It's easy. You just don't have a blue link next to your name - that doesn't mean FB doesn't have your name tagged and recognized, even if those tags have been removed.
While I agree with the majority of this statement, I believe Google does stand by its own creed of "do no harm."
I am firmly of the belief that you will not see Google opting you in to services, completely behind your back, or adding in a new privacy setting that sets itself to "give all my data to advertisers" by default. I suppose that this is possible, but I'll stand behind Google until I see it. They are a monolithic site, run by a for-profit entity, but a large portion of their retention comes from the fact that they are up-front and honest about what they are doing with your data.
Fear is completely irrational? Sir, I would hate to see what happens to you when the DM's Elders of Shmorgesboard roll 18d12+200 on your puny level 2 rationale.
Now, I could see where the argument may be made that it is irrational, as a nation, to fear - as opposed to being informed and making just decisions. Fear itself, however, is completely natural and saves lives on a very regular basis.
Nobody said that the likelihood of being cancer-positive is uniformly distributed. You're asking, "How likely is it that all Wal-marts are equidistant?"
Obviously population fluctuates, as does its density and traffic. So do environmental factors (both physical and the intangible - like education and awareness of a given population). That doesn't mean you can not measure that which is abnormal.
Oh yes, much better to have lawsuits between corps, wasting money on patent lawyers that don't do anything, trying to drive a monopoly on a tech that's been used since the 90's, than to waste money on development and innovation that would increase competition and benefit the consumer...
Brute force is synonymous with checking the keyspace against a dictionary.
Architecture allows for the GPU do to this much more quickly, with the correct software. It is, however, still checking against a dictionary. Parent mentions encrypting what has already been encrypted (note the use of the word symmetrical), so that you must crack the whole keyspace, as opposed to the area of the encrypted file that you know contains the reversible hash (or, as opposed to just getting a prompt you're allowed to guess at a limitless number of times).
No, I don't need an engineering analysis to know that you can cut through metal, underwater. So, negate retrieving the containers, even if you only get to 10% of the lost containers in a year, there are millions of dollars in supplies to be pulled back up and sold on an open market.
We can go off on tangents about what is economically feasible, and it will add up to jack-all when we're all out of oil to push this worthless shit around.
It's all about self-sufficiency. And, any way, my real point was that conglomerates blow.
I was really referencing the cheap GPS utility, activated on a 180 degree rotation, that can send out a public beacon if the shippers/merchants don't feel like retrieving it themselves within a given timeframe.
Sounds pretty damn good to me. Easily affordable: As mentioned, one of those containers themselves is $2-3k, they hold hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of cargo, and now you've given opportunity to opportunists, if you don't feel like retrieving it yourself.
What grinds my gears is not the fact that the commenters have come up with a marketable, fiscally sufficient means of alleviating the problem in regards to both merchant losses and pollution within a few minutes of this article going live... No, that's what I come here for, anyway.
My problem is that the folks in the executive offices of the shipping companies are in an office suite that probably has a big something-"insurance" sign on the front of it, and they don't give a rat's ass about your silly pollution or physical losses so long as they can push the costs of such inconveniences away from them and to the folks leasing their containers and buying their insurance.
There are plenty of folks who do not belong in IT, doing IT work - definitely including the software asset management portion, which folks who do belong in IT loathe and, depending on their environment, have no problems delegating to the accounting office.
To round this out and get back on track, the BSA does operate on very vague terminology and are, primarily, a sales team built by the largest software manufacturers in the world. They do nothing but inquire and threaten, then settle. Oh, and did you know, you can get a nary 20% of what [they say] the settlement is, so long as you are the one doing the tip-off. The business model is clear as day, and it is definitively through arbitrary paperwork - never actual legal recourse.
Nah, when you get a letter in the mail, stating that each copy of Office that was installed at one of your locations is illegal and potentially worth $50,000 per copy in infringement fees, you start to get a good feel for their business model.
Trust me.
I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the matter, nor mechanical in regards to engineering - but, I do believe this is the same technology used by cruiseliners and other relatively large watercraft. The amount of gas consumed is slightly more to power the electrical generators, as opposed to powering the engines directly, this is indeed a con. The pros come in the form of torque distribution (i.e. 0 to 100% torque available with a flip of your DC switch, no clutching involved) and, as you yourself mention, the fact that the engines themselves are able to turn off when the generators do not need them, nearly alleviating the "con" I listed. Of course there's maintenance, cost of upkeep, etc, etc, thus my disclaimer.
And they definitely aren't "conventional" batteries. Just my.02c.
...to the ms greed factory. Cut me a check, too.
I won't create whatever workaround is required to bypass your nonexistent security whenever you announce your next yearly tax for services that would have retained more users, provided more profit, and maintained a higher level of user interaction if you simply provided it for free; like everybody else.
Interestingly, this may have a backlash effect of inducing more traffic on the network. At least, when I pull a device off my network that has quite a few simultaneous connections going on, there is relatively large spike of traffic on the network itself, attempting to re-establish those keepalive packets.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy. You just don't have a blue link next to your name - that doesn't mean FB doesn't have your name tagged and recognized, even if those tags have been removed.
While I agree with the majority of this statement, I believe Google does stand by its own creed of "do no harm."
I am firmly of the belief that you will not see Google opting you in to services, completely behind your back, or adding in a new privacy setting that sets itself to "give all my data to advertisers" by default. I suppose that this is possible, but I'll stand behind Google until I see it. They are a monolithic site, run by a for-profit entity, but a large portion of their retention comes from the fact that they are up-front and honest about what they are doing with your data.
Fear is completely irrational? Sir, I would hate to see what happens to you when the DM's Elders of Shmorgesboard roll 18d12+200 on your puny level 2 rationale.
Now, I could see where the argument may be made that it is irrational, as a nation, to fear - as opposed to being informed and making just decisions. Fear itself, however, is completely natural and saves lives on a very regular basis.
Nobody said that the likelihood of being cancer-positive is uniformly distributed. You're asking, "How likely is it that all Wal-marts are equidistant?"
Obviously population fluctuates, as does its density and traffic. So do environmental factors (both physical and the intangible - like education and awareness of a given population). That doesn't mean you can not measure that which is abnormal.
Oh yes, much better to have lawsuits between corps, wasting money on patent lawyers that don't do anything, trying to drive a monopoly on a tech that's been used since the 90's, than to waste money on development and innovation that would increase competition and benefit the consumer...
I'm looking at Jobs...
You probably mis-read the parent.
Brute force is synonymous with checking the keyspace against a dictionary.
Architecture allows for the GPU do to this much more quickly, with the correct software. It is, however, still checking against a dictionary. Parent mentions encrypting what has already been encrypted (note the use of the word symmetrical), so that you must crack the whole keyspace, as opposed to the area of the encrypted file that you know contains the reversible hash (or, as opposed to just getting a prompt you're allowed to guess at a limitless number of times).
It probably went on, at full capacity about 10 minutes ago - cia.gov is down and per their tweet it's their DDoS. Act of war, any one?
No, I don't need an engineering analysis to know that you can cut through metal, underwater. So, negate retrieving the containers, even if you only get to 10% of the lost containers in a year, there are millions of dollars in supplies to be pulled back up and sold on an open market.
We can go off on tangents about what is economically feasible, and it will add up to jack-all when we're all out of oil to push this worthless shit around.
It's all about self-sufficiency. And, any way, my real point was that conglomerates blow.
They've also pulled off some ... ehh ... inspired? SQL injections/dump/DB acquisitions.
Not that your point is missed, but at least a couple of them know what they're doing to an extent.
I was really referencing the cheap GPS utility, activated on a 180 degree rotation, that can send out a public beacon if the shippers/merchants don't feel like retrieving it themselves within a given timeframe.
Sounds pretty damn good to me. Easily affordable: As mentioned, one of those containers themselves is $2-3k, they hold hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of cargo, and now you've given opportunity to opportunists, if you don't feel like retrieving it yourself.
What grinds my gears is not the fact that the commenters have come up with a marketable, fiscally sufficient means of alleviating the problem in regards to both merchant losses and pollution within a few minutes of this article going live... No, that's what I come here for, anyway.
My problem is that the folks in the executive offices of the shipping companies are in an office suite that probably has a big something-"insurance" sign on the front of it, and they don't give a rat's ass about your silly pollution or physical losses so long as they can push the costs of such inconveniences away from them and to the folks leasing their containers and buying their insurance.
There are plenty of folks who do not belong in IT, doing IT work - definitely including the software asset management portion, which folks who do belong in IT loathe and, depending on their environment, have no problems delegating to the accounting office. To round this out and get back on track, the BSA does operate on very vague terminology and are, primarily, a sales team built by the largest software manufacturers in the world. They do nothing but inquire and threaten, then settle. Oh, and did you know, you can get a nary 20% of what [they say] the settlement is, so long as you are the one doing the tip-off. The business model is clear as day, and it is definitively through arbitrary paperwork - never actual legal recourse.
Nah, when you get a letter in the mail, stating that each copy of Office that was installed at one of your locations is illegal and potentially worth $50,000 per copy in infringement fees, you start to get a good feel for their business model. Trust me.
I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the matter, nor mechanical in regards to engineering - but, I do believe this is the same technology used by cruiseliners and other relatively large watercraft. The amount of gas consumed is slightly more to power the electrical generators, as opposed to powering the engines directly, this is indeed a con. The pros come in the form of torque distribution (i.e. 0 to 100% torque available with a flip of your DC switch, no clutching involved) and, as you yourself mention, the fact that the engines themselves are able to turn off when the generators do not need them, nearly alleviating the "con" I listed. Of course there's maintenance, cost of upkeep, etc, etc, thus my disclaimer. And they definitely aren't "conventional" batteries. Just my .02c.
...to the ms greed factory. Cut me a check, too. I won't create whatever workaround is required to bypass your nonexistent security whenever you announce your next yearly tax for services that would have retained more users, provided more profit, and maintained a higher level of user interaction if you simply provided it for free; like everybody else.
Clearly.
Interestingly, this may have a backlash effect of inducing more traffic on the network. At least, when I pull a device off my network that has quite a few simultaneous connections going on, there is relatively large spike of traffic on the network itself, attempting to re-establish those keepalive packets.