I disagree. Breaking into a system is not much different than breaking into my house. There is a ton of extremely sensitive data on a lot of systems. If I came home and found someone who had picked the lock on my house sitting on the couch watching TV, you'd better believe I'd call the police and press any charges possible. No harm/intent foo!
One of my daughter's friends keeps pressuring her to give out her passwords on various sites. I've suggested my daughter tell her friend, "You can have my password when I can have the key to your house."
From the article, it appears they didn't reveal the security flaws, they got caught. Besides, breaking into systems without permission just to show they are insecure isn't necessary. I've never had anybody who I reported a security problem to just pooh-pooh it, not even when I was a teenager.
The ASIMO site appears to be getting slashdotted and I can't find any pricing there, there are only plushies, scale models, and toys on eBay, so can you really buy one of these and for how much?
Dogs just have ADD, which is why they're easier to distract. Cats spend their time sleeping in order to process their concentrated observations for the day. Dogs simply have nothing to think about other than, "When is he going to throw that thing again so I can pointlessly fetch it back?" Try to do that with a cat, and you can actually feel them being insulted that you might think they would do something that dumb. Mark my words, cats are figuring out how to power things with our blood and trying to figure out the ultimate nature of the universe so that all the dogs can be removed to some other universe, so you better treat cats nicely.
Did you watch the entire series? They go back repeatedly to the fact that no one has figured out how to test it yet. Numerous interviewees (pro string people even) talk about it, and how it's all very nice but it is important to find a way to test it. They talk about how it has happened before that very pretty, very popular theories have ended up being bunk before.
I see lots of potential holes in it, but since a lot of detail can be lost in translating complex things into analogies, I'll reserve opinion for now.
Are you talking about in the long run or the short run? I'm not a diabetic so I'm not knowledgeable about the details of how fatty acids affect blood sugar levels. But I'll give some information that might help you figure it out.
Both glucose and fatty acids metabolize to acetyl-CoA (the simple version, those in the know don't jump on me about odd carbon fatty acids please), which is the entry molecule to the Krebs cycle. If there is plenty of fatty acid derived acetyl-CoA, the cell can down regulate glucolysis, resulting in less usage of glucose, which leads to less uptake of glucose from the blood.
-->All calories that the body takes in, whether they be from fats, proteins or carbohydrates, have to be converted to glucose before it can be used to power the body's cells.--
Um, no. While proteins can be used to power gluconeogenesis, they don't have to be converted to glucose before they can enter the Krebs cycle. Fats can't be used to provide net synthesis of glucose, and are certainly not converted to glucose before entering the Krebs cycle.
The human body is not capable of net production of glucose from fat. You can pull Krebs cycle intermediates that came from fat out of the Krebs cycle to make glucose, but then you have stopped the Krebs cycle unless you have glucose available to replace those intermediates.
This device pulls a single electron off of glucose. That's not the same thing as metabolizing the glucose. I wonder how they intend to get around the fact that this is likely to piss off the glucose such that it goes looking for another molecule to mug to get its electron back, thus triggering metabolic mayhem.
Intrastellar space is not ultracold, it's pretty darn hot (4 Kelvin) when you contrast that to the temperatures needed to form a BEC (around 170 nanoKelvin).
Here's what I don't get. The article on Physics web says, "The particles that carry the fundamental forces of nature, such as the photon and the gluon, are bosons, while the quarks and leptons that make up matter are fermions." Then it goes on to say, "Bosonic atoms such as rubidium-87 can enter such as state because, unlike fermions, they do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle." What makes atoms bosonic versus fermionic? Just whether or not they follow the Pauli exclusion principle?
I've got the same laptop, it is a very sweet machine. I would love to have HP support dual booting on it. Better yet would be to have them VMWARE'd and running at the same time!:)
There has been a recent discussion on Groklaw about the "can't be seen by anybody but the poster" phenomenon. It's been experienced by people who are very strongly pro-Groklaw as well as by those who are anti-Groklaw, as well as by those who are in between. Some people can see their posts at one computer and not another. Switching to a different "view" of comments typically ends up showing all the comments. So it would appear that this has something to do with caching somewhere, whether at ibiblio, end-user ISP's, or in browser caches, and is not some nefarious plot to censor people.
Sigh. I've never actually managed to finish a game that I could get my hands on the source for. And even a few that I didn't have source ended up sidelined into debuggers.
It's meant to be a port only for client submission, which means you authenticate them as a legitimate client of yours before accepting any submissions. If you don't, then you're just acting as a relay. And that would be bad. No biscuit.
You don't need a second network connection. You just have the trojaned PC accept everything. If the connection gets dropped due to a retransmit not happening, big deal. They're paying for that fat pipe to have a good connection, and almost all the mail servers the spammer is trying to get to will also have good pipes, so most of the time there are no lost packets to deal with.
You can use this as an antispam measure, just send a zero window or hold an ack for test and if the sender continues to blow data at you, instant spam sign. If you don't want to or can't muck with your tcp stack, you can pause in the SMTP conversation, but unfortunately some "legitimate" emailers are pipelining their SMTP conversations and not waiting for go aheads but I don't have much sympathy if they get labeled spammers for not following RFC's.
If you provide a service to a spammer (even if the spammer doesn't use it to spam with, such as a website), or a good (such as spamware) whose primary use is to facilitate spamming, then you are a "spam support operation". This includes providing DNS, email services, web hosting, bandwidth, spamware, or any of these used to harvest or provide addresses, etc. If you're making it possible or easier for the spammer to spam, you're a spam support operation.
The problem with spelling it out is that spammers continue to come up with creative new ways to spam that might be outside an exhaustive list.
I don't understand why a legitimate ISP would not terminate "a few spamming customers" or insist that Joe Home get his zombified PC fixed. But time and time again, ISPs demonstrate that they won't do it without getting whacked.
Then make sure the freemail provider is set up to use the standard port for client submission of email, port 773, or better port 465 in order to use SSL.
Entry 5 in the FAQ deals with network address ranges that haven't actually sent out spam (yet). 21 and 22 deal with the difference between level 1 and level 2 and talks a bit about listing whole netblocks. I use level 1 on addresses that might be expected to receive mail from the general public, and level 2 with whitelisting of customers on addresses that are for customer support.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Breaking into a system is not much different than breaking into my house. There is a ton of extremely sensitive data on a lot of systems. If I came home and found someone who had picked the lock on my house sitting on the couch watching TV, you'd better believe I'd call the police and press any charges possible. No harm/intent foo!
One of my daughter's friends keeps pressuring her to give out her passwords on various sites. I've suggested my daughter tell her friend, "You can have my password when I can have the key to your house."
That isn't true, at least not when I got my SSN. It was assigned according to our mailing address when issued, not where I was born.
Of course, nowadays, babies are almost always assigned SSN's at birth, so it's a good rule of thumb, but it's not perfect.
From the article, it appears they didn't reveal the security flaws, they got caught. Besides, breaking into systems without permission just to show they are insecure isn't necessary. I've never had anybody who I reported a security problem to just pooh-pooh it, not even when I was a teenager.
Darn. Guess I'd better go back to plotting world domination by vastly inflating the value of 1996 Honda Civics.
Both of my cars are Hondas, maybe that would count for extra tradein value for one.
The ASIMO site appears to be getting slashdotted and I can't find any pricing there, there are only plushies, scale models, and toys on eBay, so can you really buy one of these and for how much?
Dogs just have ADD, which is why they're easier to distract. Cats spend their time sleeping in order to process their concentrated observations for the day. Dogs simply have nothing to think about other than, "When is he going to throw that thing again so I can pointlessly fetch it back?" Try to do that with a cat, and you can actually feel them being insulted that you might think they would do something that dumb. Mark my words, cats are figuring out how to power things with our blood and trying to figure out the ultimate nature of the universe so that all the dogs can be removed to some other universe, so you better treat cats nicely.
I for one welcome our new cat overlords.
Background microwave radiation.
Did you watch the entire series? They go back repeatedly to the fact that no one has figured out how to test it yet. Numerous interviewees (pro string people even) talk about it, and how it's all very nice but it is important to find a way to test it. They talk about how it has happened before that very pretty, very popular theories have ended up being bunk before.
I see lots of potential holes in it, but since a lot of detail can be lost in translating complex things into analogies, I'll reserve opinion for now.
Are you talking about in the long run or the short run? I'm not a diabetic so I'm not knowledgeable about the details of how fatty acids affect blood sugar levels. But I'll give some information that might help you figure it out.
Both glucose and fatty acids metabolize to acetyl-CoA (the simple version, those in the know don't jump on me about odd carbon fatty acids please), which is the entry molecule to the Krebs cycle. If there is plenty of fatty acid derived acetyl-CoA, the cell can down regulate glucolysis, resulting in less usage of glucose, which leads to less uptake of glucose from the blood.
-->All calories that the body takes in, whether they be from fats, proteins or carbohydrates, have to be converted to glucose before it can be used to power the body's cells.--
Um, no. While proteins can be used to power gluconeogenesis, they don't have to be converted to glucose before they can enter the Krebs cycle. Fats can't be used to provide net synthesis of glucose, and are certainly not converted to glucose before entering the Krebs cycle.
The human body is not capable of net production of glucose from fat. You can pull Krebs cycle intermediates that came from fat out of the Krebs cycle to make glucose, but then you have stopped the Krebs cycle unless you have glucose available to replace those intermediates. This device pulls a single electron off of glucose. That's not the same thing as metabolizing the glucose. I wonder how they intend to get around the fact that this is likely to piss off the glucose such that it goes looking for another molecule to mug to get its electron back, thus triggering metabolic mayhem.
After watching that Nova special, I'm left wondering what the market for "I am Sparticle" T-shirts would be in the physics community.
Intrastellar space is not ultracold, it's pretty darn hot (4 Kelvin) when you contrast that to the temperatures needed to form a BEC (around 170 nanoKelvin).
Here's what I don't get. The article on Physics web says, "The particles that carry the fundamental forces of nature, such as the photon and the gluon, are bosons, while the quarks and leptons that make up matter are fermions." Then it goes on to say, "Bosonic atoms such as rubidium-87 can enter such as state because, unlike fermions, they do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle." What makes atoms bosonic versus fermionic? Just whether or not they follow the Pauli exclusion principle?
I've got the same laptop, it is a very sweet machine. I would love to have HP support dual booting on it. Better yet would be to have them VMWARE'd and running at the same time! :)
There has been a recent discussion on Groklaw about the "can't be seen by anybody but the poster" phenomenon. It's been experienced by people who are very strongly pro-Groklaw as well as by those who are anti-Groklaw, as well as by those who are in between. Some people can see their posts at one computer and not another. Switching to a different "view" of comments typically ends up showing all the comments. So it would appear that this has something to do with caching somewhere, whether at ibiblio, end-user ISP's, or in browser caches, and is not some nefarious plot to censor people.
Well, it's expensive for someone whose idea of fine dining is the 99 cent menu at Wendy's.
Sigh. I've never actually managed to finish a game that I could get my hands on the source for. And even a few that I didn't have source ended up sidelined into debuggers.
It's meant to be a port only for client submission, which means you authenticate them as a legitimate client of yours before accepting any submissions. If you don't, then you're just acting as a relay. And that would be bad. No biscuit.
Maureen? Is that you?
You don't need a second network connection. You just have the trojaned PC accept everything. If the connection gets dropped due to a retransmit not happening, big deal. They're paying for that fat pipe to have a good connection, and almost all the mail servers the spammer is trying to get to will also have good pipes, so most of the time there are no lost packets to deal with.
You can use this as an antispam measure, just send a zero window or hold an ack for test and if the sender continues to blow data at you, instant spam sign. If you don't want to or can't muck with your tcp stack, you can pause in the SMTP conversation, but unfortunately some "legitimate" emailers are pipelining their SMTP conversations and not waiting for go aheads but I don't have much sympathy if they get labeled spammers for not following RFC's.
I suppose so.
If you provide a service to a spammer (even if the spammer doesn't use it to spam with, such as a website), or a good (such as spamware) whose primary use is to facilitate spamming, then you are a "spam support operation". This includes providing DNS, email services, web hosting, bandwidth, spamware, or any of these used to harvest or provide addresses, etc. If you're making it possible or easier for the spammer to spam, you're a spam support operation.
The problem with spelling it out is that spammers continue to come up with creative new ways to spam that might be outside an exhaustive list.
I don't understand why a legitimate ISP would not terminate "a few spamming customers" or insist that Joe Home get his zombified PC fixed. But time and time again, ISPs demonstrate that they won't do it without getting whacked.
Then make sure the freemail provider is set up to use the standard port for client submission of email, port 773, or better port 465 in order to use SSL.
Entry 5 in the FAQ deals with network address ranges that haven't actually sent out spam (yet). 21 and 22 deal with the difference between level 1 and level 2 and talks a bit about listing whole netblocks. I use level 1 on addresses that might be expected to receive mail from the general public, and level 2 with whitelisting of customers on addresses that are for customer support.