I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often. Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything? All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything? Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.
There is precedent. Hieroglyphs written 2000 years ago were undecipherable until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone and its subsequent study in the following decades. Reading technology was available the entire time (the paintings, writings and carvings were all visible to the unaided eye). Hieroglyphic writings weren't encrypted in any way -- other than being in a coding scheme (language) that fell out of use. The only real apocalypse that occurred over the ensuing eons was the cumulative effects of time. Nations and empires came and went, but we never had to rebuild the totality of the human population and civilization from scratch.
And in 1000 years, before you decode a disk, you've got no idea whether it contains Chinatown, Quadrophenia or some guy's backup of qdata.dat.
Actually, our cats greet us at the door too, and most of the time, they still have plenty of food at the time.
Yep. Same report here. As I mentioned in another thread, a robot feeds the cats. When the hopper is empty, they alert me to the fact with a special "song and dance".
I seem to be 95% immune to my cats when they pull tricks like that. My cats know damn well that I'll feed them before going to bed. It can happen anywhere between coming home and right before actually going to bed.
My cats are fed by a robot, and they come and purr at me after breakfast has been served and eaten.
If you want to see what domesticated looks like, look at dogs, or horses. Domesticated dogs and horses take their instructions from human masters. Cats, as a rule, don't
I guess I've got the exceptions. My two cats are much better at coming when called than the dog. They learn commands, although they're better with gestures than oral instructions. And it's the cats who greet me at the door, the dog waits to see if it's worth getting up for. Anyway, just as individuals vary in intelligence, so do they vary in attitude. And I've never once pet a squirrel.
It's more like pointing out that a $25 lock is probably sufficient for a house with 25 glass windows (as opposed to a $100 lock).
Exactly, it's a case of proper resource allocation. Assuming you don't have infinite resources, you have to choose how much to spend on each. But the real secret is knowing you can allocate 30% on defense A, 40% on defense B and 30% on defense C, rather than just picking which of A, B and C gets 100% of your effort. That's what separates the men from the boys.
TFA says that brute-force attacks are only the 3rd most common password threats:
As can be seen none of the password "best practices" offers any real protection against phishing or keylogging, which appear to be the most prevalent attacks. Strong passwords are just as susceptible to being stolen by a phisher or keylogger as weak ones.
So putting disproportionate effort into strong passwords might be -- to continue the car analogy -- like carefully looking out for pedestrians while ignoring the cars and trucks whizzing by.
According to the article (cited by the citation):"Users are frequently reminded of the risks: the popular press often reports on the dangers of ïnancial fraud and identity theft, and most ïnancial institutions have security sections on their web-sites which oïer advice on detecting fraud and good password practices. As to password practices traditionally users have been advised to . . . "
-Choose strong passwords
-Change their passwords frequently
-Never write their passwords down
I would suggest that this is a case for the popular quip: "Pick two".
I am only serious to the extent that Taubes' book and the research he cites say these things. None of this is my own research.
And the same goes for humans as well, by the way. Obese people eat a lot of food. I know, because I eat a lot of food.
Ah, here's another interesting point he challenges: that eating more makes you fat. Taubes suggests that perhaps this finding confuses correlation with causation (a favorite point of ours here on Slashdot). He suggests that research is needed to confirm whether eating too much (and of what) and being too sedentary causes us to be fat, or whether being fat causes us to eat too much (and of the wrong things). Still, not my research. And I'm not pimping a bookstore or even a purchase here, go to the library and check out this volume. Even if you disagree with it it's a fascinating read and a real page-turner. It also has a bunch of interesting stuff on the history of treatment of heart disease and diabetes.
Losing fat comes down to a simple equation.
If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that.
This is widely accepted conventional wisdom about losing (or gaining) weight. And it does just seem right. After all, you're punishing two of the seven deadly sins (gluttony and laziness) in a most fitting manner. People who can't control their lust for food and their own laziness get what they deserve. It is just so.
Science magazine reporter Gary Taubes published an article the New York Times Magazine titled: "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" He later expanded that article along with others he wrote (including an analysis of the science and politics that resulted in current U.S. Government dietary advice) in a book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.
Please, not "Dad." Father-in-law. That distinction is quite important to me. But the Taliban part it pretty close. He's joined a church that's trying to pray away the gay.
I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.
Perhaps not his views per se, but his education level affects his credulity. Particularly in his desire to have everything explained in a very authoritative way -- not necessarily in the most logical or rational way.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that only the uneducated would be drawn to a life of faith. Rather that lack of education would predispose one to seeking a more fundamentalist religion. One where "credulity" passes for "faith", and "certainty" -- not "humility" or "curiosity" -- is considered a virtue.
At least, it's got nothing to do with the ones that believe telling porkies is wrong...
I had to do some googling to find out that "porky" is chiefly British slang for "big fat lie". Now that I know this, your comment makes much more sense to me.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this. He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world. E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought. He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."
I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out. It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not. I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen. Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.
It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.
Assuming that this is true, why then crack down on emigration when one fears immigration? Do the people who find this a "very real social and economic problem" not notice the subtle difference in spelling and pronunciation? Never mind, I guess I answered my own question . . .
You might not have meant it this way, but "deal with it like an adult" comes off as condescending, assuming you're talking to an adult, or insensitive, if you're talking to someone with a disabling mental disorder. I would suggest that any grown-up who could "deal with it like an adult", would already be doing so.
You wouldn't like my plan as it involves warfare against dictatorships. Because you know, that would just be "evil" of me or some such notion.
So that's the plan? Invade dictatorship, depose dictator, be greeted as liberators? I can't understand why those "liberals" don't like it. It is uncomplicated. Simple, even. You did remember to mention the children with flowers, right?
If there's oppression to be found, don't dance around it, WIPE IT OUT. By force if necessary. Just take the bull by the horns and fucking solve the problem. It shouldn't be made more complicated then that. When you do, it makes for more "worrying" because now the issue has gone from bad to worse.
Since you've got all the answers, take your brilliant plan and just do it. Make sure to post your triumph on Slashdot so we can learn the secret of "taking the bull by the horns and fucking solving the problem". I know we'd all like to hear that story.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
I guess I agree with you about the status of civil rights in a store/shopping center. But it still comes down to trespass in the end, since that's what a store would ultimately have to call the police for (assuming you don't stop what you're doing and don't leave when asked). So while we might not have the right to exercise some civil rights inside stores (where applicable), REI and other retailers don't have their own court to try and convict us if we do it anyway. And they certainly can't confiscate your camera, film or other media even if you took photos against their wishes.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you just need a radio jammer :)
Slow down cowboy, in your rush for the radio jammer, you're forgetting that stick!
I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often. Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything? All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything? Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.
There is precedent. Hieroglyphs written 2000 years ago were undecipherable until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone and its subsequent study in the following decades. Reading technology was available the entire time (the paintings, writings and carvings were all visible to the unaided eye). Hieroglyphic writings weren't encrypted in any way -- other than being in a coding scheme (language) that fell out of use. The only real apocalypse that occurred over the ensuing eons was the cumulative effects of time. Nations and empires came and went, but we never had to rebuild the totality of the human population and civilization from scratch.
And in 1000 years, before you decode a disk, you've got no idea whether it contains Chinatown, Quadrophenia or some guy's backup of qdata.dat.
This is how Obama is paying for health care.
By adding a 0.003% tax on all visa transactions?
Actually, our cats greet us at the door too, and most of the time, they still have plenty of food at the time.
Yep. Same report here. As I mentioned in another thread, a robot feeds the cats. When the hopper is empty, they alert me to the fact with a special "song and dance".
I seem to be 95% immune to my cats when they pull tricks like that. My cats know damn well that I'll feed them before going to bed. It can happen anywhere between coming home and right before actually going to bed.
My cats are fed by a robot, and they come and purr at me after breakfast has been served and eaten.
If you want to see what domesticated looks like, look at dogs, or horses. Domesticated dogs and horses take their instructions from human masters. Cats, as a rule, don't
I guess I've got the exceptions. My two cats are much better at coming when called than the dog. They learn commands, although they're better with gestures than oral instructions. And it's the cats who greet me at the door, the dog waits to see if it's worth getting up for. Anyway, just as individuals vary in intelligence, so do they vary in attitude. And I've never once pet a squirrel.
It's more like pointing out that a $25 lock is probably sufficient for a house with 25 glass windows (as opposed to a $100 lock).
Exactly, it's a case of proper resource allocation. Assuming you don't have infinite resources, you have to choose how much to spend on each. But the real secret is knowing you can allocate 30% on defense A, 40% on defense B and 30% on defense C, rather than just picking which of A, B and C gets 100% of your effort. That's what separates the men from the boys.
TFA says that brute-force attacks are only the 3rd most common password threats:
As can be seen none of the password "best practices" offers any real protection against phishing or keylogging, which appear to be the most prevalent attacks. Strong passwords are just as susceptible to being stolen by a phisher or keylogger as weak ones.
So putting disproportionate effort into strong passwords might be -- to continue the car analogy -- like carefully looking out for pedestrians while ignoring the cars and trucks whizzing by.
Sloth as one of the seven deadly sins was originally meant as apathy, not laziness
Whatever . . . I don't care.
According to the article (cited by the citation):"Users are frequently reminded of the risks: the popular press often reports on the dangers of ïnancial fraud and identity theft, and most ïnancial institutions have security sections on their web-sites which oïer advice on detecting fraud and good password practices. As to password practices traditionally users have been advised to . . . "
-Choose strong passwords
-Change their passwords frequently
-Never write their passwords down
I would suggest that this is a case for the popular quip: "Pick two".
Are you serious? I hope not.
I am only serious to the extent that Taubes' book and the research he cites say these things. None of this is my own research.
And the same goes for humans as well, by the way. Obese people eat a lot of food. I know, because I eat a lot of food.
Ah, here's another interesting point he challenges: that eating more makes you fat. Taubes suggests that perhaps this finding confuses correlation with causation (a favorite point of ours here on Slashdot). He suggests that research is needed to confirm whether eating too much (and of what) and being too sedentary causes us to be fat, or whether being fat causes us to eat too much (and of the wrong things). Still, not my research. And I'm not pimping a bookstore or even a purchase here, go to the library and check out this volume. Even if you disagree with it it's a fascinating read and a real page-turner. It also has a bunch of interesting stuff on the history of treatment of heart disease and diabetes.
Losing fat comes down to a simple equation. If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that.
This is widely accepted conventional wisdom about losing (or gaining) weight. And it does just seem right. After all, you're punishing two of the seven deadly sins (gluttony and laziness) in a most fitting manner. People who can't control their lust for food and their own laziness get what they deserve. It is just so.
Science magazine reporter Gary Taubes published an article the New York Times Magazine titled: "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" He later expanded that article along with others he wrote (including an analysis of the science and politics that resulted in current U.S. Government dietary advice) in a book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.
You mean that RFID actually works!? Yes, but do we really need it in passports and identification cards?
Might help me find mine.
Please, not "Dad." Father-in-law. That distinction is quite important to me. But the Taliban part it pretty close. He's joined a church that's trying to pray away the gay.
I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.
Perhaps not his views per se, but his education level affects his credulity. Particularly in his desire to have everything explained in a very authoritative way -- not necessarily in the most logical or rational way.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that only the uneducated would be drawn to a life of faith. Rather that lack of education would predispose one to seeking a more fundamentalist religion. One where "credulity" passes for "faith", and "certainty" -- not "humility" or "curiosity" -- is considered a virtue.
At least, it's got nothing to do with the ones that believe telling porkies is wrong...
I had to do some googling to find out that "porky" is chiefly British slang for "big fat lie". Now that I know this, your comment makes much more sense to me.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this. He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world. E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought. He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."
I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out. It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not. I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen. Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.
"half-assed manor"
Tell me, who is the lord of Half-Assed Manor?
Wasn't that a short-lived British sitcom in the '70s?
Iraq is success story.
If that were true, I'd hate to see what a break-even looks like.
It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.
Assuming that this is true, why then crack down on emigration when one fears immigration? Do the people who find this a "very real social and economic problem" not notice the subtle difference in spelling and pronunciation? Never mind, I guess I answered my own question . . .
You might not have meant it this way, but "deal with it like an adult" comes off as condescending, assuming you're talking to an adult, or insensitive, if you're talking to someone with a disabling mental disorder. I would suggest that any grown-up who could "deal with it like an adult", would already be doing so.
You wouldn't like my plan as it involves warfare against dictatorships. Because you know, that would just be "evil" of me or some such notion.
So that's the plan? Invade dictatorship, depose dictator, be greeted as liberators? I can't understand why those "liberals" don't like it. It is uncomplicated. Simple, even. You did remember to mention the children with flowers, right?
If there's oppression to be found, don't dance around it, WIPE IT OUT. By force if necessary. Just take the bull by the horns and fucking solve the problem. It shouldn't be made more complicated then that. When you do, it makes for more "worrying" because now the issue has gone from bad to worse.
Since you've got all the answers, take your brilliant plan and just do it. Make sure to post your triumph on Slashdot so we can learn the secret of "taking the bull by the horns and fucking solving the problem". I know we'd all like to hear that story.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
I guess I agree with you about the status of civil rights in a store/shopping center. But it still comes down to trespass in the end, since that's what a store would ultimately have to call the police for (assuming you don't stop what you're doing and don't leave when asked). So while we might not have the right to exercise some civil rights inside stores (where applicable), REI and other retailers don't have their own court to try and convict us if we do it anyway. And they certainly can't confiscate your camera, film or other media even if you took photos against their wishes.