The outward opening door of the DC-10 was identified as a problem early on. In order for the door to be secured properly, the person closing the door had to turn the lock for an unspecified amount of time or else it would not be properly sealed. If the door was not properly sealed a little panel would not seal. In the case of pressure loss thus revealing the problem when the airplane was pressurized. Unfortunately if somone forced the door closed the panel would seal despite the fact that the door was not properly sealed. Thus McDonnell Douglas was relying on ground crew to make a critical operation that if failed could bring down the plane. This was compounded due to the fact that the floor between the cabin and baggage compartment was not properly ventilated. In the case of pressure loss in the cargo compartment, the cabin would need to depressurize quickly or else the pressure differential would cause the floor to collapse. Mcdonell Douglas knew that the door had problems since it had actually blown out during an early pressure test. They also knew that there were issues with the floor ventilation since a European aviation agency (I forget which country) had expressed concerns over it.
In addition, the DC-10 used an electrical system to close the door, rather than a hydraulic system as was used in other planes of the age. Hydraulic systems fail much more quickly than electrical systems do if not sealed properly, which means that had they used a hydraulic system, the door would burst open when the plane got to a few hundred feet into the air, giving a better chance of a safe landing than it opening at several thousand feet up the way the electrical system did.
Not to mention that you really couldn't possibly have meant to type HCl. You meant Hcl. Really, you did. No, don't backspace and retype it, we'll just change it again.
And, unless I'm much mistaken, one of the reasons multicast is not in widescale use is because of this type of vulnerability.
The most important blockage to multicast, according to someone I know who worked at AT&T, is that ISPs don't know how to bill for it.
If you're a customer of AT&T and you send 1 packet into AT&T's network, and it causes 20 packets to leave AT&T's network, AT&T (and other major ISPs) don't have any facilities to bill you for that, and can't even decide if you're liable for 1 packet worth of bandwidth, 20 packets worth of bandwith, or somewhere in between.
Even more complicated, suppose you send 1 packet to your tier 2 ISP, they end up sending 20 packets to their tier 1 ISP, and the tier 1 ISP ends up sending 100 packets out from there, which turns into 1000 packets delivered to end users, who gets billed how much? If the tier 1 ISP charges the tier 2 ISP for 100 packets, can they pass that on to you? Is it even possible for them to do that, since they don't necessarily even know how many packets the tier 1 ISP ended up sending or billing them for? The tier 1 ISP isn't about to send them a packet-by-packet breakdown of their bill.
It's a sticky problem that ISPs apparently just don't want to deal with.
Not in the US, no. In some areas of the world, though, publishing something that's true but damaging can be legally libelous. I don't know if the UK is one of those places, I somewhat doubt it.
I am confused why anyone cares about online gambling as long as everyone is of adult age, and is consenting? Perhaps someone else can explain why it's bad enough to warrent a criminal charge, let alone a felony?
Well, anti-gambling laws are generally based on one of two things, either morality or mitigating social consequences.
The first one is simple, some people just think it's immoral to gamble, and thus should be a crime.
The other reason is that gambling is considered by some to have overall negative consequences for society. Some of those purported consequences include gambling addiction, increased crime, and political corruption. Whether those consequences are real, and whether they're serious enough to warrant banning gambling, are of course questions that are heavily debated.
Your everyday air traveller is an affluent entertainment-hungry impulse buyer willing to spend any amount of money to avoid being bored for the next hour or two.
That was my first thought. And then I thought, "Wait a minute...a new iPod doesn't have any music on it, so it won't keep you from being bored at all." I'm wondering if the company is hoping that an air traveler will be making their purchase in between those two thoughts.
On the other hand, it also sells iPod accessories and cables and such, which could be useful if you're waiting for a plane and realize that you left your charger at home and you're down to a half hour of battery life.
You can turn it around and say: There's no content on iTunes that isn't also circulating freely on the sharing-networks in unprotected form. Thus the DRM on iTunes fails at preventing piracy.
That seems a bit like saying, "Banks with safes get robbed, so safes fail at preventing bank robberies." DRM certainly will never stop piracy altogether, but if it stops any noticable amount of it, then it will increase the industry's profits (or they believe it will, anyway), and thus they're going to use it.
They should either rename this site to MMORGPchart.com as all games are fighting/rpg based games. Otherwise games like hattrick.org (820k users) and travian.com (120k users) should also be included.
Neither of those appears to charge a monthly fee, so they aren't games that MMOGchart would track. Check out the FAQ for the types of games that aren't tracked.
So tell me why, in case you enjoy the game. I really wish to know what makes WoW interesting. What is better than in the "other" MMORPGs? What makes WoW to something that deserves a 50+% market share?
I like it because it's straightforward. There's not a lot of non-game activity required to play the game. The quests are straightforward, the game mechanics are straightforward, the class roles are straightforward. For the vast majority of the content, you either can do it on your own or can find a group within a few minutes by barking up the appropriate tree. I don't have to deal with idiotic guild politics and teen-aged angst, I don't have to deal with planning out my skill progression, I don't have to research where the best equipment is. I can do it all without all that junk.
On the other hand, the game does have those elements to it, but they're optional. For people who want to form guilds and take down huge monsters and collect phat loot, they can do that, and have a good time at it. I don't want to, and the game works well for me; other people want to, and the game works well for them.
Overall, I think that's what it has going for it. The game caters to basically all gaming styles.
Those things aren't cheap, and most college students are about as destitute as one can be.
If you read the article, it mentions they got most of the gear off the "reuse" mailing list at MIT. Apparently, it's the equivalent of institutionalized dumpster diving, where they cut out the middleman and just hand equipment to people directly.
They're either available for free from some site filled with indie games of dubious quality or they try to get sold by some new method (electronic delivery, serialized gaming, etc.).
That's an excellent point. One major difference between indy games and indy movies is that indy movie houses have limited screen real estate. As a result, they have to pick and choose what movies they play, and thus there's at least some amount of selection that goes on. Your average indy game site has effectively unlimited "shelf space", and as a result there's no way to find the gems among the garbage.
And why don't we have big audacious signs proclaiming the home town of Jonas Salk or William Shockley or people who actually accomplish something intelligent?
Not to say that I disagree with the point, I agree that it's all about money and popularity is what brings that, but the two examples weren't very good ones. Jonas Salk was born in New York City and William Shockley was born in London:)
It would be nice to think that this is the sort of suggestion that would lose a politician his job, but I have a bad feeling that some will find it rather popular.
Bloomberg's actually in his second term, which is his final term due to NYC mayoral term limits. Thus, job security is already out the window.
What does that mean, exactly? You direct the authentication process to a socket file and point the process to the admin's credentials? If the socket is on the DMZ host, and the credentials are on the private network host, how can you point the authentication process to those credentials?
When the admin logs into the DMZ host with agent forwarding turned on, SSH will create a socket to interact with the agent on the admin's machine. Since the wily hacker has root on the DMZ machine, he can write to and read from that socket with no problem, and thus can ask the agent to authenticate to anywhere that the agent is willing to authenticate to (what he actually would do is just set environment variables for SSH that say "I'm using agent forwarding, my agent is located at {admin's agent forwarding socket}").
Administrators use SSH to run scripts (from server A) to patch other servers (B, etc). These scripts are automated and make use of credentials stored in server A to gain access to the other servers (B, etc.).
If a hacker gains access to server A, he can then use the credentials to access the other servers.
Actually, it was a little more complicated. The scenario is actually that administrators use SSH to run scripts on server A to patch server A using patches from server B. The trick is, without having credentials stored on server A, a hacker who compromised server A could still trick his way into getting server B to allow him to log in if someone was logged into server A and had agent forwarding turned on.
It's not quite as straightforward of a duh moment (after all, server A on its own can't log into server B), it's basically just saying "when you log into a server and have agent forwarding turned on, you allow anyone with root access on that server to log into anywhere your agent can log into".
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies!
on
Google's Insular Nature
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not true at all. In a properly targeted campaign, users would be just as likely to click on either ad. If I Google "equation editor" and Luis' ad pops up, I'm just as likely to click on it as I would be if I Googled "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush pops up.
I don't know about that. There's a certain power in branding that you're overlooking. If I search for "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush comes up, I may well click on it because I have purchased from them before and had a reasonable experience. If I search for "equation editor" and Luis' ad comes up, I've probably never heard of it, and thus it's not distinguished from the other ads sitting next to it at all. If there are 4 ads on the side of the page and the user decides to click on one, Luis probably has at most a 1/4 chance of getting that click, whereas Amazon probably has a much better chance than that, simply based on brand recognition. That brand recognition might even pull someone who wouldn't have clicked on an ad in the first place over to the ad bar.
It's funny how, in the first example, the words "Top Secret" are thinly blacked out on each page. What exactly does blacking out those words accomplish?
I think that's to indicate that the document you're viewing is not classified, but came from a source that was Top Secret originally. If it still said "Top Secret" on the top of every page, it might be confused for a classified document.
Considering they're apparently working with the NSA, it's amazing they were this sloppy. If you've ever seen an NSA release of a classified document that's been scrubbed, it's always very clear that it's either a document that someone has physically overwritten with a black marker and then scanned (such as here), or a document that was edited on a computer, printed out, and then scanned back in again (such as here). They do that precisely so there's no traces of old information left in there. I'm surprised they didn't lend their trick to AT&T.
The victory actually looks rather weak to me. If Apple had been able to demonstrate that they had no other means by which they could have rooted out the source of the leak, then it would seem the court would not have been able to dismiss this so easily.
Am I missing something?
I don't think you're missing anything, but I also don't think that makes the victory weak. First, they didn't say that Apple would necessarily have won if this was their only way of determining the source, only that they couldn't necessarily just dispose of the suit out of hand. Second, I'm having a hard time coming up with a situation where someone wouldn't have another way of determining the source of the leak, so it seems that this would cover the vast majority of cases that will ever occur in reality.
It's interesting the way they phrased their comments. The quotations in the article from the present never say they aren't planning on it, they only say that the rumors about them telling people they're going to are false. The one quote in the article that says that every PS3 will be able to play every disc comes from a November statement (though the PR person does say "there has been no official comment on this since the story that came up a few months ago - it hasn't changed since then").
If they already have our phone records, couldn't they just analyze them to see who is elgible for the refund?
They've also got copies of our W-2s, 1099s, and whatever other income tax documents we were sent. They don't seem to be interested in analyzing those and just telling us what we owe, though.
Copyright is supposed to be about the interests of the consumer.
Actually, it's quite the opposite; copyright is about the interests of the artist. The point is to give an artist the ability to make money on what they create, so that artists have an incentive to go on creating, thus encouraging the progression of the arts. The individual consumer's interests are not central to the idea of copyright at all.
In my mind, the problem here is why companies that have telecommuting employees insist on keeping them based, on paper, in NYC. If the guy works form his house in Jersey, put that down as his work location. If he works from the North Pole, put that down on his W-2. I've done remote-work jobs, and I've never used the location I'm calling-in to as my work location: I use whatever piece of ground I'm sitting on while I'm doing the work.
The problem is generally when people actually do work in the office from time to time. I work for a company in California during the summer, and when I'm at school in New York during the school year I sometimes telecommute in. It makes complete sense for the company to declare my office as being in California, but currently both California and New York can claim that I owe income tax in their state for the work I'm doing while telecommuting.
Slashdot Mirror
The outward opening door of the DC-10 was identified as a problem early on. In order for the door to be secured properly, the person closing the door had to turn the lock for an unspecified amount of time or else it would not be properly sealed. If the door was not properly sealed a little panel would not seal. In the case of pressure loss thus revealing the problem when the airplane was pressurized. Unfortunately if somone forced the door closed the panel would seal despite the fact that the door was not properly sealed. Thus McDonnell Douglas was relying on ground crew to make a critical operation that if failed could bring down the plane. This was compounded due to the fact that the floor between the cabin and baggage compartment was not properly ventilated. In the case of pressure loss in the cargo compartment, the cabin would need to depressurize quickly or else the pressure differential would cause the floor to collapse. Mcdonell Douglas knew that the door had problems since it had actually blown out during an early pressure test. They also knew that there were issues with the floor ventilation since a European aviation agency (I forget which country) had expressed concerns over it.
In addition, the DC-10 used an electrical system to close the door, rather than a hydraulic system as was used in other planes of the age. Hydraulic systems fail much more quickly than electrical systems do if not sealed properly, which means that had they used a hydraulic system, the door would burst open when the plane got to a few hundred feet into the air, giving a better chance of a safe landing than it opening at several thousand feet up the way the electrical system did.
Not to mention that you really couldn't possibly have meant to type HCl. You meant Hcl. Really, you did. No, don't backspace and retype it, we'll just change it again.
And, unless I'm much mistaken, one of the reasons multicast is not in widescale use is because of this type of vulnerability.
The most important blockage to multicast, according to someone I know who worked at AT&T, is that ISPs don't know how to bill for it.
If you're a customer of AT&T and you send 1 packet into AT&T's network, and it causes 20 packets to leave AT&T's network, AT&T (and other major ISPs) don't have any facilities to bill you for that, and can't even decide if you're liable for 1 packet worth of bandwidth, 20 packets worth of bandwith, or somewhere in between.
Even more complicated, suppose you send 1 packet to your tier 2 ISP, they end up sending 20 packets to their tier 1 ISP, and the tier 1 ISP ends up sending 100 packets out from there, which turns into 1000 packets delivered to end users, who gets billed how much? If the tier 1 ISP charges the tier 2 ISP for 100 packets, can they pass that on to you? Is it even possible for them to do that, since they don't necessarily even know how many packets the tier 1 ISP ended up sending or billing them for? The tier 1 ISP isn't about to send them a packet-by-packet breakdown of their bill.
It's a sticky problem that ISPs apparently just don't want to deal with.
If its 100% true, its not libel is it?
Not in the US, no. In some areas of the world, though, publishing something that's true but damaging can be legally libelous. I don't know if the UK is one of those places, I somewhat doubt it.
I am confused why anyone cares about online gambling as long as everyone is of adult age, and is consenting? Perhaps someone else can explain why it's bad enough to warrent a criminal charge, let alone a felony?
Well, anti-gambling laws are generally based on one of two things, either morality or mitigating social consequences.
The first one is simple, some people just think it's immoral to gamble, and thus should be a crime.
The other reason is that gambling is considered by some to have overall negative consequences for society. Some of those purported consequences include gambling addiction, increased crime, and political corruption. Whether those consequences are real, and whether they're serious enough to warrant banning gambling, are of course questions that are heavily debated.
Your everyday air traveller is an affluent entertainment-hungry impulse buyer willing to spend any amount of money to avoid being bored for the next hour or two.
That was my first thought. And then I thought, "Wait a minute...a new iPod doesn't have any music on it, so it won't keep you from being bored at all." I'm wondering if the company is hoping that an air traveler will be making their purchase in between those two thoughts.
On the other hand, it also sells iPod accessories and cables and such, which could be useful if you're waiting for a plane and realize that you left your charger at home and you're down to a half hour of battery life.
Maybe you should watch the video?
Are you suggesting that one should be aware of the reality of the situation before commenting? Forsooth!
You can turn it around and say: There's no content on iTunes that isn't also circulating freely on the sharing-networks in unprotected form. Thus the DRM on iTunes fails at preventing piracy.
That seems a bit like saying, "Banks with safes get robbed, so safes fail at preventing bank robberies." DRM certainly will never stop piracy altogether, but if it stops any noticable amount of it, then it will increase the industry's profits (or they believe it will, anyway), and thus they're going to use it.
They should either rename this site to MMORGPchart.com as all games are fighting/rpg based games. Otherwise games like hattrick.org (820k users) and travian.com (120k users) should also be included.
Neither of those appears to charge a monthly fee, so they aren't games that MMOGchart would track. Check out the FAQ for the types of games that aren't tracked.
I don't see any numbers for Progress Quest! That game is awesome!
So tell me why, in case you enjoy the game. I really wish to know what makes WoW interesting. What is better than in the "other" MMORPGs? What makes WoW to something that deserves a 50+% market share?
I like it because it's straightforward. There's not a lot of non-game activity required to play the game. The quests are straightforward, the game mechanics are straightforward, the class roles are straightforward. For the vast majority of the content, you either can do it on your own or can find a group within a few minutes by barking up the appropriate tree. I don't have to deal with idiotic guild politics and teen-aged angst, I don't have to deal with planning out my skill progression, I don't have to research where the best equipment is. I can do it all without all that junk.
On the other hand, the game does have those elements to it, but they're optional. For people who want to form guilds and take down huge monsters and collect phat loot, they can do that, and have a good time at it. I don't want to, and the game works well for me; other people want to, and the game works well for them.
Overall, I think that's what it has going for it. The game caters to basically all gaming styles.
Those things aren't cheap, and most college students are about as destitute as one can be.
If you read the article, it mentions they got most of the gear off the "reuse" mailing list at MIT. Apparently, it's the equivalent of institutionalized dumpster diving, where they cut out the middleman and just hand equipment to people directly.
They're either available for free from some site filled with indie games of dubious quality or they try to get sold by some new method (electronic delivery, serialized gaming, etc.).
That's an excellent point. One major difference between indy games and indy movies is that indy movie houses have limited screen real estate. As a result, they have to pick and choose what movies they play, and thus there's at least some amount of selection that goes on. Your average indy game site has effectively unlimited "shelf space", and as a result there's no way to find the gems among the garbage.
And why don't we have big audacious signs proclaiming the home town of Jonas Salk or William Shockley or people who actually accomplish something intelligent?
:)
Not to say that I disagree with the point, I agree that it's all about money and popularity is what brings that, but the two examples weren't very good ones. Jonas Salk was born in New York City and William Shockley was born in London
It would be nice to think that this is the sort of suggestion that would lose a politician his job, but I have a bad feeling that some will find it rather popular.
Bloomberg's actually in his second term, which is his final term due to NYC mayoral term limits. Thus, job security is already out the window.
What does that mean, exactly? You direct the authentication process to a socket file and point the process to the admin's credentials? If the socket is on the DMZ host, and the credentials are on the private network host, how can you point the authentication process to those credentials?
When the admin logs into the DMZ host with agent forwarding turned on, SSH will create a socket to interact with the agent on the admin's machine. Since the wily hacker has root on the DMZ machine, he can write to and read from that socket with no problem, and thus can ask the agent to authenticate to anywhere that the agent is willing to authenticate to (what he actually would do is just set environment variables for SSH that say "I'm using agent forwarding, my agent is located at {admin's agent forwarding socket}").
It's not quite as straightforward of a duh moment (after all, server A on its own can't log into server B), it's basically just saying "when you log into a server and have agent forwarding turned on, you allow anyone with root access on that server to log into anywhere your agent can log into".
Not true at all. In a properly targeted campaign, users would be just as likely to click on either ad. If I Google "equation editor" and Luis' ad pops up, I'm just as likely to click on it as I would be if I Googled "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush pops up.
I don't know about that. There's a certain power in branding that you're overlooking. If I search for "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush comes up, I may well click on it because I have purchased from them before and had a reasonable experience. If I search for "equation editor" and Luis' ad comes up, I've probably never heard of it, and thus it's not distinguished from the other ads sitting next to it at all. If there are 4 ads on the side of the page and the user decides to click on one, Luis probably has at most a 1/4 chance of getting that click, whereas Amazon probably has a much better chance than that, simply based on brand recognition. That brand recognition might even pull someone who wouldn't have clicked on an ad in the first place over to the ad bar.
It's funny how, in the first example, the words "Top Secret" are thinly blacked out on each page. What exactly does blacking out those words accomplish?
I think that's to indicate that the document you're viewing is not classified, but came from a source that was Top Secret originally. If it still said "Top Secret" on the top of every page, it might be confused for a classified document.
Considering they're apparently working with the NSA, it's amazing they were this sloppy. If you've ever seen an NSA release of a classified document that's been scrubbed, it's always very clear that it's either a document that someone has physically overwritten with a black marker and then scanned (such as here), or a document that was edited on a computer, printed out, and then scanned back in again (such as here). They do that precisely so there's no traces of old information left in there. I'm surprised they didn't lend their trick to AT&T.
The victory actually looks rather weak to me. If Apple had been able to demonstrate that they had no other means by which they could have rooted out the source of the leak, then it would seem the court would not have been able to dismiss this so easily.
Am I missing something?
I don't think you're missing anything, but I also don't think that makes the victory weak. First, they didn't say that Apple would necessarily have won if this was their only way of determining the source, only that they couldn't necessarily just dispose of the suit out of hand. Second, I'm having a hard time coming up with a situation where someone wouldn't have another way of determining the source of the leak, so it seems that this would cover the vast majority of cases that will ever occur in reality.
It's interesting the way they phrased their comments. The quotations in the article from the present never say they aren't planning on it, they only say that the rumors about them telling people they're going to are false. The one quote in the article that says that every PS3 will be able to play every disc comes from a November statement (though the PR person does say "there has been no official comment on this since the story that came up a few months ago - it hasn't changed since then").
If they already have our phone records, couldn't they just analyze them to see who is elgible for the refund?
They've also got copies of our W-2s, 1099s, and whatever other income tax documents we were sent. They don't seem to be interested in analyzing those and just telling us what we owe, though.
Copyright is supposed to be about the interests of the consumer.
Actually, it's quite the opposite; copyright is about the interests of the artist. The point is to give an artist the ability to make money on what they create, so that artists have an incentive to go on creating, thus encouraging the progression of the arts. The individual consumer's interests are not central to the idea of copyright at all.
In my mind, the problem here is why companies that have telecommuting employees insist on keeping them based, on paper, in NYC. If the guy works form his house in Jersey, put that down as his work location. If he works from the North Pole, put that down on his W-2. I've done remote-work jobs, and I've never used the location I'm calling-in to as my work location: I use whatever piece of ground I'm sitting on while I'm doing the work.
The problem is generally when people actually do work in the office from time to time. I work for a company in California during the summer, and when I'm at school in New York during the school year I sometimes telecommute in. It makes complete sense for the company to declare my office as being in California, but currently both California and New York can claim that I owe income tax in their state for the work I'm doing while telecommuting.