptography and information theory should be covered and these are both very relevant to security. Complexity theory and game theory are core parts of computer science and are also fundamental to computer security (what is the worst-case behaviour of this algorithm in the presence of an adversary?). You might not be taught things labelled security, but the fundamental concepts should be there.
The 'only' expensive bit still to do then is the lander. Not coincidentally, this is also the only bit which has no other use, so money spent on design has no future pay-back (except for more moon missions.)
In contrast, the landers used on the Apollo missions funded a lot of research that has quite widespread application. The light composites and the joints used to allow them to be folded and deployed have appeared in a load of other things. Modern folding bicycles are probably the most visible, as most of the other uses look a lot less like the lander.
Hurricane-force winds and hydrogen fluoride rain will make that an exciting place to live. It might be the most earthlike, but outside of active volcanos and ocean trenches you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere on Earth less hospitable. It makes the south pole look like a pleasant holiday resort in comparison.
I once worked out that if you removed blacks from the US population, our murder rate dropped down to the high end of Europe's. IE it would still be 'problematic' by European standards, but no longer an outlier.
You might want to try the same statistics removing the poorest 10-20% of the population.
I was going to reply to say that it isn't there, but then I discovered that 'smaller browser windows' includes basically anything that isn't a maximised window. If your browser is under about 1050 pixels wide, it disappears. That's significantly wider than a browser window needs to be for line wrapping to hit optimal readability on most web sites.
How about this: Brave can be viewed as illegal and deceptive, as long as the executives of every company that has either created, paid for, or distributed an advert that had psychologists involved in its design goes to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
I preferred the fourth most popular entry: RSS It's cold down here. Very Iain M. Banks.
Oh and your recycled paper? It is *more* environmentally destructive to produce, and will always be. Re-use it, compost it, or burn it.
Why? Not having looked into the processes involved in exhaustive detail, my naive understanding is that you make recycled paper by shredding and bleaching old paper. To make new paper, you need to plant trees, let them grow, then cut them down, mulch them, add a few other things and then go through basically the same process as making recycled paper. What are the extra processes involved in making recycled paper that aren't required for new paper and offset the other costs?
The more expensive drip filter machines have a vacuum flask for storing the coffee rather than a hot plate. As a result, the coffee doesn't taste burned if you leave it for a while (but does stay hot for a few hours) and, as a result, you don't even need to time it particularly carefully for the start of the meeting.
They're in most hotels. They produce a brown liquid that is a vague approximation of coffee. After an 8-hour flight with a couple of hours of travel at each end, if it's a choice between that or leaving the hotel to find good coffee, the machine wins. I've never understood them for home or office use though - they're more expensive than most ways of producing better coffee.
And that artillery is well dug-in in mountainous terrain so even nuking them wouldn't stop the carnage.
Nuking within 50 miles of Seoul would be counterproductive if your goal were to avoid deaths in South Korea, but I wouldn't be too sure about the above claim. 1950s-era artillery typically requires manual operation - killing the soldiers near it will prevent it from firing. Even if it's dug in, fuel-air bombs that either burn them out or make the air unbreathable would likely remove the threat, though it may not be politically feasible to kill that many people.
The backlash against the US happens when a company in country A does business with an individual in country B and the US decides that its laws should apply (e.g. enforcement of US patents). No one objects when the US decides that companies trading in the USA have to obey US laws, any more than they object when the US insists that people living in the USA have to obey US laws.
When that gets tested in court, they'll likely have to show that this statistical data can no be deanonymised which, given the fact that that's been shown to be basically impossible for any data and still have it remain useful, should be a good time to invest in shares of popcorn merchants.
Where were you doing off-site backups before?
A good backup strategy has both on-site and off-site backups. If either is broken then the other can be used to recover.
The air does blow slightly downwards. You put your hands in, then slowly pull them upwards and all of the water is blown downwards (where, apparently, it collects in a sludgy pool in the base of the machine). I'm a bit surprised by the point of this article though, because you only use the machine after you wash your hands. The washing process is the bit that's supposed to remove the germs, not the drying!
That depends on whether it's an exemption for a category of person or for a category of activity. For example, I disagree with the laws against torturing animals having exemptions for certain religions - either it's acceptable for anyone to do it or it's unacceptable for anyone to do it and the lawmakers should decide. Having public interest exceptions are fine though. We used to have exemptions to the official secrets act like this, so if you disclosed state secrets that it was in the public interest to know then you could use that as a defence. Similarly, a defence for revealing trade secrets if it is to expose illegal behaviour sounds like a good exemption to have.
In this context, the guy is the cloud provider. His customers, if they're sensible, will have their own backups and so will be able to recover, but they also won't trust his business much if that's their recovery strategy from his incompetence.
Even with online backups, there's no way that this should happen. The backup system should be taking read-only snapshots at periodic intervals, so even if you rm -rf you'll only delete the live data and be able to revert to the snapshot from an hour ago.
The short amber phase is for people to slow down because the light is about to turn red. If it just turned red, you'd have people slamming on their breaks at every light
I think you misunderstood. I'm not suggesting removing the amber phase, I'm suggesting making it longer. In various places in the US (including Washington DC) it's been shortened to make more people accidentally run red lights and get fines.
The short amber phase is dangerous, but the thing that amazes me is that a lot of US states have zero delay between the light going red in one direction and going green in the other. In the UK, that's been illegal for several decades and makes a noticeable difference to the number of accidents.
Your argument is illogical. Tremendous amounts of money have been spent trying to make cars safer. Laws regulating driving and car safety are stricter than ever
And yet very little effort is put into making the roads safer, in spite of the fact that many of them are under direct government control. Things like traffic light timings would be relatively easy to change and could have a big impact on road safety.
They're also employing a lot fewer people. One of the problems that cities that relied on various forms of manufacturing have seen is that greater automation means fewer employees per factory. It's then also easier for the company to pay them well, because labour is a far smaller proportion of their total costs. When a factory is employing 10,000 people to manually assemble whatever it's producing, a 5% pay increase is a huge cut of their profits and may be enough to push them into the red. When they're paying 100-1000 people to manage, maintain, and repair automated assembly lines, a 10-20% pay increase has a far smaller effect on the balance sheet. The 9,000 other people still need to make a living somehow though.
There isn't likely to be any complaint. The British government is currently a little bit shaky over the Panama leaks. It turns out that the Prime Minister blocked previous EU plans to strengthen disclosure rules for off-shore trusts, and is the beneficiary of an off-shore trust. The Chancellor wasn't popular even before the current revelations, but it turns out that both he and the PM have benefitted from the lower tax rate for high income holders and a large chunk of his income comes from dividends in a company that hasn't paid any UK tax for years. They're playing up the fact that it was a British commissioner who is pushing this because they want to make it look as if the British Government is in favour of this kind of thing. Now, of course, they may try to block it in a year's time when people have all forgotten about the current scandals...
The authors say they "assume that the attacker already has control over the victim's PC," but that's not right. They assume that they not only have the PC, but a running browser which the user left logged into Google services
If the user is using much Google stuff, then that's pretty easy. Just wait until they log into gmail and open an invisible tab with the same cookie. And if that asks for authentication then pop up a thing in the gmail tab saying 'for extra security, Google needs you to authenticate again'. Now you've compromised their Google account and you can install the 2FA trojans for everything else.
Designing a sandbox that provides /emulates a basic CPU while PROVABLY not allowing access to any resource outside of the sandbox would be a comp sci project that could advance security in a huge way.
It exists. You might want to look up Google Native Client. The verifier for it has been formally verified and guarantees that no memory accesses can be to the outside of the sandbox. Of course, that's not the entire problem. It's trivial to prove that a program that has no side effects is secure, but anything useful in a sandbox has to be able to communicate with the world outside of the sandbox. And as soon as it can communicate with the outside world, it becomes a staging ground for attacking the bits that are outside of the sandbox and are not verified.
Even if you're doing a very theoretical CS course, cryptography and information theory should be covered and these are both very relevant to security. Complexity theory and game theory are core parts of computer science and are also fundamental to computer security (what is the worst-case behaviour of this algorithm in the presence of an adversary?). You might not be taught things labelled security, but the fundamental concepts should be there.
The 'only' expensive bit still to do then is the lander. Not coincidentally, this is also the only bit which has no other use, so money spent on design has no future pay-back (except for more moon missions.)
In contrast, the landers used on the Apollo missions funded a lot of research that has quite widespread application. The light composites and the joints used to allow them to be folded and deployed have appeared in a load of other things. Modern folding bicycles are probably the most visible, as most of the other uses look a lot less like the lander.
Hurricane-force winds and hydrogen fluoride rain will make that an exciting place to live. It might be the most earthlike, but outside of active volcanos and ocean trenches you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere on Earth less hospitable. It makes the south pole look like a pleasant holiday resort in comparison.
I once worked out that if you removed blacks from the US population, our murder rate dropped down to the high end of Europe's. IE it would still be 'problematic' by European standards, but no longer an outlier.
You might want to try the same statistics removing the poorest 10-20% of the population.
I was going to reply to say that it isn't there, but then I discovered that 'smaller browser windows' includes basically anything that isn't a maximised window. If your browser is under about 1050 pixels wide, it disappears. That's significantly wider than a browser window needs to be for line wrapping to hit optimal readability on most web sites.
How about this: Brave can be viewed as illegal and deceptive, as long as the executives of every company that has either created, paid for, or distributed an advert that had psychologists involved in its design goes to prison.