Even if it's not a scientific test, that explains why you hardly smell anything when a european bus drives by but wonder if US busses are run on kerosine.
The cars emissions should meet legal standards at all times.
...which are usually defined by the sum (or average) of emissions over an exactly defined test cycle.
And for a reason. If you would set an absolute maximum emission, that would have be high enough to cover the few moments of maximum emission during accelerating or while the engine still hasn't reached optimum operating temperature. And even if they were low enough to be an actual challenge, during 99.9% of regular operating time, even the biggest gas guzzler could beat them hands down.
Stupid article that basically says: "You can destroy an electronic device by shoving too much electricity into it!"
Yes, but it becomes a bit more interesting when you can do that from another location connected by a wire no one thinks of as an attack vector (the port is firewalled after all!) and is often enough freely accessible.
But yes, this tells less about the attackers ingenuity than it tells us about our everyday shortsightedness.
though an incendiary with a timer would also do the trick.
But leaves traces visible to every firefighter. Leading to further investigations, the FBI will check the CCTV recordings, someone will recognize you there or your licence plate. Or the license plate of what you stole to be your getaway car, but left your fingerprints where you stole it...
Anyway: It might be worth something to have the case closed quickly with "faulty electrical device" and no further questions asked.
You know, my fear is these people would be just as stupid without the camera.
I don't think so. It's incredible what you can get away with when you have a big video camera sitting on your shoulder and a guy with a fake boom mike.
On it's own, yes. But it can be a powerful tool in a scenario where physical infiltration in required.
Breaking into a CCTV monitored target all of a sudden becomes much easier if you can use this attack to fry the hub that the IP-Cameras are connected to. or the machines that power the surveillance monitors in the watchman's booth. Bonus points if security has been outsourced to a company that does monitor several facilities from a central office. Precious minutes gained while the team investigating why all cameras went dark are stuck in traffic. May be all you need to get in and out again.
Also works as a decoy: Send all IT staff to one corner of the building to repair a few fried machines to get them out of your way while you're doing whatever you need to do in their office.....
Do your homework and watch some 80s heist movies if you need more ideas. (Disclaimer: THAT is where I have those ideas from. And "They stole a million" on C64, which I sucked at)
The intresting common point here is that somehow people seem to think that activities like petting or hugging tigers, bull running, walking on railroad tracks or the ledge of a wall somehow become magically less dangerous and not completly suicidal if you're wielding a cellphone/camera.
In "normal" live, people just know how incredibly stupid this is. But give them a camera and they're still doing it against better knowledge.
"hoax bomb" is usually something that is either made to trick people into thinking something is a bomb or a "bomb hoax" is some person claiming to have a bomb.
Well, no one ever claimed to have a bomb nor made a cartoony-bomb-looking device. Typically, a "bomb hoax" does not include someone trying to explain that this is not a bomb.
Being a terrorist doesn't require actually having a bomb, all it takes is pretending. That's why bomb HOAXES are illegal, too.
Agreed.
But wouldn't that some... well... pretending?
But it's a good point. Killing people is not a goal of terrorists. Spreading terror is. (Hence the name.) Killing people is just one way to do that. Having everyone going through X-Rays and security checkpoints daily to remind them that they should be scared of terrorists is just another way.
The ones that get the military right now look like anything from dolls to bits of debris by the side of the road.
Ironically, they learned that lesson from previous wars when hidden and disguised mines were intended to rip of kids (and civilians in gerenal) arms and legs.
"If I had an Apple device" is not unambigous: If I bought it, picked it, wrote about it in my letter to Santa, I would know it as it was a conscious descision. If I had been given it as a tool to simply do my daily job, I probably couldn't care less.
Oh and did I mention that I would always prefer KFC over McD when going to a fast food restaurant as they have the much better replay system!
Since 3 years: none. But for the sake of the argument: I would know it
If yes, does that make you an adverisement-spewing sock puppet..?
Knowing it? No. Mentioning it each time I'm referring to it? Sure so! "Honey, where is my coat?" "Oh It's still in the back of our Toyota Foobar 310. I'll fetch it later". "What#s for dinner tonight?" "Walmart Great Value Mac'n'Cheese. Wanna watch some Samsung TV while having diner?"
Who would talk like that? That only happend in "The Trueman Show"!
Just curious. I agree that not knowing the name of something you bought is potentially something to be concerned about.
Of course you know it. That#s why you don't keep on mentioning it to others.
And if you haven't bought it, you probably don't know or don't care for the brand you're using. If you're currently at the office a quick test, no peeking: What's the brand of your desk or your desk phone?
The tablets are a product and it's being advertised.
But unlike your Dosge example - it is not openly disclosed as advertisement. There is no "brought to you by MS surface". There wouldn't be a problem if MS just bought people to say "And our sponsoring partner Microsoft wants you to have a look at their products called "The surface"". Every moron could read that.
Trying to hide the fact that this is paid-for advertising my letting it creep into commentary and interviews that should be about the subject people are tuning in to see is what is happening here.
Honestly: You only remember "first man on the moon" because that was the only event in the space race that the US came out ahead (and the USSR haven't really tried)
First object in space? In orbit? First living beings in space? returning safely? First human? First woman in space? First EVA? First unmanned landing on the moon? On Venus? On Mars?
So it's not only the first X and Y you remember, human nature tends to remember only the Xs and Ys that we were first in and not only ignores second X and second Y, but first A, first B, first C, first D and so on.
it's worse for technologies that are not a single, atomic (as in undividable) invention - depending on who you ask you will hear lots of different names as "The Father Of X". "Inventor" of the telephone? Marconi, Reiss, Bell, depending on who you're asking. Not even possible to agree on a single "first" here.
By the way: The wright brothers were by no way first in flight. Their "first flight" in 1903 is predated by at least 10 years by Otto Lilienthals who (according to Wikipedia) managed to log over 2000 flights before his death. And even his death in 1896 predates the Wrights flight. Without doubt the first maneuverable motorized flight was a HUGE achievement, but calling it "the first flight" is plain wrong.
I wouldn't go that far, but it definitly is run by people who care more about product placement than football. Being run by idiots would not harm football to the extent that is doing to it.
Though I have to admit that I'm slightly excited at the prospect of (maybe) going to a Penn State game in a few weeks. Well, I might be able to find out myself....
But shouldn't they still look for a mascot first? In time, after and if that proofs successful, a nickname might be derived from that. Nicknames are given. Everything else feels just plain wrong. Anyone remembers "Grandmaster B" from "married with children" or When Homer Simpson changed his name to "Max Power"? Tells much more about what you NOT are than about what you are.
Slashdot Mirror
As it is on tons of other things you're not mentioning: classical mechanics, gravity, optics, thermodynamics --> flamebait.
Like this?
Even if it's not a scientific test, that explains why you hardly smell anything when a european bus drives by but wonder if US busses are run on kerosine.
The cars emissions should meet legal standards at all times.
...which are usually defined by the sum (or average) of emissions over an exactly defined test cycle.
And for a reason. If you would set an absolute maximum emission, that would have be high enough to cover the few moments of maximum emission during accelerating or while the engine still hasn't reached optimum operating temperature. And even if they were low enough to be an actual challenge, during 99.9% of regular operating time, even the biggest gas guzzler could beat them hands down.
Stupid article that basically says: "You can destroy an electronic device by shoving too much electricity into it!"
Yes, but it becomes a bit more interesting when you can do that from another location connected by a wire no one thinks of as an attack vector (the port is firewalled after all!) and is often enough freely accessible.
But yes, this tells less about the attackers ingenuity than it tells us about our everyday shortsightedness.
though an incendiary with a timer would also do the trick.
But leaves traces visible to every firefighter. Leading to further investigations, the FBI will check the CCTV recordings, someone will recognize you there or your licence plate. Or the license plate of what you stole to be your getaway car, but left your fingerprints where you stole it...
Anyway: It might be worth something to have the case closed quickly with "faulty electrical device" and no further questions asked.
You know, my fear is these people would be just as stupid without the camera.
I don't think so. It's incredible what you can get away with when you have a big video camera sitting on your shoulder and a guy with a fake boom mike.
On it's own, yes. But it can be a powerful tool in a scenario where physical infiltration in required.
Breaking into a CCTV monitored target all of a sudden becomes much easier if you can use this attack to fry the hub that the IP-Cameras are connected to. or the machines that power the surveillance monitors in the watchman's booth. Bonus points if security has been outsourced to a company that does monitor several facilities from a central office. Precious minutes gained while the team investigating why all cameras went dark are stuck in traffic. May be all you need to get in and out again.
Also works as a decoy: Send all IT staff to one corner of the building to repair a few fried machines to get them out of your way while you're doing whatever you need to do in their office.....
Do your homework and watch some 80s heist movies if you need more ideas. (Disclaimer: THAT is where I have those ideas from. And "They stole a million" on C64, which I sucked at)
Kind of.
The intresting common point here is that somehow people seem to think that activities like petting or hugging tigers, bull running, walking on railroad tracks or the ledge of a wall somehow become magically less dangerous and not completly suicidal if you're wielding a cellphone/camera.
In "normal" live, people just know how incredibly stupid this is. But give them a camera and they're still doing it against better knowledge.
Sad, but true as this means you're not sanctioning malicious behaviour, but stupidity of the beholder.
So again people are afraid of ending on secret lists compiled by police like forces.....
"hoax bomb" is usually something that is either made to trick people into thinking something is a bomb or a "bomb hoax" is some person claiming to have a bomb.
Well, no one ever claimed to have a bomb nor made a cartoony-bomb-looking device. Typically, a "bomb hoax" does not include someone trying to explain that this is not a bomb.
Being a terrorist doesn't require actually having a bomb, all it takes is pretending. That's why bomb HOAXES are illegal, too.
Agreed.
But wouldn't that some... well... pretending?
But it's a good point. Killing people is not a goal of terrorists. Spreading terror is. (Hence the name.) Killing people is just one way to do that. Having everyone going through X-Rays and security checkpoints daily to remind them that they should be scared of terrorists is just another way.
The ones that get the military right now look like anything from dolls to bits of debris by the side of the road.
Ironically, they learned that lesson from previous wars when hidden and disguised mines were intended to rip of kids (and civilians in gerenal) arms and legs.
Have a look here at which countries banned the use of anti-personal explosive devices: http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-...
"If I had an Apple device" is not unambigous: If I bought it, picked it, wrote about it in my letter to Santa, I would know it as it was a conscious descision. If I had been given it as a tool to simply do my daily job, I probably couldn't care less.
Oh and did I mention that I would always prefer KFC over McD when going to a fast food restaurant as they have the much better replay system!
Do you know what make/model of car you own?
Since 3 years: none. But for the sake of the argument: I would know it
If yes, does that make you an adverisement-spewing sock puppet..?
Knowing it? No. Mentioning it each time I'm referring to it? Sure so! "Honey, where is my coat?" "Oh It's still in the back of our Toyota Foobar 310. I'll fetch it later". "What#s for dinner tonight?" "Walmart Great Value Mac'n'Cheese. Wanna watch some Samsung TV while having diner?"
Who would talk like that? That only happend in "The Trueman Show"!
Just curious. I agree that not knowing the name of something you bought is potentially something to be concerned about.
Of course you know it. That#s why you don't keep on mentioning it to others.
And if you haven't bought it, you probably don't know or don't care for the brand you're using. If you're currently at the office a quick test, no peeking: What's the brand of your desk or your desk phone?
which eerily connects them to people from Franken.
Fön (Hair dryer)
Dixie (portable toilet)
Tipp-Ex (White Out)
Styropor (Styrofoam)
Jenaer Glas (Pyrex)
Tempo
Edding
getting slightly awkward when you don't only have to learn regular vocabulary but also brand names
The tablets are a product and it's being advertised.
But unlike your Dosge example - it is not openly disclosed as advertisement. There is no "brought to you by MS surface". There wouldn't be a problem if MS just bought people to say "And our sponsoring partner Microsoft wants you to have a look at their products called "The surface"". Every moron could read that.
Trying to hide the fact that this is paid-for advertising my letting it creep into commentary and interviews that should be about the subject people are tuning in to see is what is happening here.
Honestly: You only remember "first man on the moon" because that was the only event in the space race that the US came out ahead (and the USSR haven't really tried)
First object in space? In orbit?
First living beings in space? returning safely? First human?
First woman in space? First EVA?
First unmanned landing on the moon? On Venus? On Mars?
So it's not only the first X and Y you remember, human nature tends to remember only the Xs and Ys that we were first in and not only ignores second X and second Y, but first A, first B, first C, first D and so on.
it's worse for technologies that are not a single, atomic (as in undividable) invention - depending on who you ask you will hear lots of different names as "The Father Of X". "Inventor" of the telephone? Marconi, Reiss, Bell, depending on who you're asking. Not even possible to agree on a single "first" here.
By the way: The wright brothers were by no way first in flight. Their "first flight" in 1903 is predated by at least 10 years by Otto Lilienthals who (according to Wikipedia) managed to log over 2000 flights before his death. And even his death in 1896 predates the Wrights flight. Without doubt the first maneuverable motorized flight was a HUGE achievement, but calling it "the first flight" is plain wrong.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or TLDR: The NFL is run by idiots.
I wouldn't go that far, but it definitly is run by people who care more about product placement than football. Being run by idiots would not harm football to the extent that is doing to it.
Or on how much you care about being turned in an advertisment spewing sock puppet.
thx.
Though I have to admit that I'm slightly excited at the prospect of (maybe) going to a Penn State game in a few weeks. Well, I might be able to find out myself....
But shouldn't they still look for a mascot first? In time, after and if that proofs successful, a nickname might be derived from that. Nicknames are given. Everything else feels just plain wrong. Anyone remembers "Grandmaster B" from "married with children" or When Homer Simpson changed his name to "Max Power"? Tells much more about what you NOT are than about what you are.