In Apple's defense, I can also see that they would consider it a ghastly error to find themselves seated in a courtroom one day, being asked "You knew that by doing x, y, and z, one could make ${device} damage my client, and you did nothing about it?"
That's ridiculous, since such an argument could be made against any bit of technology created in the last thousand years.
It's not ridiculous, since such an argument has been made -- successfully -- against many bits of technology created in the last thousand years. Why do you think so many products come with a sticker, slip of paper in the package, or whole chapter in the instruction manual dedicated to moronic safety warnings about how you shouldn't try to stick the product up your ass, or smash it with a sledgehammer to slurp up the delicious chemicals inside it?
It wouldn't be hard to program the machines to disregard a sudden radical drop in the reported market value of gold, or to stop selling whenever the price falls below a given value. This would make sense even if the sudden change in market value is legitimate.
Since it wouldn't be hard to program the machines thusly, and since the flaw inherent in not doing so is so obvious that you and a dozen other slashdot commenters have seized on it, it is a fairly safe assumption that the designers will have done something of that sort.
Why does every article about a new technology or in this case business plan get this treatment on slashdot? "The brief write-up from some journalist didn't include an exhaustive technical analysis of every detail, so I assume there are no details and no thought has been put into this project whatsoever! More evidence that everyone in the world is stupid except for me!"
I don't mean to single you out here. It's just that I see this kind of reaction on slashdot constantly.
Are you sure that was the National Enquirer? As the other guy said, the Enquirer is a trashy gossip rag, but usually accurate -- in fact they are often the first news source to uncover the illicit affairs of politician's, which then, rightly or wrongly, become major political scandals.
The headline you described sounds like something from the Weekly World News -- a hilarious source of completely fabricated B-movie-grade sci-fi, which is sadly no longer printed, but lives on in web-only form.
I stand corrected. I assumed the parent was claiming something like "I used to pay 20% of my income now I make just a little more and pay 30%!" I was considering only the simple math of the tax rate in each bracket, not credits and deductions.
I wouldn't say that they have diverged, as they are still mutually intelligible. More like they were caught in the act of diverging when advances in travel and communications technology largely negated the factors that were causing the divergence. I imagine that they remain in this state (slightly different but not different enough to matter) indefinitely, or converge again in a few hundred years.
If they have diverged, though, then I can finally consider myself bilingual!
Aside from the potential shared interest in reaching a verdict, these interests are generally directly opposed, so where one party has an interest in removing intelligent potential jurors, the other party would generally have an interest in removing less-intelligent members of the jury pool, though I don't think its really that common where that would be a factor, anyway.
You said it yourself, lawyers want jurors who will be amenable to their arguments -- often that means both sides have in interest in removing intelligent, critically thinking jurors in favor of those who can be more easily persuaded by misdirection and logical fallacies.
I'm pretty sure "The Second Coming of Citizen Kane" would be a terrible movie that would be universally reviled. Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something? Or would it turn out he faked his death? In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.
I'm don't consider it clear how one is supposed to interpret that example problem either. I can only assume that the empty parentheses are supposed to represent a variable, and the student is supposed to put a 7 inside of them. But that representation is not part of any arithmetic or algebra that I remember being taught. If that is what is intended, what's wrong with using "x" or any other lowercase letter?
4+3+2 = x+2
9 = x+2
7 = x
Or maybe the blank space between the parentheses is the variable, and the parentheses themselves are part of the equation?
A decline in the birthrate does not mean a decline in population. It means our still rapidly growing population is growing slightly less rapidly than it was before.
Hence the rate at which we produce new corpses to bury will continue to accelerate.
Even if our living population were shrinking instead of growing, our deceased population would still continue to grow -- until such time as our living population reaches zero.
So no, the problem will not become less acute in the future.
We are merely trifling over semantics. As I use the term, respect amounts to nothing more than treating someone with courtesy, and regarding them as a sentient being who is entitled to exist. It does not entail any particular level of admiration; admiration is the thing which must be earned.
I find it difficult to believe that someone who can afford a Tesla Roadster could still be concerned enough about the price of electricity to go to the trouble of custom building a market-timing charge regulator.
Especially since you could have just charged it from the Arc Light reactor in your chest.
I recently went through the painful process of setting new passwords on just about every system and website I have access to.
Somebody in Turkey got into my gmail account somehow and attempted to send a single spam email (google blocked it and alerted me to the activity, thankfully) and although I could have just changed my google password and that would have probably been the end of it, I preferred to play it safe; theoretically someone with even temporary access to my email could obtain my passwords for a ton of things using password recovery mechanisms. So over the course of a couple days I had to log into every site I have an account with, and pick a new password.
You would be AMAZED at how many sites have idiotic password constraints that prohibit spaces, or special characters, or require the length to be no more than some smallish number like 14 or 20. It was frustrating. Especially the sites that act so security conscious by displaying an estimate of my password strength as I enter it, then tell me it can only be 8 characters long and contain no special characters.
So a system like the one you suggest is a great theoretical solution. In practice, I find it is generally unusable because of stupidly designed password requirements.
The entire purpose of a man-in-the-middle attack is work around the fact that the attacker cannot eavesdrop directly on an encrypted channel. The attacker wants the authentication credentials for your bank account, but the communication is encrypted. So instead he tricks the client device into opening an encrypted channel to HIM instead, by poisoning a DNS cache for instance, and gets you to send him the credentials directly. The whole point is to get access to what he needs to access your account.
If the data is transmitted in the clear, MITM is completely unnecessary. He just eavesdrops on the communication and gets the credentials.
It's not about "seeing your money." It's about seeing the secret numbers needed to access your money. Perhaps it would have been a better analogy if I had said that it was akin to thinking that posting the combination to your safe on a sign right next to it would protect you from safe-crackers, but I still fail to see your point.
Slashdot Mirror
In Apple's defense, I can also see that they would consider it a ghastly error to find themselves seated in a courtroom one day, being asked "You knew that by doing x, y, and z, one could make ${device} damage my client, and you did nothing about it?"
That's ridiculous, since such an argument could be made against any bit of technology created in the last thousand years.
It's not ridiculous, since such an argument has been made -- successfully -- against many bits of technology created in the last thousand years. Why do you think so many products come with a sticker, slip of paper in the package, or whole chapter in the instruction manual dedicated to moronic safety warnings about how you shouldn't try to stick the product up your ass, or smash it with a sledgehammer to slurp up the delicious chemicals inside it?
It wouldn't be hard to program the machines to disregard a sudden radical drop in the reported market value of gold, or to stop selling whenever the price falls below a given value. This would make sense even if the sudden change in market value is legitimate.
Since it wouldn't be hard to program the machines thusly, and since the flaw inherent in not doing so is so obvious that you and a dozen other slashdot commenters have seized on it, it is a fairly safe assumption that the designers will have done something of that sort.
Why does every article about a new technology or in this case business plan get this treatment on slashdot? "The brief write-up from some journalist didn't include an exhaustive technical analysis of every detail, so I assume there are no details and no thought has been put into this project whatsoever! More evidence that everyone in the world is stupid except for me!"
I don't mean to single you out here. It's just that I see this kind of reaction on slashdot constantly.
Are you sure that was the National Enquirer? As the other guy said, the Enquirer is a trashy gossip rag, but usually accurate -- in fact they are often the first news source to uncover the illicit affairs of politician's, which then, rightly or wrongly, become major political scandals.
The headline you described sounds like something from the Weekly World News -- a hilarious source of completely fabricated B-movie-grade sci-fi, which is sadly no longer printed, but lives on in web-only form.
I stand corrected. I assumed the parent was claiming something like "I used to pay 20% of my income now I make just a little more and pay 30%!" I was considering only the simple math of the tax rate in each bracket, not credits and deductions.
My bad.
Bullshit. Mathematically impossible, unless your earnings in the new higher tax bracket are taxed at greater than 100%.
I wouldn't say that they have diverged, as they are still mutually intelligible. More like they were caught in the act of diverging when advances in travel and communications technology largely negated the factors that were causing the divergence. I imagine that they remain in this state (slightly different but not different enough to matter) indefinitely, or converge again in a few hundred years.
If they have diverged, though, then I can finally consider myself bilingual!
I generally go with "Oxidize rapidly, totally, and exothermically."
My great-great-great-great(etc)-grandparents are all dead already, so they probably won't be troubled by it.
JETPACKS!
Aside from the potential shared interest in reaching a verdict, these interests are generally directly opposed, so where one party has an interest in removing intelligent potential jurors, the other party would generally have an interest in removing less-intelligent members of the jury pool, though I don't think its really that common where that would be a factor, anyway.
You said it yourself, lawyers want jurors who will be amenable to their arguments -- often that means both sides have in interest in removing intelligent, critically thinking jurors in favor of those who can be more easily persuaded by misdirection and logical fallacies.
I'm pretty sure "The Second Coming of Citizen Kane" would be a terrible movie that would be universally reviled. Would Kane be an undead revenant trying to find his sled or something? Or would it turn out he faked his death? In any case, it would be a poorly written opportunistic sequel rushed out by Hollywood to capitalize on the popularity of the original.
I'm don't consider it clear how one is supposed to interpret that example problem either. I can only assume that the empty parentheses are supposed to represent a variable, and the student is supposed to put a 7 inside of them. But that representation is not part of any arithmetic or algebra that I remember being taught. If that is what is intended, what's wrong with using "x" or any other lowercase letter?
4+3+2 = x+2
9 = x+2
7 = x
Or maybe the blank space between the parentheses is the variable, and the parentheses themselves are part of the equation?
4+3+2 = (x)+2
4+3+2 = +2(x)
9 = 2x
9/2 = x
A decline in the birthrate does not mean a decline in population. It means our still rapidly growing population is growing slightly less rapidly than it was before.
Hence the rate at which we produce new corpses to bury will continue to accelerate.
Even if our living population were shrinking instead of growing, our deceased population would still continue to grow -- until such time as our living population reaches zero.
So no, the problem will not become less acute in the future.
The other 2% die at some point outside of their lives, thanks to the reckless use time-travel.
We are merely trifling over semantics. As I use the term, respect amounts to nothing more than treating someone with courtesy, and regarding them as a sentient being who is entitled to exist. It does not entail any particular level of admiration; admiration is the thing which must be earned.
Trust has to be earned. Respect should be given be default, and withdrawn for cause.
Duh. There is no need to post stuff that we all know already. ;)
I suggest that you are a genius superhero, and in reply you tell me not to underestimate you.
Mister, I like your style.
I find it difficult to believe that someone who can afford a Tesla Roadster could still be concerned enough about the price of electricity to go to the trouble of custom building a market-timing charge regulator.
Especially since you could have just charged it from the Arc Light reactor in your chest.
I recently went through the painful process of setting new passwords on just about every system and website I have access to.
Somebody in Turkey got into my gmail account somehow and attempted to send a single spam email (google blocked it and alerted me to the activity, thankfully) and although I could have just changed my google password and that would have probably been the end of it, I preferred to play it safe; theoretically someone with even temporary access to my email could obtain my passwords for a ton of things using password recovery mechanisms. So over the course of a couple days I had to log into every site I have an account with, and pick a new password.
You would be AMAZED at how many sites have idiotic password constraints that prohibit spaces, or special characters, or require the length to be no more than some smallish number like 14 or 20. It was frustrating. Especially the sites that act so security conscious by displaying an estimate of my password strength as I enter it, then tell me it can only be 8 characters long and contain no special characters.
So a system like the one you suggest is a great theoretical solution. In practice, I find it is generally unusable because of stupidly designed password requirements.
Must. . . resist. . . correcting reference. . . . Doh, I can't. I'm weak, and will now commence pedantic nitpicking. I apologize in advance.
Count Rugen (That's with an 'e', not an 'a') did not carry the key to the castle gate. The Chief Enforcer of Florin did. His name was Yellin.
There, I feel better now.
The entire purpose of a man-in-the-middle attack is work around the fact that the attacker cannot eavesdrop directly on an encrypted channel. The attacker wants the authentication credentials for your bank account, but the communication is encrypted. So instead he tricks the client device into opening an encrypted channel to HIM instead, by poisoning a DNS cache for instance, and gets you to send him the credentials directly. The whole point is to get access to what he needs to access your account.
If the data is transmitted in the clear, MITM is completely unnecessary. He just eavesdrops on the communication and gets the credentials.
It's not about "seeing your money." It's about seeing the secret numbers needed to access your money. Perhaps it would have been a better analogy if I had said that it was akin to thinking that posting the combination to your safe on a sign right next to it would protect you from safe-crackers, but I still fail to see your point.
That's like saying that keeping your money in a big pile on your front lawn will protect you from safe-crackers.
-1 Exactly Backwards.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=daedalus+and+icarus/
You are obviously a foreigner. Papers, please.