Yeah, I agree. My first clue about this story is the photograph from 1240 that is of an extremely good quality. Unless I am remarkably mistaken, photographs were not around until sometime in the 19th century.
See, the thing is, every phone line has to remain available for calls to 911...for free. So, I have my "emergency" phone that is always plugged into one phone jack for just such an emergency. What's the problem now?
Have you cared to read the database from the site you have now linked? That site includes both insurgent and US-military caused deaths. Read the database for an incident-by-incident breakdown. How does a car bomb, intended for a US convoy, that ends up killing Iraqi civilians count against the US? The US forces did not kill those individuals. The database is riddled with numerous similar instances. On just the first page I counted 10+ instances where the "weapon" was listed as either "car bomb" or "roadside bomb". Last time I checked, the American forces are not using such tactics. You are harming your credibility by not actually reading your own source and researching in depth. Instead, you take a number off the front page whose sole purpose is to be sensational. Sensationalism is all that people like you are able to use to try to make your point. You come out with some statistic that makes you look good, but ignores many sides of the story. Now, come out and truly, truly show me one thing that shows why Iraq as a whole is worse off now than it was under Saddam's cruel rule, and you might be able to make some headroom.
No, again you are not entirely informed. You're article merely mentions civilian deaths, not US civilian deaths. From the article you quoted: At the same time, the Iraqi insurgents are also killing civilians, forcing the issue of which is more newsworthy.
So, your article proves nothing, except that Iraqi civilians have died, in great numbers. I do not think that civilian deaths are good. They are the most crass, base things on the face of the planet, but you must realize that these insurgrents and "Freedom Fighters" are hurting civilians as well as the military. Until you come up with a stat from a reliable source that says XXXX number were killed by U.S. forces, and XXXX were killed by insurgents, then you have nothing to stand on at the moment.
Notice how as the armies of the world get more advanced and better weapons, that certain tactics that were used in the past that killed many more innocents, are no longer used. Take carpet bombing for example. How many times, during previous wars, have certain areas been bombed, with thousands of pieces of ordinance, with no regard as to where the individual bombs fell? Now, we have smart weapons that can take out one specific building, with minimal impact to the surrounding area. Yes, there are times that the intelligence is incorrect and the wrong building is targeted, and innocents die. BUT, there are far fewer innocents being killed nowadays, then in the days of past. Also, I would recon that more innocents have been killed by their own people (i.e. suicide bombers) than have been killed by the US military.
Yeah, and the other 46% would go to Bush. Kerry would close the gap, slightly but not by the 140,000 votes he needs. He would need 90-95% of the provisionals...and that's if all of those provisionals are valid.
Multicase passwords do HUGE things to the statistics of the problem.
Normally, yes. But the LM method converts everything to uppercase before hashing. So your 8 character password, that had 10^14 combinations has just been reduced down to (26+10)^8... combinations or 2.9*10^12. Now, you might be saying "That was only a factor of four drop, no big deal, still 10^12 combos left. Realize though, that this DB currently has all possible passwords of a maximum length of 15 characters. This is 2.8*10^13 combos. This is less than the 10^12 possibilities that your password has. Consider that it searches in 0.2 seconds, and your password is not so safe.
Re:From the OQO Website
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, it does have bluetooth and 802.11b support.
Here's what it is...
on
OQO For Sale
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You'd think our boy Timothy would at least link to the page of the manufacturer where there are images, and stands a better chance against/.'ing. Here you go guys...it's some sort of portable computer thing.
Oh I agree. Magstripe reader/writer can be built for $5 and the software is free. So, creating that is no problem whatsoever. The barcode is a little tougher, just because it is a large, 2-D barcode, but not impossible to re-create accurately.
Your magstripe simply has the same info as is on the license. It runs a check to make sure that the date encoded will say that you are 21. Reason being, is that the less than ambitious fake ID creators will simply scratch the numbers out on the front where the birthdate is and re-write a valid date in, or they will just create a nice looking exterior, without writing to the magnetic stripe. So, there is no reason to go wearing a tinfoil hat about having your magstripe swiped.
Honeywell not only makes LCDs, but they have licensed this technology to some of the largest, consumer LCD companies such as LG & Samsung. What a trip huh?
Ever think that these companies didn't come up with the "original" idea either? What if Honeywell developed and patented this idea. Then, they write a paper that is published in many tech journals. Now imagine that all of these other companies look at this paper and say "hey, let's try to do something like that and hope we don't get caught." How do you think LG & Samsung knew about this technology so they could license it?
Also, what if instead of reading those tech magazines, the small companies trying to compete against Samsung & LG realized that they both use a similar method, and concluded (incorrectly) that is was something that did not have a patent, because both major LCD companies had this technology in use. Honeywell is definately not the first name in consumer LCDs. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that some other companies copied this design under the false assumption that it was not a patented idea.
Honeywell has licensed these technologies in the past to various manufacturers. Those that they are suing are companies that are using, but have not licensed, these technologies. It is a valid patent, not about software. Besides, LCDs for computer screens have only really recently come into the foray. Yes, they've been around for a while, but the "explosion" has only happened recently. When something takes off, I would imagine that some companies start manufacturing things and might not realize they are infringing. So, Honeywell now realizes this only because of the volume that is present. Besides, Honeywell makes these LCDs for use in cockpits and flight decks.
You said "good-faith belief," which are the words that are used in the DMCA. All the MPAA has to say is that they truely thought the files were infringing. Now, does "good-faith belief" mean that they have to actually have downloaded the file and analyzed it to determine if the file is infrining? That's a tough one. I would say that the MPAA's safest bet would be to do so. Otherwise, it could be construed that they didn't go far enough in asserting their belief. The problem here is that Mr. Valenti and his thugs have many more millions of dollars and evil, greedy lawyers than you will ever have. Therefore, if you decide to challenge them in court over something as simple as whether or not they actually believed in good-faith that the file in question was infringing, then you will have a big problem on your hands. It is unfortunate that we as individuals have little recourse. The only way that you could successfully sue and win is if they actually filed a lawsuit against you for that file. Then, you could prove, in a court of law, that if they decided to go so far as sue, they should've at least downloaded the file and examined it for infringement. Then, and only then, would you have a good set of legal legs to stand on.
They are looking for something, it's their job to verify their search results.
When I read that I instantly thought of SCO. Currently, the MPAA sounds a lot like what SCO is doing. "You are stole our code, we can't prove it, but you need to prove it to us."
It could be that their SSIDs were altered to something else, which is not all that uncommon, especially when you look at WIFI maps. So, if they hop on their laptop, and select the AP, the name could pop up saying "you are connected to XXXX" and that's how they might know something is up.
Perfect example between my computer and one of my friend's computers. My specs were aa P3 850 w/ radeon 8500LE and ~400MB RAM. His was an Athlon XP 1800+ w/ 512RAM but only a GeForce 2 MX. When we compared 3dMark 2k1 scores, mine were nearly double. How does microsoft attempt to exlpain all this?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I agree. My first clue about this story is the photograph from 1240 that is of an extremely good quality. Unless I am remarkably mistaken, photographs were not around until sometime in the 19th century.
But wait...you CAN!
See, the thing is, every phone line has to remain available for calls to 911...for free. So, I have my "emergency" phone that is always plugged into one phone jack for just such an emergency. What's the problem now?
Have you cared to read the database from the site you have now linked? That site includes both insurgent and US-military caused deaths. Read the database for an incident-by-incident breakdown. How does a car bomb, intended for a US convoy, that ends up killing Iraqi civilians count against the US? The US forces did not kill those individuals. The database is riddled with numerous similar instances. On just the first page I counted 10+ instances where the "weapon" was listed as either "car bomb" or "roadside bomb". Last time I checked, the American forces are not using such tactics. You are harming your credibility by not actually reading your own source and researching in depth. Instead, you take a number off the front page whose sole purpose is to be sensational. Sensationalism is all that people like you are able to use to try to make your point. You come out with some statistic that makes you look good, but ignores many sides of the story. Now, come out and truly, truly show me one thing that shows why Iraq as a whole is worse off now than it was under Saddam's cruel rule, and you might be able to make some headroom.
So, your article proves nothing, except that Iraqi civilians have died, in great numbers. I do not think that civilian deaths are good. They are the most crass, base things on the face of the planet, but you must realize that these insurgrents and "Freedom Fighters" are hurting civilians as well as the military. Until you come up with a stat from a reliable source that says XXXX number were killed by U.S. forces, and XXXX were killed by insurgents, then you have nothing to stand on at the moment.
Notice how as the armies of the world get more advanced and better weapons, that certain tactics that were used in the past that killed many more innocents, are no longer used. Take carpet bombing for example. How many times, during previous wars, have certain areas been bombed, with thousands of pieces of ordinance, with no regard as to where the individual bombs fell? Now, we have smart weapons that can take out one specific building, with minimal impact to the surrounding area. Yes, there are times that the intelligence is incorrect and the wrong building is targeted, and innocents die. BUT, there are far fewer innocents being killed nowadays, then in the days of past. Also, I would recon that more innocents have been killed by their own people (i.e. suicide bombers) than have been killed by the US military.
Yeah, and the other 46% would go to Bush. Kerry would close the gap, slightly but not by the 140,000 votes he needs. He would need 90-95% of the provisionals...and that's if all of those provisionals are valid.
Normally, yes. But the LM method converts everything to uppercase before hashing. So your 8 character password, that had 10^14 combinations has just been reduced down to (26+10)^8... combinations or 2.9*10^12. Now, you might be saying "That was only a factor of four drop, no big deal, still 10^12 combos left. Realize though, that this DB currently has all possible passwords of a maximum length of 15 characters. This is 2.8*10^13 combos. This is less than the 10^12 possibilities that your password has. Consider that it searches in 0.2 seconds, and your password is not so safe.
And what percentage of that 2/3 is drinkable? ~3%
Actually, it does have bluetooth and 802.11b support.
You'd think our boy Timothy would at least link to the page of the manufacturer where there are images, and stands a better chance against /.'ing. Here you go guys...it's some sort of portable computer thing.
Don't worry, you aren't the only one.
Oh I agree. Magstripe reader/writer can be built for $5 and the software is free. So, creating that is no problem whatsoever. The barcode is a little tougher, just because it is a large, 2-D barcode, but not impossible to re-create accurately.
Your magstripe simply has the same info as is on the license. It runs a check to make sure that the date encoded will say that you are 21. Reason being, is that the less than ambitious fake ID creators will simply scratch the numbers out on the front where the birthdate is and re-write a valid date in, or they will just create a nice looking exterior, without writing to the magnetic stripe. So, there is no reason to go wearing a tinfoil hat about having your magstripe swiped.
Honeywell not only makes LCDs, but they have licensed this technology to some of the largest, consumer LCD companies such as LG & Samsung. What a trip huh?
Also, what if instead of reading those tech magazines, the small companies trying to compete against Samsung & LG realized that they both use a similar method, and concluded (incorrectly) that is was something that did not have a patent, because both major LCD companies had this technology in use. Honeywell is definately not the first name in consumer LCDs. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that some other companies copied this design under the false assumption that it was not a patented idea.
Probably not, since you are merely a reseller. Notice how Best Buy, CompUSA, etc. are not included?
Patents could be considered a way of squashing innovation altogether, but Honeywell is doing business as usual.
Honeywell has licensed these technologies in the past to various manufacturers. Those that they are suing are companies that are using, but have not licensed, these technologies. It is a valid patent, not about software. Besides, LCDs for computer screens have only really recently come into the foray. Yes, they've been around for a while, but the "explosion" has only happened recently. When something takes off, I would imagine that some companies start manufacturing things and might not realize they are infringing. So, Honeywell now realizes this only because of the volume that is present. Besides, Honeywell makes these LCDs for use in cockpits and flight decks.
You said "good-faith belief," which are the words that are used in the DMCA. All the MPAA has to say is that they truely thought the files were infringing. Now, does "good-faith belief" mean that they have to actually have downloaded the file and analyzed it to determine if the file is infrining? That's a tough one. I would say that the MPAA's safest bet would be to do so. Otherwise, it could be construed that they didn't go far enough in asserting their belief. The problem here is that Mr. Valenti and his thugs have many more millions of dollars and evil, greedy lawyers than you will ever have. Therefore, if you decide to challenge them in court over something as simple as whether or not they actually believed in good-faith that the file in question was infringing, then you will have a big problem on your hands. It is unfortunate that we as individuals have little recourse. The only way that you could successfully sue and win is if they actually filed a lawsuit against you for that file. Then, you could prove, in a court of law, that if they decided to go so far as sue, they should've at least downloaded the file and examined it for infringement. Then, and only then, would you have a good set of legal legs to stand on.
When I read that I instantly thought of SCO. Currently, the MPAA sounds a lot like what SCO is doing. "You are stole our code, we can't prove it, but you need to prove it to us."
TFA mentions that one guy was actually let in by one of the residents.
It could be that their SSIDs were altered to something else, which is not all that uncommon, especially when you look at WIFI maps. So, if they hop on their laptop, and select the AP, the name could pop up saying "you are connected to XXXX" and that's how they might know something is up.
Perfect example between my computer and one of my friend's computers. My specs were aa P3 850 w/ radeon 8500LE and ~400MB RAM. His was an Athlon XP 1800+ w/ 512RAM but only a GeForce 2 MX. When we compared 3dMark 2k1 scores, mine were nearly double. How does microsoft attempt to exlpain all this?
Anybody else get sick of NYT saying "U.S.B." with the periods, instead of the commonly accepted USB?
Yes, that may be so, but if instead it was a blinged out geek girl, then you'd go a-runnin'.