Sorry to rain on your parade, but the mountains are way older than 13000 years. Maybe you are referring to the ice that's on them? There has been ice on them much longer as well. It's just the current layer of ice that isn't that old, due to the fact that it erodes and slides down the mountain. I doubt the age of the current bits of frozen water is relevant to how much it protects the mountain side from wind and sun erosion, it will be the fact that it's covered that matters.
It's about being able to ask money for appearing somewhere. The guy doesn't care how good or how bad he looks in the game, he just wants money for it. The big question is if his NCAA contract that licensed off the details to EA includes the use of his physical likeness or nor. Also, the contract between his club and the NCAA and his contract with the club are involved here. If any of these fail to include the licensing of his likeness, some party will be left to pay a lot of money.
USA cloud providers are going to feel the hurt of this for a long time in the future. Even if they promise to keep your data outside of the USA, they'll still not be trusted, since there is no way to be certain data isn't handed over anyway.
Hard work may win you a pay check. Politics is what usually wins you a bigger pay check in IT. You can be skilled and talented all you want, but if you can't get your ideas across, you'll be sitting in a corner working your butt off without any recognition at all. You need people skills just as much as technical skills these days to survive.
How are they going to handle car pooling or more than a single occupant in a car? Are they going to close car pool lanes? Are they going to prohibit cars to have more than one seat? What will happen to the environmental targets they have set if they won't allow people to share a car?
The industry can't afford to not fund people who's vote they may still need and may still buy if they give enough money. They will receive money as long as those industries have money to spend on buying political friends for their companies, regardless of who gets to be in power or even voted into office. It's not about betting on a single horse, it's about buying hay for all the horses, allowing you all area access into the racing track. The "real bribery" starts when friends and family members of congresspeople get business contracts from the companies that funded the campaigns. To get there, the companies first have to by their way into the political "race track" with campaign funding.
Any car that uses the megamos RFID chip to identify the key, will be vulnerable. To fix this, the manufacturer will have to replace all keys and the receiver and reprogram all computers in the cars infected. VAG here has a problem with most recent Volkswagens, Audis, SEATs, Skodas, Bentleys, Lamborghini's and Porsches. Other manufacturers that rely on this system are probably affected too. Chances that VAG will proactively call back all these vehicles are extremely slim. A temporary injunction serves no purpose, unless VAG can prove without a doubt that they can and will fix this within a very short time frame. Mind you, designing a new system, testing it for security, mass producing it and recalling all cars will probably take well over a year before they can even start recalling and cost tens of billions to implement for VAG.
Have a recent BMW? There is a known vulnerability where you can copy an actual key inside the car, using the data in the car's computer and the car's own transponder. BMW has not fixed this and won't fix it. The vulnerability is that BMW relied on being the only source of blank, programmable keys and having all the programming equipment in house. Once someone reversed the key system (the car itself contains unprotected, unencrypted key strings), they found out what electronics to put in the key and made blank keys and software to program them using the keys found in the car's computer. This is a massive problem that was out for probably at least a year before there was enough public attention to the enormous theft of BMWs with that system. I think that the number of BMWs stolen had quadrupled in that period. Right now, since BMW won't fix it, getting a BMW that suffers from this vulnerability is prohibitively expensive to insure, making their second hand value very low. It may be that insurers now require 3rd party alarm systems to be installed or something, I don't know, but the vendor didn't fix it and basically left their customers without a solution.
Right now, there's no indication that VW can and will fix this problem once it gets out. I highly doubt they will recall all vehicles and replace the parts that are vulnerable with a system that has the flaw removed. For all we know, that could cost thousands per vehicle and apply to all VAG cars from the last 10 years. That could be over 100M cars, worst case. Then again, if it'd only apply to a certain model and year and it is an affordable fix, they may actually do it, but I wouldn't count on them fixing anything.
From what I understand, the submersible hasn't been under water in any significant depth. Already claiming it will be the 10th deepest diving (known) submersible if you don't have the 9th and/or the 11th or something similar already on your resume, is rather bold. For all we know, they might have goofed up and will not reach over 1/3 of their estimated depth due to some oversight. I wish them the best of luck, but design specs are hard to meet when a tiny mistake will turn your whole project into a crumpled ball of matter, filled with water in less than a second.
People get away with this because verification of all these facts costs time and money. Even companies that are actually hired to do background checks are often slacking and don't actually verify the copies of diplomas you send them.
Also, universities and such have a good reason to not make an API for 3rd parties to query their databases. First, they'd have to settle on an API with all educational facilities, at least nationwide, probably even globally. Second of all, they can charge for a nice sum of money for every request now. Making an API will make it cost more and return less per request, since then things will be standardized and fees will most likely be regulated to be cheap to use.
So you are basically telling that the USA has laws that prohibit the broadcast of music or other media that are legal to buy, sell or play otherwise? How curiously unconstitutional, if you put it that way.
I have a Radeon 7850 with 2 dual link DVI ports and a displayport. It won't allow more than one DVI output to run dual-link resolutions. I doubt *three* monitors like this guys asks for will work if two won't even work....
Mind you, his current Nvidia board will do it just fine, but ATI is severly limited when it comes to proper resolutions on non-displayport screens.
It's nothing but a list of filenames that DxO wants taken down. There is no artistic or intellectual value, nor programming in this file. I'd say it's a frivolous takedown request and they should be fined for it, according to the rules of the DMCA.
It may be that a custom programmed device has been placed in cars to cause the occupants of said vehicle(s) to have a horrible accident. However, in this case it's hard to say that is what caused this accident and death.
Judging by skid marks made in the intersection just before the accident and the high speed at which the intersection was crossed, a way more likely explanation is possible. The car slammed over the bumps in the intersection so hard, that the rear bottomed out (skid marks visible that comply with this theory), the car suddenly changed direction, launched itself on a fire hydrant, hooked the drive train on it, slid nose-down towards the tree. Once it got to the tree, kinetic energy was still so high that the rear of the car flipped up and the front of the roof actually hit the tree. Due to the massive destruction of the floor pan, fuel tank and area under the hood, gasoline got distributed in large enough quantities to start a fire. It is speculation, but it's most likely that any occupants of the vehicle would have at least been unconscious and very likely deceased before the fire started.
Witness reports are by far the worst kind of evidence you can get. You'll get a filtered recollection of how people perceived a certain event, laced with opinions and speculations at best. The longer you wait getting the report and the more people they told the story to, the worse the quality of the witness report will be. There are probably plenty of scientific tests that give statistical qualities of witness reports based on if the witness was told to pay attention to a certain event in advance, visibility, age, amount of people in a group and such. If those things have never been studied, I'd say it's well time we get some statistical data on how bad witness reports actually are when it comes to proof.
Most likely, Hastings was thrashing his car in the middle of the night to get home. He bounced over an intersection, lost the rear due to it bottoming out and found a hydrant and a tree in his way he couldn't avoid any more. Whether he was followed by some government agency or his state of mind because of his interactions with an agency were part of why he was speeding is unknown at this time. Chances that his crash was caused by a manipulation of the programming of his on board computers in the Mercedes are extremely limited. Pulling this off in a car in such a way that you'd be able to selectively only block the rears if someone was over a certain speed is maybe feasible in cars with "break assist" (I doubt it, the main brake cylinder would probably prevent pressure build up if not pressed slightly) and in hybrid cars that turned braking to fully electronic (regenerative braking requires this). Getting this to deploy in such a way and on the exact moment that you can "reliably" crash someone into a hydrant and a tree however, is pure fiction. Chances that your manipulation will not kill or hurt the person you're after when it deploys are so big, that it'd be absolutely useless to put something like this on a car of someone that you'd want to get an accident.
6 more tails wouldn't be functional, so it regrows only one, often just partially and only if the lizard species possesses the capability at all. Most species that do, often have a limited capability to regrow the tail more than once. A lizard needs it's tail to balance itself during running and climbing and more than one would hinder it.
Next thing Fox is going to mandate all cable/sat companies to only sell "always on" devices that can only stream Fox and lock owners in their homes. If the cable company subscribers don't watch fox 24/7 at a blasting loud volume, they want extra money from the companies because they are losing money. Come on, you can't expect people to actually watch your show or not go to the toilet, kitchen or whatever during commercial breaks either. Just because there's "fast forward" on a VCR doesn't mean it should be outlawed because you can skip commercials. Commercials have gotten (technically) ignored since they were on TV. You can't make people watch them any more in current times than you could in the past.
Really, if you need a machine to keep your kids busy or get them educated, you're doing it wrong. People have been raising kids and keeping them well behaved during journeys for way longer than we have had kids travelling in cars. Even that has been done for 100 years. 30 years ago, it was not uncommon for kids to have to listen to a crummy radio with maybe a tape, but probably a radio station on if anything at all. Maybe you should start raising your kids, instead of depending on machines to do it for you.
Several species have "successfully been conserved in captivity" up to the point that no zoo wants any more of them. They are effectively killing animals and doing global birth control on these species in captivity, while the natural population is so small that they lack even genetic diversity to be viable enough to reliably survive extinction. Given these fact, you'd say they would reintroduce captive bread animals in the wild. This never happens and never will, unless they are going to change a lot of things. First of all, captive release is extremely costly, nobody wants to foot the bill for a reintroduction program of Black's Rhino. Second of all, captive animals may have diseases that could in theory threaten wild animals, even animals of different species. For that reason, nobody will permit these animals to be released in the wild, or have them interbreed with wild animals.
Zoos are nothing but the living equivalent of a postage stamp collection. All these breeding programs are nice for fellow stamp collectors, but will never ever help wild populations with genetic diversity or just plain extra animals. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. If we and our kids can't actually go to a zoo and watch these poor caged animals, we wouldn't give enough about them to actually fund some (often rather futile) attempts of saving the habitat of the wild version of what we just fed a bag of peanuts.
Unless the above changes and animals are actually released in the wild on a regular basis, incestuous cross breeding Sumatran rhinos in a Zoo won't help the extinction of these animals a single bit. I suggest we find a solution for this first, before we risk Down Syndrome Rhinos in our Zoos.
Since it was already clear that Google committed a grave felony, it was up to Google to prove beyond a doubt that they deleted all data. If Google was not able to do that, they should have been fined a large sum of money for every day they would remain unable to submit proof. It may cost Google millions to prove it, but hey, that's the risk they took and they will have to pay to make things right again.
Google was already proven guilty. It was no longer the legal burden of the ICO to prove anything. It was and is Googles legal burden to prove they have now deleted all data and the ICO failed to have them actually submit irrefutable proof. This makes the ICO lacking and they should make Google submit proof now, even if it's been two years.
Apart from that, the people in the lead at the ICO should be held accountable for this failure and made an example of.
First of all, a lot of modern vegetables are grown as fast as possible, so they contain less fibre and "nutrients" and more water than when we were satisfied with one harvest per year.
Second of all, it's not just about vegetables. We need to get some "rare" vitamins from nuts, meat and such. With the current diet as we have it, meat is grown way faster too, containing arguably less of these rare vitamins than before. We eat a lot less unprocessed food than we used to, especially nuts tend to be roasted and such. A lot of processed food contains arguably less vitamins and nutrients than it used to when we ate more fresh and only slightly cooked food.
Maybe some cultivates are more nutrient than others, but a lot of cultivates are cells with water in them these days. We eat way more processed food than we used to, also diminishing the nutrient value of our food. It may be that we can grow bigger, faster and healthier crops, but once they enter our mouth, they are probably less nutrient than they were on average 50 years ago.
A lot of these kind of services are successful because people tend to stay under the radar of tax collecting agencies. Once the gubbament starts figuring out how to tax all this, most of these sort of initiatives die because it's no longer economically viable to a lot of the people offering services. The side effect is that often, because people have to make it their official business, they will need to get mandatory permits, licenses, diploma's and insurance as well. These and taxing often kill informal "small businesses" and kill the economy. We need a side economy, or a "liberal enough" legislation to allow initiatives like these to foster. Unfortunately, with the current fear and economic crisis, it's going to be hard to keep that from happening.
If you own the property, it's usually not illegal. Mind you, a lot of cities are now in process or have already banned airbnb and similar services. They don't want residential areas become tourist infested, or they want to be able to tax the hell out of people making money with their properties.
What a preposterous idea you have there. How will all the business insurance companies and lawyers make their living if we just go on dealing with losses that we can easily overcome?
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the Orca going to get a nice bottle of chianti then?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the mountains are way older than 13000 years. Maybe you are referring to the ice that's on them? There has been ice on them much longer as well. It's just the current layer of ice that isn't that old, due to the fact that it erodes and slides down the mountain. I doubt the age of the current bits of frozen water is relevant to how much it protects the mountain side from wind and sun erosion, it will be the fact that it's covered that matters.
It's about being able to ask money for appearing somewhere. The guy doesn't care how good or how bad he looks in the game, he just wants money for it. The big question is if his NCAA contract that licensed off the details to EA includes the use of his physical likeness or nor. Also, the contract between his club and the NCAA and his contract with the club are involved here. If any of these fail to include the licensing of his likeness, some party will be left to pay a lot of money.
USA cloud providers are going to feel the hurt of this for a long time in the future. Even if they promise to keep your data outside of the USA, they'll still not be trusted, since there is no way to be certain data isn't handed over anyway.
Hard work may win you a pay check. Politics is what usually wins you a bigger pay check in IT. You can be skilled and talented all you want, but if you can't get your ideas across, you'll be sitting in a corner working your butt off without any recognition at all. You need people skills just as much as technical skills these days to survive.
How are they going to handle car pooling or more than a single occupant in a car? Are they going to close car pool lanes? Are they going to prohibit cars to have more than one seat? What will happen to the environmental targets they have set if they won't allow people to share a car?
The industry can't afford to not fund people who's vote they may still need and may still buy if they give enough money. They will receive money as long as those industries have money to spend on buying political friends for their companies, regardless of who gets to be in power or even voted into office. It's not about betting on a single horse, it's about buying hay for all the horses, allowing you all area access into the racing track. The "real bribery" starts when friends and family members of congresspeople get business contracts from the companies that funded the campaigns. To get there, the companies first have to by their way into the political "race track" with campaign funding.
Any car that uses the megamos RFID chip to identify the key, will be vulnerable. To fix this, the manufacturer will have to replace all keys and the receiver and reprogram all computers in the cars infected. VAG here has a problem with most recent Volkswagens, Audis, SEATs, Skodas, Bentleys, Lamborghini's and Porsches. Other manufacturers that rely on this system are probably affected too. Chances that VAG will proactively call back all these vehicles are extremely slim. A temporary injunction serves no purpose, unless VAG can prove without a doubt that they can and will fix this within a very short time frame. Mind you, designing a new system, testing it for security, mass producing it and recalling all cars will probably take well over a year before they can even start recalling and cost tens of billions to implement for VAG.
Have a recent BMW? There is a known vulnerability where you can copy an actual key inside the car, using the data in the car's computer and the car's own transponder. BMW has not fixed this and won't fix it. The vulnerability is that BMW relied on being the only source of blank, programmable keys and having all the programming equipment in house. Once someone reversed the key system (the car itself contains unprotected, unencrypted key strings), they found out what electronics to put in the key and made blank keys and software to program them using the keys found in the car's computer. This is a massive problem that was out for probably at least a year before there was enough public attention to the enormous theft of BMWs with that system. I think that the number of BMWs stolen had quadrupled in that period. Right now, since BMW won't fix it, getting a BMW that suffers from this vulnerability is prohibitively expensive to insure, making their second hand value very low. It may be that insurers now require 3rd party alarm systems to be installed or something, I don't know, but the vendor didn't fix it and basically left their customers without a solution.
Right now, there's no indication that VW can and will fix this problem once it gets out. I highly doubt they will recall all vehicles and replace the parts that are vulnerable with a system that has the flaw removed. For all we know, that could cost thousands per vehicle and apply to all VAG cars from the last 10 years. That could be over 100M cars, worst case. Then again, if it'd only apply to a certain model and year and it is an affordable fix, they may actually do it, but I wouldn't count on them fixing anything.
From what I understand, the submersible hasn't been under water in any significant depth. Already claiming it will be the 10th deepest diving (known) submersible if you don't have the 9th and/or the 11th or something similar already on your resume, is rather bold. For all we know, they might have goofed up and will not reach over 1/3 of their estimated depth due to some oversight. I wish them the best of luck, but design specs are hard to meet when a tiny mistake will turn your whole project into a crumpled ball of matter, filled with water in less than a second.
People get away with this because verification of all these facts costs time and money. Even companies that are actually hired to do background checks are often slacking and don't actually verify the copies of diplomas you send them.
Also, universities and such have a good reason to not make an API for 3rd parties to query their databases. First, they'd have to settle on an API with all educational facilities, at least nationwide, probably even globally. Second of all, they can charge for a nice sum of money for every request now. Making an API will make it cost more and return less per request, since then things will be standardized and fees will most likely be regulated to be cheap to use.
So you are basically telling that the USA has laws that prohibit the broadcast of music or other media that are legal to buy, sell or play otherwise? How curiously unconstitutional, if you put it that way.
I have a Radeon 7850 with 2 dual link DVI ports and a displayport. It won't allow more than one DVI output to run dual-link resolutions. I doubt *three* monitors like this guys asks for will work if two won't even work.... Mind you, his current Nvidia board will do it just fine, but ATI is severly limited when it comes to proper resolutions on non-displayport screens.
It's nothing but a list of filenames that DxO wants taken down. There is no artistic or intellectual value, nor programming in this file. I'd say it's a frivolous takedown request and they should be fined for it, according to the rules of the DMCA.
It may be that a custom programmed device has been placed in cars to cause the occupants of said vehicle(s) to have a horrible accident. However, in this case it's hard to say that is what caused this accident and death.
Judging by skid marks made in the intersection just before the accident and the high speed at which the intersection was crossed, a way more likely explanation is possible. The car slammed over the bumps in the intersection so hard, that the rear bottomed out (skid marks visible that comply with this theory), the car suddenly changed direction, launched itself on a fire hydrant, hooked the drive train on it, slid nose-down towards the tree. Once it got to the tree, kinetic energy was still so high that the rear of the car flipped up and the front of the roof actually hit the tree. Due to the massive destruction of the floor pan, fuel tank and area under the hood, gasoline got distributed in large enough quantities to start a fire. It is speculation, but it's most likely that any occupants of the vehicle would have at least been unconscious and very likely deceased before the fire started.
Witness reports are by far the worst kind of evidence you can get. You'll get a filtered recollection of how people perceived a certain event, laced with opinions and speculations at best. The longer you wait getting the report and the more people they told the story to, the worse the quality of the witness report will be. There are probably plenty of scientific tests that give statistical qualities of witness reports based on if the witness was told to pay attention to a certain event in advance, visibility, age, amount of people in a group and such. If those things have never been studied, I'd say it's well time we get some statistical data on how bad witness reports actually are when it comes to proof.
Most likely, Hastings was thrashing his car in the middle of the night to get home. He bounced over an intersection, lost the rear due to it bottoming out and found a hydrant and a tree in his way he couldn't avoid any more. Whether he was followed by some government agency or his state of mind because of his interactions with an agency were part of why he was speeding is unknown at this time. Chances that his crash was caused by a manipulation of the programming of his on board computers in the Mercedes are extremely limited. Pulling this off in a car in such a way that you'd be able to selectively only block the rears if someone was over a certain speed is maybe feasible in cars with "break assist" (I doubt it, the main brake cylinder would probably prevent pressure build up if not pressed slightly) and in hybrid cars that turned braking to fully electronic (regenerative braking requires this). Getting this to deploy in such a way and on the exact moment that you can "reliably" crash someone into a hydrant and a tree however, is pure fiction. Chances that your manipulation will not kill or hurt the person you're after when it deploys are so big, that it'd be absolutely useless to put something like this on a car of someone that you'd want to get an accident.
6 more tails wouldn't be functional, so it regrows only one, often just partially and only if the lizard species possesses the capability at all. Most species that do, often have a limited capability to regrow the tail more than once. A lizard needs it's tail to balance itself during running and climbing and more than one would hinder it.
Next thing Fox is going to mandate all cable/sat companies to only sell "always on" devices that can only stream Fox and lock owners in their homes. If the cable company subscribers don't watch fox 24/7 at a blasting loud volume, they want extra money from the companies because they are losing money. Come on, you can't expect people to actually watch your show or not go to the toilet, kitchen or whatever during commercial breaks either. Just because there's "fast forward" on a VCR doesn't mean it should be outlawed because you can skip commercials. Commercials have gotten (technically) ignored since they were on TV. You can't make people watch them any more in current times than you could in the past.
Really, if you need a machine to keep your kids busy or get them educated, you're doing it wrong. People have been raising kids and keeping them well behaved during journeys for way longer than we have had kids travelling in cars. Even that has been done for 100 years. 30 years ago, it was not uncommon for kids to have to listen to a crummy radio with maybe a tape, but probably a radio station on if anything at all. Maybe you should start raising your kids, instead of depending on machines to do it for you.
Several species have "successfully been conserved in captivity" up to the point that no zoo wants any more of them. They are effectively killing animals and doing global birth control on these species in captivity, while the natural population is so small that they lack even genetic diversity to be viable enough to reliably survive extinction. Given these fact, you'd say they would reintroduce captive bread animals in the wild. This never happens and never will, unless they are going to change a lot of things. First of all, captive release is extremely costly, nobody wants to foot the bill for a reintroduction program of Black's Rhino. Second of all, captive animals may have diseases that could in theory threaten wild animals, even animals of different species. For that reason, nobody will permit these animals to be released in the wild, or have them interbreed with wild animals.
Zoos are nothing but the living equivalent of a postage stamp collection. All these breeding programs are nice for fellow stamp collectors, but will never ever help wild populations with genetic diversity or just plain extra animals. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. If we and our kids can't actually go to a zoo and watch these poor caged animals, we wouldn't give enough about them to actually fund some (often rather futile) attempts of saving the habitat of the wild version of what we just fed a bag of peanuts.
Unless the above changes and animals are actually released in the wild on a regular basis, incestuous cross breeding Sumatran rhinos in a Zoo won't help the extinction of these animals a single bit. I suggest we find a solution for this first, before we risk Down Syndrome Rhinos in our Zoos.
You don't get on the tubes, you get *in* them. Everybody knows the internet is made out of tubes!
Since it was already clear that Google committed a grave felony, it was up to Google to prove beyond a doubt that they deleted all data. If Google was not able to do that, they should have been fined a large sum of money for every day they would remain unable to submit proof. It may cost Google millions to prove it, but hey, that's the risk they took and they will have to pay to make things right again.
Google was already proven guilty. It was no longer the legal burden of the ICO to prove anything. It was and is Googles legal burden to prove they have now deleted all data and the ICO failed to have them actually submit irrefutable proof. This makes the ICO lacking and they should make Google submit proof now, even if it's been two years.
Apart from that, the people in the lead at the ICO should be held accountable for this failure and made an example of.
First of all, a lot of modern vegetables are grown as fast as possible, so they contain less fibre and "nutrients" and more water than when we were satisfied with one harvest per year.
Second of all, it's not just about vegetables. We need to get some "rare" vitamins from nuts, meat and such. With the current diet as we have it, meat is grown way faster too, containing arguably less of these rare vitamins than before. We eat a lot less unprocessed food than we used to, especially nuts tend to be roasted and such. A lot of processed food contains arguably less vitamins and nutrients than it used to when we ate more fresh and only slightly cooked food.
Maybe some cultivates are more nutrient than others, but a lot of cultivates are cells with water in them these days. We eat way more processed food than we used to, also diminishing the nutrient value of our food. It may be that we can grow bigger, faster and healthier crops, but once they enter our mouth, they are probably less nutrient than they were on average 50 years ago.
A lot of these kind of services are successful because people tend to stay under the radar of tax collecting agencies. Once the gubbament starts figuring out how to tax all this, most of these sort of initiatives die because it's no longer economically viable to a lot of the people offering services. The side effect is that often, because people have to make it their official business, they will need to get mandatory permits, licenses, diploma's and insurance as well. These and taxing often kill informal "small businesses" and kill the economy. We need a side economy, or a "liberal enough" legislation to allow initiatives like these to foster. Unfortunately, with the current fear and economic crisis, it's going to be hard to keep that from happening.
If you own the property, it's usually not illegal. Mind you, a lot of cities are now in process or have already banned airbnb and similar services. They don't want residential areas become tourist infested, or they want to be able to tax the hell out of people making money with their properties.
What a preposterous idea you have there. How will all the business insurance companies and lawyers make their living if we just go on dealing with losses that we can easily overcome?