No idea. but I rode that coaster when I was a kid. It's rather tame . That's how they had the idea to buff it up. Bunch of cellphones was cheaper than tearing it down:-)
switching between virtual view and real coaster. Probably can't brin those two sensations into a video in a more coherent way, but here is the manufacturers homepage.
But as this frees up the voice channels for data, it will make data less sucky. It's not as if GSM was not digital (or "data")
But if you have voice data and data data, it's way easier to have a single network for "data" in general and prioritize by type instead of having to maintain two networks.
Granted, there are reasons why you want to ban that. (and reasons to allow possession of such plans)
But these are exactly the same reasons that there are for restricting any plans for selected kinds of weapon to licensed manufacturers. If someone now only includes machine-printable plastic guns, that's nothing more that short-sighted, hype driven, blind "we had to do SOMETHING"..
Which would made ir OK if the code was handed over as part of a court rulung or court order.
As much as I understood, handing over the source code was part of a settlement to avoid such a court ruling.
So most likely, that guy promised as a settlement something that he already sold to someone else.
OTOH, if this is a case in Germany, this might be something where the difference between Urherberrecht and Verwertungsrecht (ass opposed to the concept of copyright) may become relevant.
Well, while technically correct, there's a slight difference between "someone else is paying for it" and "everyone chipping in a bit" to pay for something everyone profits from but would be too expensive otherwise.
In another 10 years they will start to become our "leaders". in 40 years they will be in the Senate and House making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there.
Don't worry. The current "leaders" are still making enough to send their kids to some "proper" schools. And tuition fees are high enough to keep anyone else out. And with textbooks like that, it's only making sure that no "mudbloods" can get into those circles by academic merits.Like the aristocracy of old, they prefer to stay among themselves.
Look at the presidential candidates: A few clans are already trying to turn the US into a family business!
Espescially with games, it's where the bigger hardware variety turns around and bites Android in the back.
It's testing on 4 or 5 models vs testing a game on 300 phones.
Add the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay for Apps (they signed up with their credit card already so those 88ct are 88ct only and not 88ct plus signing up with your credit card at a vendor with questionable reputation of making profits with data)
I AM an engineer and I WORK in software development. Please son't mix that. The latter might change if I work at a different place or task. The first can't be taken away from me.
That is something completly differnt. Your example aims on size, but the article aims on expertise.
But even budweiser tastes better than my first homebrew. Not because they are big or small, but because I'm a bloody amateur (even if I had some decent brews by now) but they have people who learned how to make beer.
But those experts aren't regularly upgrading software I run on their cloud systems to fix security holes, nor monitoring my sites for exploits. So their expertise buys me little--other than the underlying infrastructure hopefully will be sound. That's all. That's not lot..
Then by a plan where they do! If you rent out only infrastructure and still run your stuff yourself, there's not much difference to.. well.. running your stuff yourself. With all pros and cons.
Depends on who you want to protect your data from. NSA may be guzzling every bit from any Amazon datacenter, but they won't (well, usually) ruin your company by selling your patent application to the highest chinese bidder a few weeks before you file it. And likewise, it does not take large scale data seizing to ruin you. It only needs getting hold of YOUR data.
But of course you're right if your data is of interest to the NSA more than to regular criminals. There is never such a thing as "more secure". There is only "more secure against X"
But then we're talking about the "breakable, just need a few million years to crack it" whicht started the discussion.
I think the key point to assess the security of a cipher for practical use is that it's common knowledge how long it would take to break it - which in turn means that you have to have an idea how or when it is broken.
As I understood it, that "system" does not absorb or buffer anything, but pipes exhaust fumes back to the engine to burn some of the unwanted stuff. (Can't remember if it is soot or NOx) But that is part of every diesel engine and under control of the motor management.
And in a corporate envirnonment you don't need "lying". Each hierarchy level wants to makes its reports looks good and leaves out just enough of the bad news to make it look a tiny bit better without _actual_ misinformation. Repeat that for each hierachy level and the top brass will never hear anything about any problems.
What's the big difference between physical alterations to the car and software alterations?
A modern engine contains (and has to contain) a device that alters engine parameters dynamically during driving. An additional set of parameters would be just one more parameter set among I don't know how many, but a physical alteration would be something uniquely designed for cheating. But the line between dynamic parameter specialization, over-specialization and outright cheating is not always clear.
Compare it to that kid that "cheated" in mental arithmetics by memorizing those multiplication tables.
Yes. That should rather either read: "before VW management knew that engine contained a defeat device" or "before the R&D knew that whatever that enige contained was considered a defeat device"
During a routine meeting: Upper Management: Oh, there is a new requirement for the US market. The test procedures have been updated. To be able to sell our cars at the US market, we need to make sure that during a test that will cover this and this and this scenarios A B and C, we must not emit more that amount x of stuff. I don't need to remind you how important that market is for us.
Middle managment: Ok, I'll draft a spec. "When A, B and C, emissions must be below x." I'll pass it to the engineers.
Later at a brainstorming meeting:
Engineer 1: Guys, we need to reach x in situations A, B and C. So, how could we reduce emmissions? Engineer 2: We could load that set of motor parameters into the engine controller Engineer 3: But wouldn't that cost us performance/milage/acceleration and/or increase engine noise, driving comfort, Engineer 2: Yes, but this spec says we only need to do it when A, B and C, so this wouldn't cost us anything in normal operation mode. Engineer 1: Ok, make it so.
You wrong statement is one of the often-repeated untruths about encryption.
Which is true.
But as all these proven unbreakable algorithms require a secure channel to transmit the encryption key. But if you had a reliable secure channel, you wouldn't need any encryption to begin with. You could send the actual data over that secure channel instead.
There is limited use for these when a secure channel is available ahead of time, but even then the storage of the key is vulnerable to attacks. (photographs of the codebook, "rubber hose cryptanalysis", etc)
Not to start with the fact that any system that limits the amount of data that can be securely transmitted (by the size of the previosly exchanged key) and becomes vulnerable as soon as the key is used on one byte more than the keysize, it is not useable on the internet,
So, the original statement would be correct if it included the limitation that all practically usefull encryptions are somehow breakable.
Slashdot Mirror
No idea. but I rode that coaster when I was a kid. It's rather tame . That's how they had the idea to buff it up. Bunch of cellphones was cheaper than tearing it down :-)
switching between virtual view and real coaster. Probably can't brin those two sensations into a video in a more coherent way, but here is the manufacturers homepage.
http://www.vrcoaster.com/index...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They also had the same problem of tracking the car exactly as they found that even the difference between front and back seats would cause nausea.
But as this frees up the voice channels for data, it will make data less sucky. It's not as if GSM was not digital (or "data")
But if you have voice data and data data, it's way easier to have a single network for "data" in general and prioritize by type instead of having to maintain two networks.
Kinda the sweet spot for hybrid-electric drives, no?
Well trains aren't hybrid electric, but they're diesel driven electric.
Uhm... normally, they're purely electric
Granted, there are reasons why you want to ban that. (and reasons to allow possession of such plans)
But these are exactly the same reasons that there are for restricting any plans for selected kinds of weapon to licensed manufacturers. If someone now only includes machine-printable plastic guns, that's nothing more that short-sighted, hype driven, blind "we had to do SOMETHING"..
I suppose a machined plastic composite (John Malcovich!) is effective & might slip through a metal detector (not sure how you get the ammo through)
Oh come on! Dangling from your keyring! You've seen the movie, haven't you?
Which would made ir OK if the code was handed over as part of a court rulung or court order.
As much as I understood, handing over the source code was part of a settlement to avoid such a court ruling.
So most likely, that guy promised as a settlement something that he already sold to someone else.
OTOH, if this is a case in Germany, this might be something where the difference between Urherberrecht and Verwertungsrecht (ass opposed to the concept of copyright) may become relevant.
Well, while technically correct, there's a slight difference between "someone else is paying for it" and "everyone chipping in a bit" to pay for something everyone profits from but would be too expensive otherwise.
In another 10 years they will start to become our "leaders". in 40 years they will be in the Senate and House making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there.
Don't worry. The current "leaders" are still making enough to send their kids to some "proper" schools. And tuition fees are high enough to keep anyone else out. And with textbooks like that, it's only making sure that no "mudbloods" can get into those circles by academic merits.Like the aristocracy of old, they prefer to stay among themselves.
Look at the presidential candidates: A few clans are already trying to turn the US into a family business!
On desktop?
Espescially with games, it's where the bigger hardware variety turns around and bites Android in the back.
It's testing on 4 or 5 models vs testing a game on 300 phones.
Add the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay for Apps (they signed up with their credit card already so those 88ct are 88ct only and not 88ct plus signing up with your credit card at a vendor with questionable reputation of making profits with data)
I AM an engineer and I WORK in software development. Please son't mix that. The latter might change if I work at a different place or task. The first can't be taken away from me.
The original point was that the NSA doesn't even HAS to hack anything.
That is something completly differnt. Your example aims on size, but the article aims on expertise.
But even budweiser tastes better than my first homebrew. Not because they are big or small, but because I'm a bloody amateur (even if I had some decent brews by now) but they have people who learned how to make beer.
But those experts aren't regularly upgrading software I run on their cloud systems to fix security holes, nor monitoring my sites for exploits. So their expertise buys me little--other than the underlying infrastructure hopefully will be sound. That's all. That's not lot. .
Then by a plan where they do! If you rent out only infrastructure and still run your stuff yourself, there's not much difference to .. well.. running your stuff yourself. With all pros and cons.
Depends on who you want to protect your data from. NSA may be guzzling every bit from any Amazon datacenter, but they won't (well, usually) ruin your company by selling your patent application to the highest chinese bidder a few weeks before you file it. And likewise, it does not take large scale data seizing to ruin you. It only needs getting hold of YOUR data.
But of course you're right if your data is of interest to the NSA more than to regular criminals. There is never such a thing as "more secure". There is only "more secure against X"
But then we're talking about the "breakable, just need a few million years to crack it" whicht started the discussion.
I think the key point to assess the security of a cipher for practical use is that it's common knowledge how long it would take to break it - which in turn means that you have to have an idea how or when it is broken.
But those "unbreakable" encryptions need to transmit a random key the size of the data.
As I understood it, that "system" does not absorb or buffer anything, but pipes exhaust fumes back to the engine to burn some of the unwanted stuff. (Can't remember if it is soot or NOx) But that is part of every diesel engine and under control of the motor management.
And in a corporate envirnonment you don't need "lying". Each hierarchy level wants to makes its reports looks good and leaves out just enough of the bad news to make it look a tiny bit better without _actual_ misinformation. Repeat that for each hierachy level and the top brass will never hear anything about any problems.
What's the big difference between physical alterations to the car and software alterations?
A modern engine contains (and has to contain) a device that alters engine parameters dynamically during driving. An additional set of parameters would be just one more parameter set among I don't know how many, but a physical alteration would be something uniquely designed for cheating. But the line between dynamic parameter specialization, over-specialization and outright cheating is not always clear.
Compare it to that kid that "cheated" in mental arithmetics by memorizing those multiplication tables.
Yes. That should rather either read: "before VW management knew that engine contained a defeat device" or "before the R&D knew that whatever that enige contained was considered a defeat device"
I doubt that there is only one guy.
Things like this usually work like this:
During a routine meeting:
Upper Management: Oh, there is a new requirement for the US market. The test procedures have been updated. To be able to sell our cars at the US market, we need to make sure that during a test that will cover this and this and this scenarios A B and C, we must not emit more that amount x of stuff. I don't need to remind you how important that market is for us.
Middle managment: Ok, I'll draft a spec. "When A, B and C, emissions must be below x." I'll pass it to the engineers.
Later at a brainstorming meeting:
Engineer 1: Guys, we need to reach x in situations A, B and C. So, how could we reduce emmissions?
Engineer 2: We could load that set of motor parameters into the engine controller
Engineer 3: But wouldn't that cost us performance/milage/acceleration and/or increase engine noise, driving comfort,
Engineer 2: Yes, but this spec says we only need to do it when A, B and C, so this wouldn't cost us anything in normal operation mode.
Engineer 1: Ok, make it so.
Which perfectly explains the nickname "Hausfrauenpanzer".
It is so out of line with the traditional/typical Porsche cars, and having an equally unusual engine ist just one more point to proof that.
You wrong statement is one of the often-repeated untruths about encryption.
Which is true.
But as all these proven unbreakable algorithms require a secure channel to transmit the encryption key. But if you had a reliable secure channel, you wouldn't need any encryption to begin with. You could send the actual data over that secure channel instead.
There is limited use for these when a secure channel is available ahead of time, but even then the storage of the key is vulnerable to attacks. (photographs of the codebook, "rubber hose cryptanalysis", etc)
Not to start with the fact that any system that limits the amount of data that can be securely transmitted (by the size of the previosly exchanged key) and becomes vulnerable as soon as the key is used on one byte more than the keysize, it is not useable on the internet,
So, the original statement would be correct if it included the limitation that all practically usefull encryptions are somehow breakable.