How do you share the passwords on all those machine?
The same way they do for WiFi routers (and have done for 10+ years). You put it on the machine. There are doors locked with keys, and you expect them to have the keys to the ATM, so have the password on the inside of the door. Only if someone is already inside can they see it.
Is your solution cost effective?
Yes.
Does it account for areas with bad reception?
Yes
Plus, if you made 10K a week keeping your front door open, but you spent 30K a year replacing any stolen item, would you lock your door?
And if it cost $0 to prevent all theft, how stupid would you have to be to not secure it?
The typical Slashdot response. "I can't think of an easy way to fix the problem so it must be impossible." No, you are just stupid. Putting the password on the machine, but locked where it would already be "compromised" to view is free, easy, and has been used in other areas for decades. My routers come with non-default passwords from the factory, with the randomly generated initial (and after reset) password on the device, where physical security is already compromised if someone sees it.
If it's as impossible as you imply, go ahead and tell me what's wrong with my idea. I can only presume you'll make up some fake physical security problem. But I've never seen an ATM that didn't require keys of some kind.
Better, You could have a card and PIN that identified the maintenance person. The ATMs are wired back and authenticate transactions, so why not authenticate the maintenance person, and only open for authorized maintenance people at times in the maintenance schedule?
I can think of lots of ways to do this that scale well to 10,000,000 ATMs. That you can't think of any just proves stupidity, not difficulty.
And broadcast stations don't generally encode the signal (to DVB) until the last moment. So the content couldn't trigger the attack, but it'd have to be done at the transmitting station. I'm sure they have alarms on the buildings, but that wouldn't stop someone from breaking in, swapping the encoder for a compromised one, and running away to do it again later.
When you turn left, the car has (essentially) centripetal force by the tyres pulling it to the inside of the turn. As the car turns left, the bodies inside it try to go straight (inertia). The seat/seatbelt push you left, or you'd fall out of your seat and hit your door.
You lean left to move some of the left-push from the seat/seatbelt/door to your arse. Better seats help.
Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
So you'd assert the social development is exactly the same between an autistic person and a "normal" person?
Great, you hijack every TV in a city, what can you do with it? My smart TV has just enough processing power to play encoded streams, and no more. It won't mine bitcoins or such, and so far, every "attack" I've seen is wiped when the TV is turned off, so you'd get a tiny percentage of the TVs, and not much you can do with them. That's why nobody would do it.
There are also a lot of posts claiming the Turing test doesn't mean anything. However none of them I have read so far actually explain their statement,
Simple. A "large" number of humans would fail it. Many "Turing tests" are set up so that a phrase generator could pass the test, not a phrase response generator, but a simple list of sentences, played in order.
That's why many are saying that the Touring test doesn't mean anything. Let the thing loose in a chatroom and see whether people call it a bot. Not whether a tightly controlled experiment full of rules and possible planted conversations can find it out.
so I assume they are parroting their philosophy proffessor who was probably referring to Searle's Chinese translation room [wikipedia.org] argument.
I disagree with that argument. One must understand what one is saying to say it in the manner of the argument. The exceptions are things like Nina singing 99 red baloons in English without understanding the words, or Opera singers singing a song they don't understand. But the Searle argument isn't about parroting, but responding.
Like the computer program that writes a book into a report "understands" the book. But understanding isn't AI.
My simple definition of AI is any program capable of making something smarter than it. Humans fit that definition, as most children are smarter than their parents. But no computer program can yet write a new program smarter than itself. When it can, it can do so many times, fast, and quickly reach singularity. Go go human extinction. Long live the Robots!
Knightghost already "confessed" then posted A/C after? If he's posting AC, why not tell us something we can use to look up the case, you know, public information? But no, he gave his name, and implied illegal acts, then posted AC and explicitly stated he knew of questionable acts? Why even bother to post?
The easiest way to cause a failure is generate an illogical emotional response. Insult the other person's mother, or ignore their statements, something that causes anger or frustration, and not necessarily predictable.
The more the tester would fail a Turing test (a pissed of 12 year old, being dumb), the more they can cause a failure.
Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people.
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 0
autism is not a form of mental retardation.
Give a definition of mental retardation that I can't re-state autism to match.
Knee dragging serves a purpose. What do you "race" legally? Motocross?
Have you *never* leaned so far that you scraped the frame? If not, then you are a bad "racer" and may have ridden a lot, but have never pushed the bike or yourself.
"motorcycle gang", what, you and two of your accountant buddies go ride bikes Wild Hog style once a year?
That would be true if inertia didn't exist. But when you turn the car left, the seat pushes you left, or you'd fall out of the car. The force pushing you left as you corner is centrifugal force. You are revealing your dumbassery and narrow mindedness when you claim obvious things don't exist. I can (and have) proven it existed, in 3rd grade experiments.
Or you can think of it as having centripetal force acting on a body curving, and centrifugal force is acting on bodies *within* the body curving. That force exists, and is real and measurable.
There are piles of leaning cars. Though, this might be the first one in the market. And I thought the Infinity Q45 with Active Suspension would lean in as well, but only as much as the forces were trying to make it lean out, so that it rode flat.
I managed the Cable TV systems for commercial insertion for 10 years, so tell me again how easy it is to swap a TV commercial?
I've worked CATV too, and the commercials were stored on tapes, at least on the systems I worked on back when I did it. It was as easy to swap a TV commercial as ejecting a tape from a VCR and replacing it with a properly queued version.
Just swap a TV commercial..... That's Hilarious, this is not 1993 when you had racks full of video tapes for the TV commercials.
Nope. They still had racks of tapes for smaller markets in the last 5 years. Many are hand-me-downs from the 1993 systems you refer to.
But does any of that matter. The attack requires coding that's above the level accessible inside the stream.
The CATV head-end I've been in had local commercials, and local override. So you could insert just about anything, in designated spots. That's how you get those bad local commercials. If nobody buys those spots, they run low-paying national commercials. Or national commercials that don't apply in that area (some national chains don't have universal coverage, so they want 80% coverage with their commercials, and it's up to the local areas to sell over their last 20%).
But, as you say, the coding for this couldn't be inserted in a show or commercial, but would require a compromised encoder inserted in the stream.
So the attack is "easy" all one needs to do is re-program a DVB modulator (they grow on trees, right? For all the geeks here, I bet there are only a hansdull that have even seen a DVB-T modulator), and insert it into a stream that a TV is on, and that TV must be connected to the Internet (the article put the connected Smart TVs at 30%). So, taking over a city of 10,000,000 people would get a few hundred thousand TVs, and ad insertion was one of the worst case scenarios.
And the drive-by version blasting out the code will only work if someone is on and tuned to the station you are hijacking at that moment in time?
Yeah, I think I'm with the makers. The damage, if hijacked, is small. And the possibilities of hijacking are small.
I've been in the cable head-end for a city (a few hundred thousand nodes). All it'd take to do this is walk into the room and swap a commercial with one with the attack embedded. Thousands of people probably could get in there. At the right time, you could dress up as an electrician, and walk in.
And if you are an inside man, how would they catch you? Take a commercial, embed the attack. Then claim it must have been the editors for the commercial, who embedded it before it got to you. How would they prove anything? Would anyone smart enough to figure anything out even be looking at the case?
In my car, it's impossible to lock the steering column with this advice. The turn that allows the lock of the column requires the car be in park. If you don't put it in park, then you can't lock the steering. If you put it in park, there's no need to turn off the car, right? And you get one use of the brakes after turning it off at full braking power. And steering greatly depends on the car. Some you'll see little to no effect, others will have a greater effect. At highway speeds, even the worst effect would still allow granny to steer. Effort decreases with speed. So long as you don't try to parallel park at the end of your massive failure with the car off, it shouldn't be a problem.
So someone posted, and then it's "confirmed" by an A/C, yet nobody posts enough information to corroborate anything. Makes me think that both are the same person, and the case doesn't exist.
The cops aren't technically allowed to tell you to go away if you're not breaking any laws
Yes, they are. If you are closer than "safe" (as determined by the opinion of the cop) for his or your safety, he's allowed to order you to a safe distance greater than the minimum "safe" distance. If you are 3 feet away while he's trying to cuff someone, the someone could strike the bystander (or the bystander could be close enough the cop couldn't respond well were they to start something), and thus the cop can send you across the street, and failing to comply is a crime.
You aren't breaking a law by crowding in to see what's going on. But the police can still order you away. And if the cop thinks that the presence of filming is disturbing the peace or interfering with police (people seeing the camera are emboldened and trying to get a rise out of the cop, by saying/doing things that wouldn't be caught on the video, hoping for a reaction), then they can order you to stop filming, even if you already moved across the street as ordered.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying what is.
Nope. Both show a helpless man beaten without just cause. I've watched the full film. It doesn't tell any other story. Bored adrenaline junkies with guns get to beat up man because he is uncooperative. That doesn't change when you see only the beating, or whether you see the lead up to it.
So was the bystander/plaintiff illegally tampering with evidence, or did the defense fail to show the unaltered film because the parts in the middle you presume exculpatory weren't?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you share the passwords on all those machine?
The same way they do for WiFi routers (and have done for 10+ years). You put it on the machine. There are doors locked with keys, and you expect them to have the keys to the ATM, so have the password on the inside of the door. Only if someone is already inside can they see it.
Is your solution cost effective?
Yes.
Does it account for areas with bad reception?
Yes
Plus, if you made 10K a week keeping your front door open, but you spent 30K a year replacing any stolen item, would you lock your door?
And if it cost $0 to prevent all theft, how stupid would you have to be to not secure it?
The typical Slashdot response. "I can't think of an easy way to fix the problem so it must be impossible." No, you are just stupid. Putting the password on the machine, but locked where it would already be "compromised" to view is free, easy, and has been used in other areas for decades. My routers come with non-default passwords from the factory, with the randomly generated initial (and after reset) password on the device, where physical security is already compromised if someone sees it.
If it's as impossible as you imply, go ahead and tell me what's wrong with my idea. I can only presume you'll make up some fake physical security problem. But I've never seen an ATM that didn't require keys of some kind.
Better, You could have a card and PIN that identified the maintenance person. The ATMs are wired back and authenticate transactions, so why not authenticate the maintenance person, and only open for authorized maintenance people at times in the maintenance schedule?
I can think of lots of ways to do this that scale well to 10,000,000 ATMs. That you can't think of any just proves stupidity, not difficulty.
What executives? 8+ "executives" fired? How many executives do they have? Couldn't that be part of the problem?
And broadcast stations don't generally encode the signal (to DVB) until the last moment. So the content couldn't trigger the attack, but it'd have to be done at the transmitting station. I'm sure they have alarms on the buildings, but that wouldn't stop someone from breaking in, swapping the encoder for a compromised one, and running away to do it again later.
When you turn left, the car has (essentially) centripetal force by the tyres pulling it to the inside of the turn. As the car turns left, the bodies inside it try to go straight (inertia). The seat/seatbelt push you left, or you'd fall out of your seat and hit your door.
You lean left to move some of the left-push from the seat/seatbelt/door to your arse. Better seats help.
So you'd assert the social development is exactly the same between an autistic person and a "normal" person?
As far as I can tell with mine, it's as "off" as a computer in standby. That's as "off" as anything gets these days.
Great, you hijack every TV in a city, what can you do with it? My smart TV has just enough processing power to play encoded streams, and no more. It won't mine bitcoins or such, and so far, every "attack" I've seen is wiped when the TV is turned off, so you'd get a tiny percentage of the TVs, and not much you can do with them. That's why nobody would do it.
There are also a lot of posts claiming the Turing test doesn't mean anything. However none of them I have read so far actually explain their statement,
Simple. A "large" number of humans would fail it. Many "Turing tests" are set up so that a phrase generator could pass the test, not a phrase response generator, but a simple list of sentences, played in order.
That's why many are saying that the Touring test doesn't mean anything. Let the thing loose in a chatroom and see whether people call it a bot. Not whether a tightly controlled experiment full of rules and possible planted conversations can find it out.
so I assume they are parroting their philosophy proffessor who was probably referring to Searle's Chinese translation room [wikipedia.org] argument.
I disagree with that argument. One must understand what one is saying to say it in the manner of the argument. The exceptions are things like Nina singing 99 red baloons in English without understanding the words, or Opera singers singing a song they don't understand. But the Searle argument isn't about parroting, but responding.
Like the computer program that writes a book into a report "understands" the book. But understanding isn't AI.
My simple definition of AI is any program capable of making something smarter than it. Humans fit that definition, as most children are smarter than their parents. But no computer program can yet write a new program smarter than itself. When it can, it can do so many times, fast, and quickly reach singularity. Go go human extinction. Long live the Robots!
Knightghost already "confessed" then posted A/C after? If he's posting AC, why not tell us something we can use to look up the case, you know, public information? But no, he gave his name, and implied illegal acts, then posted AC and explicitly stated he knew of questionable acts? Why even bother to post?
The easiest way to cause a failure is generate an illogical emotional response. Insult the other person's mother, or ignore their statements, something that causes anger or frustration, and not necessarily predictable.
The more the tester would fail a Turing test (a pissed of 12 year old, being dumb), the more they can cause a failure.
autism is not a form of mental retardation.
Give a definition of mental retardation that I can't re-state autism to match.
Knee dragging serves a purpose. What do you "race" legally? Motocross?
Have you *never* leaned so far that you scraped the frame? If not, then you are a bad "racer" and may have ridden a lot, but have never pushed the bike or yourself.
"motorcycle gang", what, you and two of your accountant buddies go ride bikes Wild Hog style once a year?
That would be true if inertia didn't exist. But when you turn the car left, the seat pushes you left, or you'd fall out of the car. The force pushing you left as you corner is centrifugal force. You are revealing your dumbassery and narrow mindedness when you claim obvious things don't exist. I can (and have) proven it existed, in 3rd grade experiments.
Or you can think of it as having centripetal force acting on a body curving, and centrifugal force is acting on bodies *within* the body curving. That force exists, and is real and measurable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
http://www.worldcarfans.com/111041532649/audi-a5-that-can-literally-lean-into-corners-video
There are piles of leaning cars. Though, this might be the first one in the market. And I thought the Infinity Q45 with Active Suspension would lean in as well, but only as much as the forces were trying to make it lean out, so that it rode flat.
I managed the Cable TV systems for commercial insertion for 10 years, so tell me again how easy it is to swap a TV commercial?
I've worked CATV too, and the commercials were stored on tapes, at least on the systems I worked on back when I did it. It was as easy to swap a TV commercial as ejecting a tape from a VCR and replacing it with a properly queued version.
Just swap a TV commercial..... That's Hilarious, this is not 1993 when you had racks full of video tapes for the TV commercials.
Nope. They still had racks of tapes for smaller markets in the last 5 years. Many are hand-me-downs from the 1993 systems you refer to.
But does any of that matter. The attack requires coding that's above the level accessible inside the stream.
The CATV head-end I've been in had local commercials, and local override. So you could insert just about anything, in designated spots. That's how you get those bad local commercials. If nobody buys those spots, they run low-paying national commercials. Or national commercials that don't apply in that area (some national chains don't have universal coverage, so they want 80% coverage with their commercials, and it's up to the local areas to sell over their last 20%).
But, as you say, the coding for this couldn't be inserted in a show or commercial, but would require a compromised encoder inserted in the stream.
So the attack is "easy" all one needs to do is re-program a DVB modulator (they grow on trees, right? For all the geeks here, I bet there are only a hansdull that have even seen a DVB-T modulator), and insert it into a stream that a TV is on, and that TV must be connected to the Internet (the article put the connected Smart TVs at 30%). So, taking over a city of 10,000,000 people would get a few hundred thousand TVs, and ad insertion was one of the worst case scenarios.
And the drive-by version blasting out the code will only work if someone is on and tuned to the station you are hijacking at that moment in time?
Yeah, I think I'm with the makers. The damage, if hijacked, is small. And the possibilities of hijacking are small.
I've been in the cable head-end for a city (a few hundred thousand nodes). All it'd take to do this is walk into the room and swap a commercial with one with the attack embedded. Thousands of people probably could get in there. At the right time, you could dress up as an electrician, and walk in.
And if you are an inside man, how would they catch you? Take a commercial, embed the attack. Then claim it must have been the editors for the commercial, who embedded it before it got to you. How would they prove anything? Would anyone smart enough to figure anything out even be looking at the case?
In my car, it's impossible to lock the steering column with this advice. The turn that allows the lock of the column requires the car be in park. If you don't put it in park, then you can't lock the steering. If you put it in park, there's no need to turn off the car, right? And you get one use of the brakes after turning it off at full braking power. And steering greatly depends on the car. Some you'll see little to no effect, others will have a greater effect. At highway speeds, even the worst effect would still allow granny to steer. Effort decreases with speed. So long as you don't try to parallel park at the end of your massive failure with the car off, it shouldn't be a problem.
So someone posted, and then it's "confirmed" by an A/C, yet nobody posts enough information to corroborate anything. Makes me think that both are the same person, and the case doesn't exist.
Officers make much more than the average American.
The cops aren't technically allowed to tell you to go away if you're not breaking any laws
Yes, they are. If you are closer than "safe" (as determined by the opinion of the cop) for his or your safety, he's allowed to order you to a safe distance greater than the minimum "safe" distance. If you are 3 feet away while he's trying to cuff someone, the someone could strike the bystander (or the bystander could be close enough the cop couldn't respond well were they to start something), and thus the cop can send you across the street, and failing to comply is a crime.
You aren't breaking a law by crowding in to see what's going on. But the police can still order you away. And if the cop thinks that the presence of filming is disturbing the peace or interfering with police (people seeing the camera are emboldened and trying to get a rise out of the cop, by saying/doing things that wouldn't be caught on the video, hoping for a reaction), then they can order you to stop filming, even if you already moved across the street as ordered.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying what is.
Nope. Both show a helpless man beaten without just cause. I've watched the full film. It doesn't tell any other story. Bored adrenaline junkies with guns get to beat up man because he is uncooperative. That doesn't change when you see only the beating, or whether you see the lead up to it.
So was the bystander/plaintiff illegally tampering with evidence, or did the defense fail to show the unaltered film because the parts in the middle you presume exculpatory weren't?
Meaning all cops are rookies or criminals. There are no "good cops."