I trust the chinese a lot more than the americans at this point, never heard of the chinese secretly going into other countries to get a foreign national. china at least keeps their misdeeds mostly in china and bordering countries
Assuming that the data is reliable in any way. I have a Nest, and I've turned off auto away because it was awful at predicting when I'd actually left the house.
First, this is likely to improve over time. Second, whatever raw data is used to determine if you're present could also be collected and stored indefinitely.
Actually, if both of those are true, they could go back and review the data with their improved algorithm and retroactively figure out whether you've been there.
The point about cloud-connected home management is that once they have data, they can do whatever they want with it. That includes the cloud provider, their sponsors, and anyone else who can access their data.
My tinfoil hat says it worked as intended. Making TOR unusable in this period of time would discourage its use by non-technical computer users who were probably flocking to it for privacy's sake.
Except for the part where MS security researchers asked the Tor devs if this type of installation was normal, and they said "No."
That's why the tinfoil hat moniker came about in the first place: to identify FUD and other nonsense.
At the end of the day, the malware got removed, and there was no public outrage from people losing their legitimate Tor installations---because only the bad ones got wiped.
If you don't run a Microsoft security product and don't choose the Malicious Software Removal Tool from Windows Update, then nothing happens. Granted these are both default options, but if a user doesn't understand enough to choose alternatives that user probably needs both of these tools.
At a minimum, there is an increase in electrical consumption. Also, potentially: slowdowns, overheating, bandwidth overages (some countries have metered internet), misc compatibility issues.
Bloatware leads to one of two conclusions. Either:
1. The user doesn't understand what his OS and applications do, and so he needs someone to secure his computer for him.
OR
2. The user understands the software on his machine, and he can remove what he deems unnecessary.
The presence of bloatware strongly indicates the person falls into category #1, at least for Windows machines. I also have no problem with the idea that a person could be a guru on one system and a total noob on another.
The decision to"secure it yourself" vs "let someone secure it for you" includes time, effort, and expertise as considerations. If most people decide to have someone else secure the system, that is probably better anyway. After all, a vast MINORITY of users are IT professionals.
You make the most important distinction that is typically overlooked.
Dependence on other companies should be avoided if possible. Anyone complaining about the disappearance of an unprofitable beta service deserved to fail.
Both iOS and Android are established platforms with established SDKs and a profit model based in part on the success of 3rd-party developers. Those market characteristics make dependence on their platforms a reasonable risk to accept.
Basing an entire business on Google Wave or Schemer is simply moronic in comparison. Cutting edge =/= profitable, cool =/= wise.
Users want a) compatibility with all of their existing hardware and software, b) familiar interface, c) reliability, d) security
But the reality is that 'a' is mutually exclusive with 'c' and 'd'.
This is the big underlying problem.
In the FOSS world, if enough people care about an app that needs to be updated to run on a new kernel, someone will probably update it. In the closed source world, the copyright holder needs to have the capacity and desire to update it---and even then, users will probably have to pay for the new version.
Because of this fundamental difference, the closed OS developer has more constraints.
In both XP and Vista, Microsoft broke compatibility quite drastically and suffered slow adoption rates partially because of it. Broken applications and immature drivers are unappealing in any circumstance---it's even worse if you expect you'll have to pay money to resolve the problem.
Installing an unsupported OS cannot void the warranty.
The manufacturer may not offer support for another OS, or they might insist on restoring the factory software to diagnose problems. But a hardware warranty is still effective.
When in doubt, contact the manufacturer directly with your question. Most consumer tech sales are handled by illiterate loons. You only get decent info at the SMB and enterprise levels anymore.
Using market dominance in one area (search, email) to gain an unfair advantage in another area (social) is anticompetitive. If the degree of market dominance and anti-competitive effect are sufficient, anti-trust laws come into play.
A perfect monopoly is not required for legal intervention, but I doubt there will be an intervention at all because the legal system barely understands IT. The lawyers, economic experts, and judges would have to realize that these are entirely different markets before they could consider an antitrust suit.
We had electronic banking and medical records for decades before SOX and HIPAA addressed a number of glaringly obvious concerns. Social media is maybe 5 years old? Yeah, they'll have it figured out sometime after Facebook or Google+ is dead.
If memory serves, Netscape vs IE should be the perfect example. Legally, Netscape demonstrated that Microsoft hurt it. Unfortunately, Netscape was crippled and killed in the time it took to prove it.
Why was this even submitted and posted? I found those details in about 15 seconds. It is over a year old.
You can also plug "urban relocation" into Google or Wikipedia for more general information. What kind of slashdot user has problems doing a web search?
I like seeing good questions, but anything that be answered with basic search in under five minutes is just crap.
He essentially answered the question. New buildings and infrastructure are made at the target location, and various policies are set to drain businesses and residents from the source location.
A city or state has a number of options depending on regional laws: tax credits, rebuilding/relocation of existing structures, government purchase of the land, condemnation of endangered properties, government seizure of the land, relocation assistance programs, tiered/progressive zoning restrictions, and probably a lot of other options I can't think of now.
All of those options have been used in the United States by cities reclaiming land for the purposes of safety or redevelopment. That said, OP should have used Google. This article does not need to exist.
If they can design the hardware, they can ask for the source and supply the quote themselves.
If they can't, then OP needs to understand they have no practical design capabilities and plan on paying someone else to design it---before paying these guys to manufacture it. Or he can search for a shop that can handle both the design and the manufacture.
Don't worry about UI abstraction and other conveniences. If they are curious and bright enough, they will muddle through it and grasp the underlying structure. If they can't or won't do that, then they would never be able to develop the next generation.
I never looked deeply at mechanical calculators or punch cards, and I am doing just fine with what we have now. The stuff you know and love today will be museum pieces to your kids. That's just how it is.
I imagine it is a case of frustrated expectations.
When a person hears that $BOOKNAME by $AUTHOR is being made into a movie, that person probably expects the movie to be a faithful adaptation. That expectation is magnified when the original text carries some personal significance.
Seeing that adaptation become a parody---one that overlooks or mistakes key aspects of the original work---crushes those expectations. At that point, the producers have misled the viewer and replaced the treasured story with one of their own.
In this particular case, Verhoeven could have written his own story to expose his views, but instead he preferred to leverage the notoriety of a third party. It is dishonest in addition to being disappointing to anyone who enjoyed the original work. That, I believe, is the "Bingo."
"Improvements include the addition of a HUD, GPS, INS (Inertial Navigation System), and TCAS as well as PMP (a propulsion modification to improve low-altitude engine thrust)."
And don't forget the T-38 is a trainer aircraft. It does not need to compete with the F-22 because it is a classroom in the sky.
It is not designed to fight other modern aircraft; it is designed to expose pilots to supersonic flight and provide basic maneuvering experience. More advanced training (and eventually combat/recon missions) would involve the aircraft model that pilot is assigned to fly.
Get Iridium for latency-sensitive traffic (if you have any) and a geosync provider for bandwidth, and then configure QoS on your router to meet your needs.
The cost of a decent router will be incremental compared to the dishes, and you gain a degree of redundancy. (Latency will go out of spec or bandwidth will be at capacity, depending on which link failed, but it is better than nothing. At least you can send an email explaining the situation.)
Your measurement method is bogus. You assume the entire area consists of transistors. It does not, and it never has.
If you used your method on an older "accurately sized" process, it would disagree there as well. Once again, this is because your method assumes the die is made entirely of transistors.
If you were to compute the average transistor density of a Pentium-era or P4-era chip and and adjust modern chips, then maybe your math becomes relevant.
"You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking."
The current model is extremely expensive, and other nations have demonstrated more cost-effective models. Adopting one of those models is not insane thinking.
"You've already admitted that the government won't be able to improve money spent"
The post to which you're replying stated no such thing. You don't get to assign arbitrary statements to someone you disagree with. If you want to claim the government is incapable of improving anything, you get to support that claim.
> The casino can't legitimately claim that they know he was cheating because he folded on good hands unless they were cheating and knew what his hands were.
They can record the games and review them if anything suspicious happens. Perhaps there was other odd behavior, or perhaps the winning streak was unusual. When they reviewed the footage, they saw highly abnormal behavior that prompted an investigation.
As long as the casino employee at the table isn't getting information from the surveillance, the outcome of the game remains the same.
Money laundering is about taking money obtained illegally and providing a credible legal source for it. It's essentially creating a false paper trail.
If a drug lord has millions he didn't pay taxes on, he can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But he can't very well put "income from drug trafficking - 2010, $3,800,000" on his tax forms.
The drug lord isn't rigging the machine. His buddy the casino operator does that. The operator takes a small cut in exchange for a documentable paper trail.
The law against paying out on "broken" machines closes that exploit (from a legal perspective, anyway).
> Im not saying it doesnt "work"; it "works" in the same vein that ARP poisoning works: You will get results, but EVERYONE will know what you are up to, and in this case it would result in the revocation or un-trusting of whatever root CA issued the phony intermediate cert.
If he is the domain administrator, his users probably cannot revoke or remove the root CA he created. He could even prevent them from seeing which CAs are trusted at all.
His claims are completely accurate for his proposed environment, which is a fairly typical corporate setup.
The contracting office is staffed almost entirely by contract-law lawyers.
They often have no means of assigning value to the proposals submitted for review, so they accept the lowest bid with an overall "barely meets requirements" rating from the technical reviewer.
A well-designed cluster can present the same IP address to external clients regardless of which component system is servicing that particular interaction.
Slashdot Mirror
I trust the chinese a lot more than the americans at this point, never heard of the chinese secretly going into other countries to get a foreign national. china at least keeps their misdeeds mostly in china and bordering countries
Idiot.
Assuming that the data is reliable in any way. I have a Nest, and I've turned off auto away because it was awful at predicting when I'd actually left the house.
First, this is likely to improve over time. Second, whatever raw data is used to determine if you're present could also be collected and stored indefinitely.
Actually, if both of those are true, they could go back and review the data with their improved algorithm and retroactively figure out whether you've been there.
The point about cloud-connected home management is that once they have data, they can do whatever they want with it. That includes the cloud provider, their sponsors, and anyone else who can access their data.
My tinfoil hat says it worked as intended. Making TOR unusable in this period of time would discourage its use by non-technical computer users who were probably flocking to it for privacy's sake.
Except for the part where MS security researchers asked the Tor devs if this type of installation was normal, and they said "No."
That's why the tinfoil hat moniker came about in the first place: to identify FUD and other nonsense.
At the end of the day, the malware got removed, and there was no public outrage from people losing their legitimate Tor installations---because only the bad ones got wiped.
If you don't run a Microsoft security product and don't choose the Malicious Software Removal Tool from Windows Update, then nothing happens. Granted these are both default options, but if a user doesn't understand enough to choose alternatives that user probably needs both of these tools.
It was mining bitcoins on the slave machines.
At a minimum, there is an increase in electrical consumption. Also, potentially: slowdowns, overheating, bandwidth overages (some countries have metered internet), misc compatibility issues.
Bloatware leads to one of two conclusions. Either:
1. The user doesn't understand what his OS and applications do, and so he needs someone to secure his computer for him.
OR
2. The user understands the software on his machine, and he can remove what he deems unnecessary.
The presence of bloatware strongly indicates the person falls into category #1, at least for Windows machines. I also have no problem with the idea that a person could be a guru on one system and a total noob on another.
The decision to"secure it yourself" vs "let someone secure it for you" includes time, effort, and expertise as considerations. If most people decide to have someone else secure the system, that is probably better anyway. After all, a vast MINORITY of users are IT professionals.
You make the most important distinction that is typically overlooked.
Dependence on other companies should be avoided if possible. Anyone complaining about the disappearance of an unprofitable beta service deserved to fail.
Both iOS and Android are established platforms with established SDKs and a profit model based in part on the success of 3rd-party developers. Those market characteristics make dependence on their platforms a reasonable risk to accept.
Basing an entire business on Google Wave or Schemer is simply moronic in comparison. Cutting edge =/= profitable, cool =/= wise.
Users want a) compatibility with all of their existing hardware and software, b) familiar interface, c) reliability, d) security
But the reality is that 'a' is mutually exclusive with 'c' and 'd'.
This is the big underlying problem.
In the FOSS world, if enough people care about an app that needs to be updated to run on a new kernel, someone will probably update it. In the closed source world, the copyright holder needs to have the capacity and desire to update it---and even then, users will probably have to pay for the new version.
Because of this fundamental difference, the closed OS developer has more constraints.
In both XP and Vista, Microsoft broke compatibility quite drastically and suffered slow adoption rates partially because of it. Broken applications and immature drivers are unappealing in any circumstance---it's even worse if you expect you'll have to pay money to resolve the problem.
Installing an unsupported OS cannot void the warranty.
The manufacturer may not offer support for another OS, or they might insist on restoring the factory software to diagnose problems. But a hardware warranty is still effective.
When in doubt, contact the manufacturer directly with your question. Most consumer tech sales are handled by illiterate loons. You only get decent info at the SMB and enterprise levels anymore.
Using market dominance in one area (search, email) to gain an unfair advantage in another area (social) is anticompetitive. If the degree of market dominance and anti-competitive effect are sufficient, anti-trust laws come into play.
A perfect monopoly is not required for legal intervention, but I doubt there will be an intervention at all because the legal system barely understands IT. The lawyers, economic experts, and judges would have to realize that these are entirely different markets before they could consider an antitrust suit.
We had electronic banking and medical records for decades before SOX and HIPAA addressed a number of glaringly obvious concerns.
Social media is maybe 5 years old? Yeah, they'll have it figured out sometime after Facebook or Google+ is dead.
If memory serves, Netscape vs IE should be the perfect example. Legally, Netscape demonstrated that Microsoft hurt it. Unfortunately, Netscape was crippled and killed in the time it took to prove it.
Here is an article that outlines their plans:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iP4VHSEkqJnn_6xvHvC58umph8mw?docId=CNG.b1cf7bba53e09623c881384352cd6325.b81
Why was this even submitted and posted? I found those details in about 15 seconds. It is over a year old.
You can also plug "urban relocation" into Google or Wikipedia for more general information. What kind of slashdot user has problems doing a web search?
I like seeing good questions, but anything that be answered with basic search in under five minutes is just crap.
He essentially answered the question. New buildings and infrastructure are made at the target location, and various policies are set to drain businesses and residents from the source location.
A city or state has a number of options depending on regional laws: tax credits, rebuilding/relocation of existing structures, government purchase of the land, condemnation of endangered properties, government seizure of the land, relocation assistance programs, tiered/progressive zoning restrictions, and probably a lot of other options I can't think of now.
All of those options have been used in the United States by cities reclaiming land for the purposes of safety or redevelopment. That said, OP should have used Google. This article does not need to exist.
If they can design the hardware, they can ask for the source and supply the quote themselves.
If they can't, then OP needs to understand they have no practical design capabilities and plan on paying someone else to design it---before paying these guys to manufacture it. Or he can search for a shop that can handle both the design and the manufacture.
Don't worry about UI abstraction and other conveniences. If they are curious and bright enough, they will muddle through it and grasp the underlying structure. If they can't or won't do that, then they would never be able to develop the next generation.
I never looked deeply at mechanical calculators or punch cards, and I am doing just fine with what we have now. The stuff you know and love today will be museum pieces to your kids. That's just how it is.
I imagine it is a case of frustrated expectations.
When a person hears that $BOOKNAME by $AUTHOR is being made into a movie, that person probably expects the movie to be a faithful adaptation. That expectation is magnified when the original text carries some personal significance.
Seeing that adaptation become a parody---one that overlooks or mistakes key aspects of the original work---crushes those expectations. At that point, the producers have misled the viewer and replaced the treasured story with one of their own.
In this particular case, Verhoeven could have written his own story to expose his views, but instead he preferred to leverage the notoriety of a third party. It is dishonest in addition to being disappointing to anyone who enjoyed the original work. That, I believe, is the "Bingo."
The refinements according to Wikipedia:
"Improvements include the addition of a HUD, GPS, INS (Inertial Navigation System), and TCAS as well as PMP (a propulsion modification to improve low-altitude engine thrust)."
And don't forget the T-38 is a trainer aircraft. It does not need to compete with the F-22 because it is a classroom in the sky.
It is not designed to fight other modern aircraft; it is designed to expose pilots to supersonic flight and provide basic maneuvering experience. More advanced training (and eventually combat/recon missions) would involve the aircraft model that pilot is assigned to fly.
Get Iridium for latency-sensitive traffic (if you have any) and a geosync provider for bandwidth, and then configure QoS on your router to meet your needs.
The cost of a decent router will be incremental compared to the dishes, and you gain a degree of redundancy. (Latency will go out of spec or bandwidth will be at capacity, depending on which link failed, but it is better than nothing. At least you can send an email explaining the situation.)
Your measurement method is bogus. You assume the entire area consists of transistors. It does not, and it never has.
If you used your method on an older "accurately sized" process, it would disagree there as well. Once again, this is because your method assumes the die is made entirely of transistors.
If you were to compute the average transistor density of a Pentium-era or P4-era chip and and adjust modern chips, then maybe your math becomes relevant.
"You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking."
The current model is extremely expensive, and other nations have demonstrated more cost-effective models. Adopting one of those models is not insane thinking.
"You've already admitted that the government won't be able to improve money spent"
The post to which you're replying stated no such thing. You don't get to assign arbitrary statements to someone you disagree with. If you want to claim the government is incapable of improving anything, you get to support that claim.
> The casino can't legitimately claim that they know he was cheating because he folded on good hands unless they were cheating and knew what his hands were.
They can record the games and review them if anything suspicious happens. Perhaps there was other odd behavior, or perhaps the winning streak was unusual. When they reviewed the footage, they saw highly abnormal behavior that prompted an investigation.
As long as the casino employee at the table isn't getting information from the surveillance, the outcome of the game remains the same.
You're focusing on the wrong issue there.
Money laundering is about taking money obtained illegally and providing a credible legal source for it. It's essentially creating a false paper trail.
If a drug lord has millions he didn't pay taxes on, he can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But he can't very well put "income from drug trafficking - 2010, $3,800,000" on his tax forms.
The drug lord isn't rigging the machine. His buddy the casino operator does that. The operator takes a small cut in exchange for a documentable paper trail.
The law against paying out on "broken" machines closes that exploit (from a legal perspective, anyway).
> Im not saying it doesnt "work"; it "works" in the same vein that ARP poisoning works: You will get results, but EVERYONE will know what you are up to, and in this case it would result in the revocation or un-trusting of whatever root CA issued the phony intermediate cert.
If he is the domain administrator, his users probably cannot revoke or remove the root CA he created. He could even prevent them from seeing which CAs are trusted at all.
His claims are completely accurate for his proposed environment, which is a fairly typical corporate setup.
The contracting office is staffed almost entirely by contract-law lawyers.
They often have no means of assigning value to the proposals submitted for review, so they accept the lowest bid with an overall "barely meets requirements" rating from the technical reviewer.
A well-designed cluster can present the same IP address to external clients regardless of which component system is servicing that particular interaction.
Since rats do not learn human social cues readily, it would be difficult for anyone to teach it to "hit" on a person or vehicle they want to search.
This offers a modest resistance to misuse (compared to police dogs).
> Restoring domain controllers from images is a dangerous game.
Why would you restore more than one? That's just begging for problems. Replication exists for a reason.
Restore one DC from backup, and rebuild the others. Or demote all, restore one, and promote them back.
You will have an intact domain as long as you seize all FSMO roles on the restored DC before promoting others.
This isn't 1999 anymore; there should be no problem restoring a domain if you have an intact copy of the directory.