I don't think that's the mechanism for this attack at all. You'd take the fake barcodes to the e-ticket terminals and pretend to be someone flying that day. Then you just take their tickets. Of course, when they do arrive and make a fuss, you'll get flagged and caught when you try to use the tickets at the gate.
Indeed. Now, the transmitter itself appears quite small and close to the head. My question is this: how much did that box heat while the transmitter was on, and was that mimicked during sham exposure by use of alternate (non-RF emitting) heating?
Is why are people still buying DVDs? Whichever format wins, DVDs are obsolete. Until that time, it would be quite a bit thriftier to get a Netflix account or just rent locally as a stop-gap measure. Actually, it might be more cost effective even after one of those formats win.
It certainly doesn't make any sense at all to sink any more money into a DVD collection at this time.
There are 50 buttons on that remote because the device does SO much stuff. You paid for it, and you'll need a way to control it. Personally, I -use- those buttons, so I don't find them to be annoying.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the devices are well designed. For instance, which of the following graphing calculators would you suppose has more buttons, this one or it's predecessor?
Now, which would you rather use? (assuming you didn't know that the newer one's buttons take a little longer to push, which isn't a big deal until you want to enter in a lot of information)
Button layout is at least as important as total button count and button glyph design.
Because invariably, they've chosen a poor switch/button on the device (or tried for a minimalist face* and omitted it entirely) that's not in a convenient location, or doesn't have much travel so combined with the delay you're not ever quite sure you've really pressed it.
*which is silly on the face of it (grin). Offloading complication onto the remote just clutters up the remote, and has other downsides as well. I have a VCR that can't access the menu system except through the remote. (made by sony. One of many visually appealing disappointments from that company.) Which is especially unfortunate as I have somehow damaged the menu button on the remote, and a replacement remote costs more than the entire VCR at this point so I have to use a freakin' screwdriver to close the contacts every time I want to program it.
In Europe we have government agencies looking out for us, and dishing out huge fines. In the USA, I gather, you couldn't trust the government as far as you could throw them
Don't fool yourself. You can't trust the governments in Europe either. The murder of a somewhat well-connected government official in Serbia shouldn't be able to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Britons.
I'm glad to know I'm not alone in the "The writers have legitimate grievances, which the production companies should address, but they should probably hire scabs to replace most of the writers, anyway." camp.
Yes, I believe that's what I suggested. However, there wouldn't be more than one collision, since if there were any collisions in the database, the hashing algorithm would be expanded and all the hashes recomputed.
The plane already has plenty of holes in it. Some are necessary for you to breathe. It can survive quite handily more than a few shots from any caliber weapon you would be able to carry in a shoulder holster. Of course, you don't want to hit the pilot, or critical hydraulics lines, but even a lucky shot from a.22 caliber pistol can damage those systems for sufficient values of "luck."
Well, yes, with any hash, you have to worry about collisions. But hashes are weird, and there's still plenty of information to be sifted. For instance, if your hash doesn't match any of the already taken domains, you know for sure that your domain is not taken. It's true that if you have a match, you can't say for sure whether it's one of the existing domains or a collision with an existing domain, but it's still useful because the vast majority of the time, if you've chosen a free domain, it will not be a collision with an existing domain.
Further, if it does match one, there is no security risk in them sending YOU the one that it matched, so you can visually or automatically compare the strings yourself.
You don't look for the nonexistence of a hash in the "list of possible domains." You look for the existence of the hash in the "list of already-taken domains."
Collisions are your friend here, because even if the registrar maintains a "list of possible domains" to reverse-lookup your query hash, there is no guarantee that your domain choice is in that list. In fact, the chance is quite low that what they have in the table and what you picked are the same, even if they have the same hash.
Of course, Cuba is the laboratory for that little experiment, and the results aren't quite in yet that China is better off (although it looks likely). If it had turned out the other way, you'd be saying trading with China was an incredible mistake.
Better to say that the experiment with Cuban embargo (and very non-universal embargo, at that) was not as successful as we'd hoped, over the time period we'd anticipated, and therefore, reevaluation of the embargo would probably be a good idea at this time. Sadly, it will not happen because it is a Kennedy legacy, and the longer it stays in effect, the more mythic that legacy becomes.
I always assumed the "X" made the assumption that the disk takes as long to record as a CDrom could take to play. i.e. 1x is about 72 minutes (or 80 minutes) to record regardless of the format. Obviously, the higher capacity disks' 1x would have a higher data-rate, though.
Why wouldn't it solve the registrar problem? They're not storing a list of available domains to compare your hash to. They'd be matching your hash against the list of registered domains. You hash it on your OWN computer.
It's called, imaginatively enough, "remote desktop" as far as I know.
Whether you use a real KVM or a virtual one, the concept is still the same: You don't need any more monitors than you can look at at one time. 3 is pretty close to the max, linearly. Anything that's out of your field of view might as well be off.
It takes less effort to push a button than to turn around and look at something, and you're not going to glimpse anything important out of the corner of your eye that's displayed behind you.
Riding a bike, between two cars, ON THE DIVIDING LINE, is legal in California?? That is quite nutty.
Or were you saying that bikes are allowed to ride two-to-a-lane in CA, thus countering my claim that very few states allow side-by-side driving?
I've got news for you. FL is another state that allows it. That doesn't make it common. Nor a particularly bright idea. Now, a motorcycle highway certainly wouldn't need the same width as a standard highway, but two-to-a-standard-sized-lane is pretty close considering there's no metal frame surrounding the driver and the "sub"-lanes aren't marked.
The US government doesn't own the copyrights it protects any more than it owns the land it protects. Treaties are the way in which Washington protects copyrights from foreign usurpation on behalf if its citizens. Apparently its actions have been deemed a treaty violation by the organization agreed upon as arbiter of a particular set of treaties. As a result of this violation, the US government has given up some ability to protect copyrights on behalf of the rights holders.
Therefore, the owners should be able to sue the US Government for the losses
What is this "less road space" business people keep throwing out here. Most states require bikes to occupy one full lane, just like a car. Very few allow side-by-side driving (it's really quite dangerous, you know. )
NONE allow between-the-lanes driving that may bikers seem to be getting away with. And if they did, it wouldn't be very helpful as it forces the rest of the drivers to slow down, forming extremely inefficient traffic waves for miles behind.
There was a Mysterious device attached to freeway supports. It really doesn't matter whether there were blinking LEDs or not. Only an Idiot would think a freeway support would be a good place to put a guerrilla marketing piece of art that consists of a black box with exposed electronics and neither ask permission, nor tell anyone until after the hysteria begins.
Especially in a town whose freeway is pervasive and barely held together as it is. You're talking about a town where people drowned in scalding hot molasses due to negligence, I think they have a right to be a bit protective about their freeway supports.
Well, the joke's on him then. Because now we translate voice into a binary code not at all dissimilar to the way the original telegraph worked. And it's multiplexed!
There is no way in hell you need that many monitors. Some of them are IMPOSSIBLE to look at without turning a significant amount of your personal mass.
As someone else said, it looks more like a tanning booth than a place you'd want to actually work.
Get a KVM switch, and pare that down to like two or three monitors and use the switch, and/or remote and extended desktops to deal with all the servers. You should only need ONE keyboard/mouse.
"What happens when you lose bytes here or there in your digital film?"
Your error-correcting codes do their job and correct the error. They also gives you a tangible warning sign for when it's time to refresh the media: when you no longer get 100% reads (or when the error% exceeds some acceptable threshold that happens to be well below the ecc's max error rate), you move to new media.
And you do ridiculous amounts of parity bits, like O(size of the data) amounts of parity.
If you're really concerned about future proofing you can print, in plain language, an explanation of the ECC and video codec on a metal plate and bolt that to the drive, but you're probably going to need to refresh before anyone forgets how either of those were done.
Slashdot Mirror
Has it occurred to you that maybe the "Get them to work for US" experiments didn't work out as well as they'd hoped?
I don't think that's the mechanism for this attack at all. You'd take the fake barcodes to the e-ticket terminals and pretend to be someone flying that day. Then you just take their tickets. Of course, when they do arrive and make a fuss, you'll get flagged and caught when you try to use the tickets at the gate.
Indeed. Now, the transmitter itself appears quite small and close to the head. My question is this: how much did that box heat while the transmitter was on, and was that mimicked during sham exposure by use of alternate (non-RF emitting) heating?
You do realize that Phil Plait IS a NASA scientist.
Is why are people still buying DVDs? Whichever format wins, DVDs are obsolete. Until that time, it would be quite a bit thriftier to get a Netflix account or just rent locally as a stop-gap measure. Actually, it might be more cost effective even after one of those formats win.
It certainly doesn't make any sense at all to sink any more money into a DVD collection at this time.
Now, which would you rather use? (assuming you didn't know that the newer one's buttons take a little longer to push, which isn't a big deal until you want to enter in a lot of information)
Button layout is at least as important as total button count and button glyph design.
Because invariably, they've chosen a poor switch/button on the device (or tried for a minimalist face* and omitted it entirely) that's not in a convenient location, or doesn't have much travel so combined with the delay you're not ever quite sure you've really pressed it.
*which is silly on the face of it (grin). Offloading complication onto the remote just clutters up the remote, and has other downsides as well. I have a VCR that can't access the menu system except through the remote. (made by sony. One of many visually appealing disappointments from that company.) Which is especially unfortunate as I have somehow damaged the menu button on the remote, and a replacement remote costs more than the entire VCR at this point so I have to use a freakin' screwdriver to close the contacts every time I want to program it.
Don't fool yourself. You can't trust the governments in Europe either. The murder of a somewhat well-connected government official in Serbia shouldn't be able to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Britons.
Well, except for the vulgarities.
I'm glad to know I'm not alone in the "The writers have legitimate grievances, which the production companies should address, but they should probably hire scabs to replace most of the writers, anyway." camp.
Yes, I believe that's what I suggested. However, there wouldn't be more than one collision, since if there were any collisions in the database, the hashing algorithm would be expanded and all the hashes recomputed.
The plane already has plenty of holes in it. Some are necessary for you to breathe. It can survive quite handily more than a few shots from any caliber weapon you would be able to carry in a shoulder holster. Of course, you don't want to hit the pilot, or critical hydraulics lines, but even a lucky shot from a .22 caliber pistol can damage those systems for sufficient values of "luck."
Well, yes, with any hash, you have to worry about collisions. But hashes are weird, and there's still plenty of information to be sifted. For instance, if your hash doesn't match any of the already taken domains, you know for sure that your domain is not taken. It's true that if you have a match, you can't say for sure whether it's one of the existing domains or a collision with an existing domain, but it's still useful because the vast majority of the time, if you've chosen a free domain, it will not be a collision with an existing domain.
Further, if it does match one, there is no security risk in them sending YOU the one that it matched, so you can visually or automatically compare the strings yourself.
You don't look for the nonexistence of a hash in the "list of possible domains." You look for the existence of the hash in the "list of already-taken domains."
Collisions are your friend here, because even if the registrar maintains a "list of possible domains" to reverse-lookup your query hash, there is no guarantee that your domain choice is in that list. In fact, the chance is quite low that what they have in the table and what you picked are the same, even if they have the same hash.
Of course, Cuba is the laboratory for that little experiment, and the results aren't quite in yet that China is better off (although it looks likely). If it had turned out the other way, you'd be saying trading with China was an incredible mistake.
Better to say that the experiment with Cuban embargo (and very non-universal embargo, at that) was not as successful as we'd hoped, over the time period we'd anticipated, and therefore, reevaluation of the embargo would probably be a good idea at this time. Sadly, it will not happen because it is a Kennedy legacy, and the longer it stays in effect, the more mythic that legacy becomes.
I always assumed the "X" made the assumption that the disk takes as long to record as a CDrom could take to play. i.e. 1x is about 72 minutes (or 80 minutes) to record regardless of the format. Obviously, the higher capacity disks' 1x would have a higher data-rate, though.
Why wouldn't it solve the registrar problem? They're not storing a list of available domains to compare your hash to. They'd be matching your hash against the list of registered domains. You hash it on your OWN computer.
It's called, imaginatively enough, "remote desktop" as far as I know.
Whether you use a real KVM or a virtual one, the concept is still the same: You don't need any more monitors than you can look at at one time. 3 is pretty close to the max, linearly. Anything that's out of your field of view might as well be off.
It takes less effort to push a button than to turn around and look at something, and you're not going to glimpse anything important out of the corner of your eye that's displayed behind you.
Riding a bike, between two cars, ON THE DIVIDING LINE, is legal in California?? That is quite nutty.
Or were you saying that bikes are allowed to ride two-to-a-lane in CA, thus countering my claim that very few states allow side-by-side driving?
I've got news for you. FL is another state that allows it. That doesn't make it common. Nor a particularly bright idea. Now, a motorcycle highway certainly wouldn't need the same width as a standard highway, but two-to-a-standard-sized-lane is pretty close considering there's no metal frame surrounding the driver and the "sub"-lanes aren't marked.
The US government doesn't own the copyrights it protects any more than it owns the land it protects. Treaties are the way in which Washington protects copyrights from foreign usurpation on behalf if its citizens. Apparently its actions have been deemed a treaty violation by the organization agreed upon as arbiter of a particular set of treaties. As a result of this violation, the US government has given up some ability to protect copyrights on behalf of the rights holders.
Therefore, the owners should be able to sue the US Government for the losses
What is this "less road space" business people keep throwing out here. Most states require bikes to occupy one full lane, just like a car. Very few allow side-by-side driving (it's really quite dangerous, you know. )
NONE allow between-the-lanes driving that may bikers seem to be getting away with. And if they did, it wouldn't be very helpful as it forces the rest of the drivers to slow down, forming extremely inefficient traffic waves for miles behind.
You do know that the Prius has better "off the line" accelerating capability than a conventional gasoline-powered car of the same size, don't you?
There was a Mysterious device attached to freeway supports. It really doesn't matter whether there were blinking LEDs or not. Only an Idiot would think a freeway support would be a good place to put a guerrilla marketing piece of art that consists of a black box with exposed electronics and neither ask permission, nor tell anyone until after the hysteria begins.
Especially in a town whose freeway is pervasive and barely held together as it is. You're talking about a town where people drowned in scalding hot molasses due to negligence, I think they have a right to be a bit protective about their freeway supports.
Well, the joke's on him then. Because now we translate voice into a binary code not at all dissimilar to the way the original telegraph worked. And it's multiplexed!
There is no way in hell you need that many monitors. Some of them are IMPOSSIBLE to look at without turning a significant amount of your personal mass.
As someone else said, it looks more like a tanning booth than a place you'd want to actually work.
Get a KVM switch, and pare that down to like two or three monitors and use the switch, and/or remote and extended desktops to deal with all the servers. You should only need ONE keyboard/mouse.
"What happens when you lose bytes here or there in your digital film?"
Your error-correcting codes do their job and correct the error. They also gives you a tangible warning sign for when it's time to refresh the media: when you no longer get 100% reads (or when the error% exceeds some acceptable threshold that happens to be well below the ecc's max error rate), you move to new media.
And you do ridiculous amounts of parity bits, like O(size of the data) amounts of parity.
If you're really concerned about future proofing you can print, in plain language, an explanation of the ECC and video codec on a metal plate and bolt that to the drive, but you're probably going to need to refresh before anyone forgets how either of those were done.