To be fair, they're using the same shade of blue that AT&T uses for its logos and corporate art. Go to att.com, and everything is that shade of blue. Verizon, by contrast, uses red in its logos and corporate art. They're just using the same identifying colors that each brand has already chosen.
There's no authentication of you besides your user name, so any attacker could just take the user name you submitted, give it to the bank, then show you the "security image". Classic Man in the Middle attack.
DRM is bad, agreed—but monopoly is worse. If you buy a Kindle, you are buying into a scheme where you can buy media from only one vendor, and your media is not likely to ever be readable anywhere but on your Kindle.
That's no more true for a Kindle than it is for an iPod.
If you buy DRMed books from Amazon, then those books won't be useful on other devices. But, just as there are many sources for un-DRMed music, there are many sources for un-DRMed ebooks. Use one of them.
more than 1 in 100 Americans were incarcerated, so that's more than 1% "hit ratio" if you simply searched every American for illegal drugs, fake IDs or similar.
Nonsense. Unless you think that everyone who ever does anything illegal is currently incarcerated and everyone who is incarcerated would, if not currently in prison, constantly carry evidence of some crime around with them.
Those are both such uncertain assumptions that they make your conclusion completely unsupportable.
Society has a pretty good metric for determining how much environmental impact something has, and for easy distribution of that information.
It's called "price".
The way it works is: materials and energy hurt the environment, and cost money. The more money the car costs, the more it hurts the environment.
I read the book.... The MIT scam was not card counting.
You apparently didn't read it very closely. While you described one technique that was mentioned in the book, and was a small part of the individual players' success, the teams definitely used card counting, with the "high roller" moving from table to table as the counters indicated that the deck was "rich". The vast majority of the book and of their profits had to do with teams counting cards.
Why would that necessitate throwing out the study? Did Smith say something stupid like "And we always put the placebo in the containers marked 'A'."
It's not like science is so fragile that you can't realize the connection exists, stop talking about it, and each write a note in the results that mention the extent of the "contamination."
That's still plenty of information to break in, if they take their time. A six digit pin with unique digits gives 6! = 720 possible pins. If any digits are repeated, then the number of possible pins to check goes down. Except that they're not asking for the pin. They're asking for three arbitrary digits from it. So each guess the attacker makes eliminates 3! = 6 possibilities at the beginning (the number of possible pins eliminated on future guesses will go down due to some overlap, but a sufficiently good algorithm could always make a guess that will eliminate the most possibilities). So now we're looking at around 100 guesses required to brute-force the password. If the lockout is after 3 or 4 tries, then the attacker can make 2 or 3 guesses between each user login, which brings the number of logins down to around 50. And, of course, on average, the attacker will guess the password about half-way through the brute force search, so 25.
If you assume that the attacker is determining the pin from a statistical sample of the keys pressed while logging in, then part of this attack can be done as the data is being gathered, with guesses refined at each step.
So, by asking for the digits in order, it only takes 9 logins for the attacker to get your password. By asking for them out of order, it takes 25. Hardly secure.
I own a controlling interest in several corporations that own important patents on engine design. I'll just sue you into the ground to keep my income stream intact.
Hey, making up absurdly skewed examples is pretty fun!
From TFA: This issue resonates in Australia, where consumers may be paying almost three times more for digital music downloads than they should be.
In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300 per cent more expensive.
If these savings were available in the digital market, consumers would be paying as little as 67 cents for a digital download, instead of the $1.69 to $1.89 a track they pay at present.
Emphasis mine. Beyond the idiocy of using words like "should" when discussing what things cost in the real world, the comparison made here is completely vacuous. Just because the cost of printed cds in Australia is 3x higher than the imports doesn't mean that the cost of digital music is as well. In fact, it's clearly not.
(AUD) $1.89 to $1.69 is (USD) $1.41 to $1.26. So, at most, Australians are paying 42% more than they "should be." It's obvious that no one is selling digital music for AUD 0.67. Well, except some enterprising Russians.
keys fitted with an RFID tag - I am perfectly capable of finding my keys myself, the RFID tag could never tell me I left them at the coffee shop, but if I *was* worried about losing them I would use a code
Of course it could. If you carry a personal RFID scanner that's tuned to your belongings, it could either alert you when your keys get too far away from you (and you're out of the house), or it could later give you a timestamp for when the keys were last in range. The former would catch you before you leave the coffee shop; the latter would easily lead you back to the coffee shop.
The guild was created with a policy of excluding some customers based on their views about sexual orientation. That's wrong.
No it wasn't. "GLBT Friendly" in this context doesn't mean that you approve of homosexuality. It means that you're capable of interacting in a friendly and polite manner with people who do.
The guild was created so that people who don't want to hear "gay" and "faggot" slung around as insults all the time will have a place to play.
All the people who modded this informative should go back to physics class. Yes, dynamic friction is lower than static friction. But that's not the principle that applies when determining whether skidding will slow you faster than controlled braking. When you are skidding, the break pads lock to the wheels, and the wheels skid on the pavement. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the wheels against the pavement. When you are not skidding, the wheels lock to the pavement, and the brake pads skid against the wheels. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the brake pads against the wheels.
So, either way, dynamic friction is providing the braking force. The difference is which surfaces are sliding against each other.
- You've had a flood, fire, and one of your players was stolen. Whoops, that's too many player units for your "consumer discs." All your discs won't play anymore.
Those are some pretty resilient discs to last through a fire and a flood.;)
This is a badly defined question. Since the plane generates thrust by pushing against the air, the only way the conveyor belt will move "at the same speed as the plane" would be if it moved fast enough that the rolling resistance of the wheels was equal to the thrust provided by the jet engines.
Think for a moment how powerful jet engines are, and how absurdly fast the wheels would have to be moving for that to occur. You could never get a real runway up to those speeds. Assuming a magical, instantaneously accelerating runway, the plane would almost immedately tilt forward and plow directly into the ground because of the torque generated by the force of the engines (through the body of the plane) and the corresponding force of the conveyor belt against the wheels.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, they're using the same shade of blue that AT&T uses for its logos and corporate art. Go to att.com, and everything is that shade of blue. Verizon, by contrast, uses red in its logos and corporate art. They're just using the same identifying colors that each brand has already chosen.
No you can't.
There's no authentication of you besides your user name, so any attacker could just take the user name you submitted, give it to the bank, then show you the "security image". Classic Man in the Middle attack.
DRM is bad, agreed—but monopoly is worse. If you buy a Kindle, you are buying into a scheme where you can buy media from only one vendor, and your media is not likely to ever be readable anywhere but on your Kindle.
That's no more true for a Kindle than it is for an iPod.
If you buy DRMed books from Amazon, then those books won't be useful on other devices. But, just as there are many sources for un-DRMed music, there are many sources for un-DRMed ebooks. Use one of them.
Couldn't it be chance? .9^20 is about 12%. It's not amazing odds, but I don't think it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that racism is involved.
more than 1 in 100 Americans were incarcerated, so that's more than 1% "hit ratio" if you simply searched every American for illegal drugs, fake IDs or similar.
Nonsense. Unless you think that everyone who ever does anything illegal is currently incarcerated and everyone who is incarcerated would, if not currently in prison, constantly carry evidence of some crime around with them. Those are both such uncertain assumptions that they make your conclusion completely unsupportable.
Society has a pretty good metric for determining how much environmental impact something has, and for easy distribution of that information. It's called "price". The way it works is: materials and energy hurt the environment, and cost money. The more money the car costs, the more it hurts the environment.
Why would that necessitate throwing out the study? Did Smith say something stupid like "And we always put the placebo in the containers marked 'A'."
It's not like science is so fragile that you can't realize the connection exists, stop talking about it, and each write a note in the results that mention the extent of the "contamination."
That's still plenty of information to break in, if they take their time. A six digit pin with unique digits gives 6! = 720 possible pins. If any digits are repeated, then the number of possible pins to check goes down. Except that they're not asking for the pin. They're asking for three arbitrary digits from it. So each guess the attacker makes eliminates 3! = 6 possibilities at the beginning (the number of possible pins eliminated on future guesses will go down due to some overlap, but a sufficiently good algorithm could always make a guess that will eliminate the most possibilities). So now we're looking at around 100 guesses required to brute-force the password. If the lockout is after 3 or 4 tries, then the attacker can make 2 or 3 guesses between each user login, which brings the number of logins down to around 50. And, of course, on average, the attacker will guess the password about half-way through the brute force search, so 25.
If you assume that the attacker is determining the pin from a statistical sample of the keys pressed while logging in, then part of this attack can be done as the data is being gathered, with guesses refined at each step.
So, by asking for the digits in order, it only takes 9 logins for the attacker to get your password. By asking for them out of order, it takes 25. Hardly secure.
I own a controlling interest in several corporations that own important patents on engine design. I'll just sue you into the ground to keep my income stream intact.
Hey, making up absurdly skewed examples is pretty fun!
I wish they could do something with silicon nanowires as silicon is the second most abundant element on earth.
Luckily, we're not exactly hurting for carbon.
Since it came out in the states in '85, it's not too surprising that you got it a year or two later at a reduced price.
Most of the US still get's it's power from Gas run power plants.
Actually, less than 5% of electricity production in the US is from petroleum. Coal is the big fuel for electricity.
From TFA:
This issue resonates in Australia, where consumers may be paying almost three times more for digital music downloads than they should be.
In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300 per cent more expensive.
If these savings were available in the digital market, consumers would be paying as little as 67 cents for a digital download, instead of the $1.69 to $1.89 a track they pay at present.
Emphasis mine. Beyond the idiocy of using words like "should" when discussing what things cost in the real world, the comparison made here is completely vacuous. Just because the cost of printed cds in Australia is 3x higher than the imports doesn't mean that the cost of digital music is as well. In fact, it's clearly not.
(AUD) $1.89 to $1.69 is (USD) $1.41 to $1.26. So, at most, Australians are paying 42% more than they "should be." It's obvious that no one is selling digital music for AUD 0.67. Well, except some enterprising Russians.
Hell, all you'd need is a vending machine that takes credit cards.
keys fitted with an RFID tag - I am perfectly capable of finding my keys myself, the RFID tag could never tell me I left them at the coffee shop, but if I *was* worried about losing them I would use a code
Of course it could. If you carry a personal RFID scanner that's tuned to your belongings, it could either alert you when your keys get too far away from you (and you're out of the house), or it could later give you a timestamp for when the keys were last in range. The former would catch you before you leave the coffee shop; the latter would easily lead you back to the coffee shop.
For a geek, you've got a pretty poor imagination.
Or use steganography - with a custom steganographic system and tens of thousands of music files and digital photographs,
Then they just let turn you over to the RIAA
The guild was created with a policy of excluding some customers based on their views about sexual orientation. That's wrong.
No it wasn't. "GLBT Friendly" in this context doesn't mean that you approve of homosexuality. It means that you're capable of interacting in a friendly and polite manner with people who do.
The guild was created so that people who don't want to hear "gay" and "faggot" slung around as insults all the time will have a place to play.
>if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
This is simply not true. Dynamic friction (skidding) is lower than static friction.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/brake4.htm
All the people who modded this informative should go back to physics class. Yes, dynamic friction is lower than static friction. But that's not the principle that applies when determining whether skidding will slow you faster than controlled braking. When you are skidding, the break pads lock to the wheels, and the wheels skid on the pavement. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the wheels against the pavement. When you are not skidding, the wheels lock to the pavement, and the brake pads skid against the wheels. The braking force is provided by the dynamic friction of the brake pads against the wheels.
So, either way, dynamic friction is providing the braking force. The difference is which surfaces are sliding against each other.
- You've had a flood, fire, and one of your players was stolen. Whoops, that's too many player units for your "consumer discs." All your discs won't play anymore.
;)
Those are some pretty resilient discs to last through a fire and a flood.
This is a badly defined question. Since the plane generates thrust by pushing against the air, the only way the conveyor belt will move "at the same speed as the plane" would be if it moved fast enough that the rolling resistance of the wheels was equal to the thrust provided by the jet engines.
Think for a moment how powerful jet engines are, and how absurdly fast the wheels would have to be moving for that to occur. You could never get a real runway up to those speeds. Assuming a magical, instantaneously accelerating runway, the plane would almost immedately tilt forward and plow directly into the ground because of the torque generated by the force of the engines (through the body of the plane) and the corresponding force of the conveyor belt against the wheels.
How would anyone ever know?
So, in other words, it isn't like they are concerned about becoming shills...only that they aren't paid enough to be whores.
"Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then for money."
--Moliere
it's more likely irritation with men who ogle a three inch computer game character than with anything else.
Pft. Maybe on your monitor.
It's obviously just a joke. Just because it didn't happen doesn't make it unfunny.