the old supplies with the 110/220 selector are switchers too -
No, old power supplies with a switch are not switchers. The switches on old supplies actually changed the selection of the primary on the transformer. Most of them had two primary windings. Wired in parallel, they handled 240V. Wired in series, 120V. That produced the right output from the secondary so you'd not over-voltage the regulators or dissipate excessive power dropping too high a voltage. If you didn't care about the dissipation, you could have a linear supply that ran on 120 or 240 without caring, you'd just have to make sure you rated all the components to handle the higher voltage.
Newer supplies that are switchers may still have a switch, but it really shouldn't be necessary in a well designed supply.
You're describing a simple transformer type of power supply. There are plenty of examples of switching supplies with a 120/240 switch. I've got a whole bunch of PC switching type power supplies with a 120/240 switch. Those supplies have two large caps that get charged to 120volts each. The switch controlled whether they were charged in parallel off the 120, or in series off the 240. Those caps fed the switching transistors.
Not sure about the States, but turning off the key in Europe and you would be worried about triggering the steering lock. Which means you can no longer turn the wheel. If it's a manual then going into neutral would be a no-brainer. In Europe we rarely use neutral in an automatic, it's either drive or park, so in panic mode I can see somebody not wanting to use a control they've never used before. Stupid? Yes. Believable? Just about.
Phillip.
Most newer automatic cars won't let you turn the key fully back and remove it unless the shifter is in park.
Then NSA just moves on to the next huge mail provider. The key is exposing just how deep NSA has their fingers in the pie and getting a large enough public outcry.
I wonder if some of these 'problems' are from the same people who refuse to believe that iTunes shuffle is random.
It's not that it isn't random, it's that it doesn't work like most people would expect. Even Apple will tell you that shuffle doesn't pick the next song at random. When you first turn on shuffle, it creates a shuffled playlist and uses that forever unless you turn off shuffle and turn it back on. So every time you play song X, it's always followed by song Y. In some ways it makes sense, but after listening though a few times, it's easy to notice that its not really picking the next song at random.
You are thinking secure protocols protecting data in transit which is an improvement. I am talking about NSA having direct access to gmail at the servers which is a far bigger problem to solve even with things like public/private keys like pgp etc. You also need to fix all the shit like Facebook where people happily publish the boring details of their life.
Really the same issue webmasters had with deep-linking where Google sends the searcher straight to the page they wanted without having to wade through the front end of the website. And yes, the same mitigation techniques such as robots.txt and refferring block apply with the same drawbacks of those searchers not bothering with the site that's making things more difficult for them.
It bugs the crap outta me when people start equating flying cars to breaking science. Science is the fundamental stuff like the physics or biology. Engineering is the practical application of science and building things. 10-gig ethernet is the application of existing scientific principles. Now a flying car could be a scientific breakthrough if it involves a new anti-gravity module but not if it's just a small plane.
I forsee new breakthroughs in materials science as we are starting to understand material properties in new ways (the science) and learning how to manufacture new materials with unique properties (the engineering side of the equation).
The OP is assuming that the state is getting $490 profit from each ticket. The reality is that a good chunk of the ticket money ends up going to the contractor who installs and maintains the systems. Several studies showed that the accident rates at red-light-camera equipped intersections actually went up because the contractor shortened the yellow light durations (memory seems to recall one state found they were shortened by an average of 1.6 seconds). The higher accident rate may eat up any actual profit by a corresponding increase in emergency services.
So bottom line is that these cameras may have actually been costing the state money, with no tangible improvement in safety. I wonder how long it will be before cars are required to snitch on their owners or enforce the speed limit. All the tech is there in many new cars, just a GPS, periodic map updates, and fly-by-wire throttle.
I know Oracle didn't write Java to being with but they sure had a hard-on to acquire it, presumably so soak up profits by wedging themselves in to yet more enterprise services. I'd like them to take ownership of this issue and really hammer out these nasty problems.
Didn't they just do exactly that? Granted there are probably still lots of other unannounced issues, but this is a good step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, TFA is more about the fact that some hardware devices that may never see a software upgrade have one or more security holes which can be exploited over the network...which is interesting and all, but really has nothing to do with UPNP: If such devices were secure and trustworthy to begin with, there would never be a reason to firewall them at all, let along worry about UPNP.
The connection to UPNP is that these devices are needlessly exposing themselves to attack by automatically opening inbound ports through the router using UPNP.
That these system will punch holes in a upnp capable router is part of the problem. Many people may not realize their DVR is even accessible from outside. Step number one on any home routers I setup is to disable upnp because malicious software also likes to punch holes.
The data sheet on thier now slash dotted website, mentioned an is abstraction layer, full porting of the dalvik VM and integration with host features such as graphics acceleration and media codecs. Sounds like a port of the OS and apps which use the dalvik VM would run just fine. Maybe apps the need more than that won't work.
This is not the same as the remote debugging for Chrome on Android your cite. This is the ability to actually run ICS 4.0 as a VM on your PC. No android device is actually required. The also appear to have a goal to run Android as the native OS on desktop hardware. Interesting, as Microsoft is trying to make their OS look and feel like an app-centric OS like apple and android, someone is trying to go the other direction.
Yes, I am aware that a real Computer Engineer is not a programmer. We've hired a few specifically to do the low level board design and they are really good at it. The problem is that when we advertise for software programmers, we get guys with comp-sci degrees calling themselves computer engineers or software engineers and they are barely functional at programming. Again same problem I suppose since true computer science really has nothing to do with programming, but their focus is often on programming.
They don't wanna teach people how to find these problems, because it'll embarass the crap out of The Powers That Be.
Don't blame professors for this. Look higher
Your explanation sounds a bit too tin-foil-hat. The reality is that the market just wants keyboard jockeys who can code a working product quickly and cheaply. The security (and I'd also say quality) of the product is way down on the priority list of most employers. If you want to fix that, you need to figure out how to demand high-quality software. Not the buggy, security-flawed crap we see from major companies like Adobe, Java and Microsoft.
But I do agree most of the graduating "Computer Engineers" I've interviewed barely knew how to code and had a few canned routines like bubble-sorting memorized. The ones claiming to be Microsoft certified were even more embarrassing.
He's right about ugly incompatibilities. Old code which complied fine and compiled on other platforms didn't work on RH7. That the underlying reason was non-standards compliant programming and a much stricter compiler didn't change the problem. It also didn't help that the compiler was enforcing c++ standards against c code.
The danger with GMO crops is what we don't know about gene splicing and the like. This is a prime example of my point. Despite all their supposed safe guards, genes with unknown potential have entered the food chain. This might be the next BSE in the food supply.
Not been paying too much attention have you? The GMO has _fragments_ of this virus, the purpose of which has been repeated over and over in this thread. It's also been pointed out a few times that the _entire_ virus is often found in non-GMO crops.
If you see a door that says "sensitive information here, please do not open door" and the door looks broken, you have two choices, lightly touch the door to confirm your diagnosis that it's broken, in which case you did exercise "unauthorized access", or you report that door without verification. If you report it without verification, then you can't ever tell anyone you found a broken door. You found something that might have been a broken door, but you'll never know.
Yes, it's silly and stupid, but you can't verify a broken item without taking responsibility for abusing it. And lots of people have gotten in trouble for that, and few would want them to quietly back away and tell nobody under fear someone may accuse them of having peeked beyond the broken door.
He didn't touch lightly. He ran a penetration test software suite against it.
A scientist should also run experiments multiple times to see if the results are repeatable before publishing those results. If you can't repeat your results you can't possibly give others instructions on how they can repeat them. Not knowing that the HVAC failed for a couple hours during one run out of a dozen should result in outlier results that can be investigated or discarded.
Unfortunately, sometimes the experiments do get run multiple times and the data that didn't fit the expected results was thrown out and not included in the final data. I've seen far too many scientists who automatically throw out the highest and lowest samples and only average the data that grouped nicely, without making much effort to find out why some samples deviated.
Slashdot Mirror
the old supplies with the 110/220 selector are switchers too -
No, old power supplies with a switch are not switchers. The switches on old supplies actually changed the selection of the primary on the transformer. Most of them had two primary windings. Wired in parallel, they handled 240V. Wired in series, 120V. That produced the right output from the secondary so you'd not over-voltage the regulators or dissipate excessive power dropping too high a voltage. If you didn't care about the dissipation, you could have a linear supply that ran on 120 or 240 without caring, you'd just have to make sure you rated all the components to handle the higher voltage.
Newer supplies that are switchers may still have a switch, but it really shouldn't be necessary in a well designed supply.
You're describing a simple transformer type of power supply. There are plenty of examples of switching supplies with a 120/240 switch. I've got a whole bunch of PC switching type power supplies with a 120/240 switch. Those supplies have two large caps that get charged to 120volts each. The switch controlled whether they were charged in parallel off the 120, or in series off the 240. Those caps fed the switching transistors.
A valve is also another term for a diode, which only allows current to flow in one direction.
Not sure about the States, but turning off the key in Europe and you would be worried about triggering the steering lock. Which means you can no longer turn the wheel. If it's a manual then going into neutral would be a no-brainer. In Europe we rarely use neutral in an automatic, it's either drive or park, so in panic mode I can see somebody not wanting to use a control they've never used before. Stupid? Yes. Believable? Just about.
Phillip.
Most newer automatic cars won't let you turn the key fully back and remove it unless the shifter is in park.
Then NSA just moves on to the next huge mail provider. The key is exposing just how deep NSA has their fingers in the pie and getting a large enough public outcry.
Also no problems with 4S and 6.1.
I wonder if some of these 'problems' are from the same people who refuse to believe that iTunes shuffle is random.
It's not that it isn't random, it's that it doesn't work like most people would expect. Even Apple will tell you that shuffle doesn't pick the next song at random. When you first turn on shuffle, it creates a shuffled playlist and uses that forever unless you turn off shuffle and turn it back on. So every time you play song X, it's always followed by song Y. In some ways it makes sense, but after listening though a few times, it's easy to notice that its not really picking the next song at random.
http://www.cultofmac.com/181517/why-itunes-shuffling-order-isnt-really-random/
At least I'm not posting on /. that "Hey my phones works okay, must not your the anti-apple trolls making this up.".
You are thinking secure protocols protecting data in transit which is an improvement. I am talking about NSA having direct access to gmail at the servers which is a far bigger problem to solve even with things like public/private keys like pgp etc. You also need to fix all the shit like Facebook where people happily publish the boring details of their life.
Give the people what they want, then encrypt your shit w 4096-bit keys, not enough? Double it. Modern connections can support it just fine. .
Encryption doesn't matter when NSA is tapping at the unencrypted source or has access to the keys.
Under $2 when buying a roll of 200. Probably far less in larger quantities.
http://www.google.com/search?q=shock+watch+sticker&tbm=shop
Really the same issue webmasters had with deep-linking where Google sends the searcher straight to the page they wanted without having to wade through the front end of the website. And yes, the same mitigation techniques such as robots.txt and refferring block apply with the same drawbacks of those searchers not bothering with the site that's making things more difficult for them.
It bugs the crap outta me when people start equating flying cars to breaking science. Science is the fundamental stuff like the physics or biology. Engineering is the practical application of science and building things. 10-gig ethernet is the application of existing scientific principles. Now a flying car could be a scientific breakthrough if it involves a new anti-gravity module but not if it's just a small plane.
I forsee new breakthroughs in materials science as we are starting to understand material properties in new ways (the science) and learning how to manufacture new materials with unique properties (the engineering side of the equation).
The OP is assuming that the state is getting $490 profit from each ticket. The reality is that a good chunk of the ticket money ends up going to the contractor who installs and maintains the systems. Several studies showed that the accident rates at red-light-camera equipped intersections actually went up because the contractor shortened the yellow light durations (memory seems to recall one state found they were shortened by an average of 1.6 seconds). The higher accident rate may eat up any actual profit by a corresponding increase in emergency services.
So bottom line is that these cameras may have actually been costing the state money, with no tangible improvement in safety. I wonder how long it will be before cars are required to snitch on their owners or enforce the speed limit. All the tech is there in many new cars, just a GPS, periodic map updates, and fly-by-wire throttle.
I know Oracle didn't write Java to being with but they sure had a hard-on to acquire it, presumably so soak up profits by wedging themselves in to yet more enterprise services. I'd like them to take ownership of this issue and really hammer out these nasty problems.
Didn't they just do exactly that? Granted there are probably still lots of other unannounced issues, but this is a good step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, TFA is more about the fact that some hardware devices that may never see a software upgrade have one or more security holes which can be exploited over the network...which is interesting and all, but really has nothing to do with UPNP: If such devices were secure and trustworthy to begin with, there would never be a reason to firewall them at all, let along worry about UPNP.
The connection to UPNP is that these devices are needlessly exposing themselves to attack by automatically opening inbound ports through the router using UPNP.
That these system will punch holes in a upnp capable router is part of the problem. Many people may not realize their DVR is even accessible from outside. Step number one on any home routers I setup is to disable upnp because malicious software also likes to punch holes.
The data sheet on thier now slash dotted website, mentioned an is abstraction layer, full porting of the dalvik VM and integration with host features such as graphics acceleration and media codecs. Sounds like a port of the OS and apps which use the dalvik VM would run just fine. Maybe apps the need more than that won't work.
That has also been available for a while as part of the SDK.
The SDK has an emulator, no? This would be natively compiled for x86, so more along the lines of a VM.
You mean exactly like CHina, Israel, and other countries are doing? It's naive to assume the US holds a monopoly on cyber espionage.
...and thoroughly documented.
This is not the same as the remote debugging for Chrome on Android your cite. This is the ability to actually run ICS 4.0 as a VM on your PC. No android device is actually required. The also appear to have a goal to run Android as the native OS on desktop hardware. Interesting, as Microsoft is trying to make their OS look and feel like an app-centric OS like apple and android, someone is trying to go the other direction.
I wonder if any of them are the older HP LaserJets where you could change the display to read funny things like "Insert Cheese" or "Low on Mayo"?
http://community.spiceworks.com/scripts/show/1184-change-a-networked-hp-laserjet-ready-message
http://miscellany.kovaya.com/2007/10/insert-coin.html
Yes, I am aware that a real Computer Engineer is not a programmer. We've hired a few specifically to do the low level board design and they are really good at it. The problem is that when we advertise for software programmers, we get guys with comp-sci degrees calling themselves computer engineers or software engineers and they are barely functional at programming. Again same problem I suppose since true computer science really has nothing to do with programming, but their focus is often on programming.
They don't wanna teach people how to find these problems, because it'll embarass the crap out of The Powers That Be.
Don't blame professors for this. Look higher
Your explanation sounds a bit too tin-foil-hat. The reality is that the market just wants keyboard jockeys who can code a working product quickly and cheaply. The security (and I'd also say quality) of the product is way down on the priority list of most employers. If you want to fix that, you need to figure out how to demand high-quality software. Not the buggy, security-flawed crap we see from major companies like Adobe, Java and Microsoft.
But I do agree most of the graduating "Computer Engineers" I've interviewed barely knew how to code and had a few canned routines like bubble-sorting memorized. The ones claiming to be Microsoft certified were even more embarrassing.
Maybe you are wrong: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_gcc.html
He's right about ugly incompatibilities. Old code which complied fine and compiled on other platforms didn't work on RH7. That the underlying reason was non-standards compliant programming and a much stricter compiler didn't change the problem. It also didn't help that the compiler was enforcing c++ standards against c code.
The danger with GMO crops is what we don't know about gene splicing and the like. This is a prime example of my point. Despite all their supposed safe guards, genes with unknown potential have entered the food chain. This might be the next BSE in the food supply.
Not been paying too much attention have you? The GMO has _fragments_ of this virus, the purpose of which has been repeated over and over in this thread. It's also been pointed out a few times that the _entire_ virus is often found in non-GMO crops.
If you see a door that says "sensitive information here, please do not open door" and the door looks broken, you have two choices, lightly touch the door to confirm your diagnosis that it's broken, in which case you did exercise "unauthorized access", or you report that door without verification. If you report it without verification, then you can't ever tell anyone you found a broken door. You found something that might have been a broken door, but you'll never know.
Yes, it's silly and stupid, but you can't verify a broken item without taking responsibility for abusing it. And lots of people have gotten in trouble for that, and few would want them to quietly back away and tell nobody under fear someone may accuse them of having peeked beyond the broken door.
He didn't touch lightly. He ran a penetration test software suite against it.
A scientist should also run experiments multiple times to see if the results are repeatable before publishing those results. If you can't repeat your results you can't possibly give others instructions on how they can repeat them. Not knowing that the HVAC failed for a couple hours during one run out of a dozen should result in outlier results that can be investigated or discarded.
Unfortunately, sometimes the experiments do get run multiple times and the data that didn't fit the expected results was thrown out and not included in the final data. I've seen far too many scientists who automatically throw out the highest and lowest samples and only average the data that grouped nicely, without making much effort to find out why some samples deviated.