Yes. High voltage power lines as described are unmistakable. Its like calling a proposed 8-lane interstate highway just a "road". Technically true, but substantially misleading.
Not just cheap power - ideally, the big name datacenters want redundant feeds, just like hospitals do. Getting that level of service is far from a trivial exercise.
Remember those things called "malls". Well, the stores in them seem to be disappearing at an incredible rate (with good reason) and it's left as a hollow shell that was once a prosperous part of town. Seems like the stores in old malls would be perfect for a datacenter, no?
Rackspace bought one in San Antonio a few years ago and turned it into their headquarters and a major datacenter.
For a landline call? Still sounds pretty egregious to me. The prisoners already have to qualify for their calls, and from what I understand aren't allowed very many of them in the best cases. Why add another punishment on top of what they're already serving? There's no real reason to break out the phone calls and make them orders of magnitude more expensive to prisoners than they actually are.
I should be able to say "this is my card, do not ever accept it". Other vendors are more than happy to oblige to that request.
Really? Who?
That's a serious question, by the way. I don't know of any company who's set up to allow random non-customers to call in and request that their credit card be placed on a do-not-accept list - or indeed any commercial software set up to accept those kind of restrictions.
When I call a merchant directly and tell them my card has been used fraudulently they should be willing to take my information and - at the very least - blacklist my card number upon my request so that it is never used again.
Even though you're not their customer? Yeah, there's no way that that could ever be abused.
There are well-established procedures for handling these kind of situations, if you follow them then most everything "just works".
If you read TFA, you'll see that the issue exists because people wanted the card to be able to be used without the PIN present, presumably in cases where a PIN terminal wasn't available. All that the hack does is convince the card to process the transaction as if it was a chip-and-signature transaction, which most places can choose to trigger by hand.
As long as you want cards to work without the PIN, they will be vulnerable to being told to work without the PIN. That's just a fact, unfortunately.
The other benefits of chip transactions, the best of which is that each transaction is unique rather than simply a relay of TRACKDATA with a M_ID and an amount attached to it (basically making stolen card transmissions worthless instead of the current "just as good as a real card"), still remain and are highly significant.
Some of those vulnerabilities that would require physical access to exploit would be just as protected by the existing hospital security measures as current vulnerabilities (unplugging, pin-pricks, blocking lines, et cetera). Doesn't mean that they're not real, or that in some cases it wouldn't be frighteningly easy to do Very Bad Things, but we probably shouldn't treat the networked versions any more or less gingerly than the physical ones.
Devices should be secure, or at least securable. As should internal hospital networks.
At the same time the risk from bio-medical network hacking remains theoretical. There's a small but serious risk that harm could spread on a wide scale, but so far no exploits have been made.
The risk of network issues during critical, potentially confusing, seconds-count scenarios is also real. Having some kind of network incompatibility or security interface issue could easily mean the difference between life and death.
Both risks exist. Both can be studied, and a reasonable compromise reached - but to discuss one in the absence of the other is just foolishness.
And if you log and report that, they will be fined - seriously. And then they'll be less likely to do it again. Of course, complaining about it on/. doesn't actually help much.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities. They're required to provide services to handicapped passengers, for another. And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go. The last two issues often increase costs, which are then leveled across all customers - making it "easy" to compete if you only take the juicy fares, leaving the other ones stranded. Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.
We've tried deregulating taxis before. Almost everywhere has. Its a great idea, but in practice it never works - at least, it never has before now. Why should we expect this time to be any different?
If you actually look at it in a vacuum, instead of as the evolution that got us here, our current gas-station infrastructure is also ridiculous. Inch thick tubes with no safeties pumping volatile fuel anywhere someone wants, that has to be trucked in on a regular basis from refineries often located in different countries than the original oil is produced in, with highly polluting leakage possible at every stage of the game? Ridiculous. And yet we're so used to it we don't even blink. Most of the refueling station ideas are no more crazy, especially since you really only need them to be truckstop-scale since overnight "trickle charging" (relatively speaking) can work well for most people most of the time.
There's probably a better way to solve the actual that some of you could come up with if I told you what I was really trying to do, or gave you any hints like a useful budget amount or how often each case came up, but I don't want to feel too silly so please just figure out this one piece in isolation.
Finding the correct answer (goat, nothing, wolf, goat, cabbage, nothing, goat) is far easier than figuring out what fiendishly complex business problem the OP is trying to solve here that wouldn't be more easily solved in a different way. Of course, since useful details are rarely provided, we'll probably never know.
I think a reasonable possibility is that if they cheat on one test, they might be cheating on other tests. Maybe American carmakers just aren't as good at gaming the test.
Admittedly, its a lot harder to reprogram your car to fare better when smashed into a wall during a test than it will in real life.
let's not pretend that any actual harm has been caused.
Current estimate is on the order of ~4,000 deaths, using the standard actuarial life expectancy tables. But sure, lets go with "no actual harm" instead - it does sound a lot better in a soundbite.
even if your app and another app use the same version of the same library both need their own copy and you can't upgrade just the library. (Delta updates? What are those?)
The cost of that approach is a relatively small amount of memory (after all, most applications don't share most non-system things with most other applications). The benefit of that approach is never, ever experiencing DLL conflicts, and having the capability to have single-package applications that don't even need to have an installer for the most part. It turns out to be a pretty good tradeoff.
Its making it easy for people like game manufacturers to have dynamic content.
Think about it like Netflix. Every couple of hours of using their app they have to download a few gigabytes of information, because keeping it around just in case you happened to need it would be silly. With some modern games, its basically the same problem with the same solution.
Its not a conspiracy. They're not out to get you. Relax.
Actually, your app images aren't part of your iCloud backup. They get re-downloaded separately after the fact. The vast majority of space taken up by peoples backups are pictures.
Note that the requirements for an inherently mobile, disconnected device like a phone and an inherently stationary, connected device designed to consume content (like the AppleTV) are quite different. That's not a bug, that's an intelligent design decision.
The 2x24" 1080p screens on my desk are just fine thanks.
In fairness, there's a pretty spectacular improvement in moving to a "retina" class display on your using-it-all-the-time monitor. I can see no rational reason for having a higher resolution on my phone than I do on my 27" computer monitor though, even if I do hold it half the distance away.
And when someone sends you a PSD anyway, because they already paid for it and it was how it was delivered, you'll still be expected to accept it gracefully and convert it to whatever you want your own damn self.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. High voltage power lines as described are unmistakable. Its like calling a proposed 8-lane interstate highway just a "road". Technically true, but substantially misleading.
Not just cheap power - ideally, the big name datacenters want redundant feeds, just like hospitals do. Getting that level of service is far from a trivial exercise.
Remember those things called "malls". Well, the stores in them seem to be disappearing at an incredible rate (with good reason) and it's left as a hollow shell that was once a prosperous part of town. Seems like the stores in old malls would be perfect for a datacenter, no?
Rackspace bought one in San Antonio a few years ago and turned it into their headquarters and a major datacenter.
For a landline call? Still sounds pretty egregious to me. The prisoners already have to qualify for their calls, and from what I understand aren't allowed very many of them in the best cases. Why add another punishment on top of what they're already serving? There's no real reason to break out the phone calls and make them orders of magnitude more expensive to prisoners than they actually are.
I should be able to say "this is my card, do not ever accept it". Other vendors are more than happy to oblige to that request.
Really? Who?
That's a serious question, by the way. I don't know of any company who's set up to allow random non-customers to call in and request that their credit card be placed on a do-not-accept list - or indeed any commercial software set up to accept those kind of restrictions.
When I call a merchant directly and tell them my card has been used fraudulently they should be willing to take my information and - at the very least - blacklist my card number upon my request so that it is never used again.
Even though you're not their customer? Yeah, there's no way that that could ever be abused.
There are well-established procedures for handling these kind of situations, if you follow them then most everything "just works".
I could have been more clean; it returns that information to the POS, and it tells the card that its in signature mode rather than PIN mode.
If you read TFA, you'll see that the issue exists because people wanted the card to be able to be used without the PIN present, presumably in cases where a PIN terminal wasn't available. All that the hack does is convince the card to process the transaction as if it was a chip-and-signature transaction, which most places can choose to trigger by hand.
As long as you want cards to work without the PIN, they will be vulnerable to being told to work without the PIN. That's just a fact, unfortunately.
The other benefits of chip transactions, the best of which is that each transaction is unique rather than simply a relay of TRACKDATA with a M_ID and an amount attached to it (basically making stolen card transmissions worthless instead of the current "just as good as a real card"), still remain and are highly significant.
Some of those vulnerabilities that would require physical access to exploit would be just as protected by the existing hospital security measures as current vulnerabilities (unplugging, pin-pricks, blocking lines, et cetera). Doesn't mean that they're not real, or that in some cases it wouldn't be frighteningly easy to do Very Bad Things, but we probably shouldn't treat the networked versions any more or less gingerly than the physical ones.
Devices should be secure, or at least securable. As should internal hospital networks.
At the same time the risk from bio-medical network hacking remains theoretical. There's a small but serious risk that harm could spread on a wide scale, but so far no exploits have been made.
The risk of network issues during critical, potentially confusing, seconds-count scenarios is also real. Having some kind of network incompatibility or security interface issue could easily mean the difference between life and death.
Both risks exist. Both can be studied, and a reasonable compromise reached - but to discuss one in the absence of the other is just foolishness.
If that is girl like behavior in your eyes,
Mildly OT, but let's not use "girl" as an insult, mmmkay?
And if you log and report that, they will be fined - seriously. And then they'll be less likely to do it again. Of course, complaining about it on /. doesn't actually help much.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities. They're required to provide services to handicapped passengers, for another. And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go. The last two issues often increase costs, which are then leveled across all customers - making it "easy" to compete if you only take the juicy fares, leaving the other ones stranded. Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.
We've tried deregulating taxis before. Almost everywhere has. Its a great idea, but in practice it never works - at least, it never has before now. Why should we expect this time to be any different?
If you actually look at it in a vacuum, instead of as the evolution that got us here, our current gas-station infrastructure is also ridiculous. Inch thick tubes with no safeties pumping volatile fuel anywhere someone wants, that has to be trucked in on a regular basis from refineries often located in different countries than the original oil is produced in, with highly polluting leakage possible at every stage of the game? Ridiculous. And yet we're so used to it we don't even blink. Most of the refueling station ideas are no more crazy, especially since you really only need them to be truckstop-scale since overnight "trickle charging" (relatively speaking) can work well for most people most of the time.
There's probably a better way to solve the actual that some of you could come up with if I told you what I was really trying to do, or gave you any hints like a useful budget amount or how often each case came up, but I don't want to feel too silly so please just figure out this one piece in isolation.
Finding the correct answer (goat, nothing, wolf, goat, cabbage, nothing, goat) is far easier than figuring out what fiendishly complex business problem the OP is trying to solve here that wouldn't be more easily solved in a different way. Of course, since useful details are rarely provided, we'll probably never know.
I think a reasonable possibility is that if they cheat on one test, they might be cheating on other tests. Maybe American carmakers just aren't as good at gaming the test.
Admittedly, its a lot harder to reprogram your car to fare better when smashed into a wall during a test than it will in real life.
let's not pretend that any actual harm has been caused.
Current estimate is on the order of ~4,000 deaths, using the standard actuarial life expectancy tables. But sure, lets go with "no actual harm" instead - it does sound a lot better in a soundbite.
even if your app and another app use the same version of the same library both need their own copy and you can't upgrade just the library. (Delta updates? What are those?)
The cost of that approach is a relatively small amount of memory (after all, most applications don't share most non-system things with most other applications). The benefit of that approach is never, ever experiencing DLL conflicts, and having the capability to have single-package applications that don't even need to have an installer for the most part. It turns out to be a pretty good tradeoff.
Its making it easy for people like game manufacturers to have dynamic content.
Think about it like Netflix. Every couple of hours of using their app they have to download a few gigabytes of information, because keeping it around just in case you happened to need it would be silly. With some modern games, its basically the same problem with the same solution.
Its not a conspiracy. They're not out to get you. Relax.
Actually, your app images aren't part of your iCloud backup. They get re-downloaded separately after the fact. The vast majority of space taken up by peoples backups are pictures.
Note that the requirements for an inherently mobile, disconnected device like a phone and an inherently stationary, connected device designed to consume content (like the AppleTV) are quite different. That's not a bug, that's an intelligent design decision.
The 2x24" 1080p screens on my desk are just fine thanks.
In fairness, there's a pretty spectacular improvement in moving to a "retina" class display on your using-it-all-the-time monitor. I can see no rational reason for having a higher resolution on my phone than I do on my 27" computer monitor though, even if I do hold it half the distance away.
It *is* a planet. It's just a dwarf planet.
Of course, the correct terminology is now "Little Planets".
I believe they prefer "Planets of Compact Stature."
And when someone sends you a PSD anyway, because they already paid for it and it was how it was delivered, you'll still be expected to accept it gracefully and convert it to whatever you want your own damn self.