I totally agree with your point, but your math is incorrect. Assuming a nuke hitting a city destroys it, and that each rocket has a 90% chance of hitting is target, the probability, p, of any one city being destroyed is:
p(destroyed) = is p(at least one missile hits) = 1 - p(no missile hits).
p(no missile hits in 50 trials) =.9^50 = 0.00515... leaving p(destroyed) = 1 - 0.05 which is about 95%! p(no missile hits in100 trials) =.9^100= 0.0000265.. which means p(destroyed) = 99.997%!
By crossing two or more electromagnetic beams, each of which is of insufficient strength to stimulate the reaction,can one focus the drug's release at the point where they intersect if the combined energy exceeds the required threshold?
Agreed, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial (followed by a fair hanging)
Since the state is not charging him with a crime, though, it is completely reasonable (IMHO) for the public to gather and analyze evidence sufficient to compel it to do so. In the mean time, yeah, the guy's life has been torn to pieces. it would suck to be him.
But if I were him I would most definitely *not* prefer my day in court. Not only are there very few circumstances in which I would voluntarily put my life in the hands of a Florida jury, but Zimmerman will still largely be "guilty" in the minds of the public regardless the outcome. Perhaps even more so after an acquittal.
If he is smart he has already fled the country and made a book deal to pay for it. If he doesn't have the brains or the emotional fortitude to leave America he should just end it all, (hopefully by taking a casual stroll down the streets of Camden or Compton wearing a sign, like Bruce Willis' character did in Die Hard with a Vengeance. That would be cool.)
A trial doesn't sound like a smart option for the guy though.
People, many of your implementation examples aren't "either/or" situations. From a practical standpoint you are usually better with a layer of each: security and obscurity, For example, a strong vault that is hidden is better than the same one exposed. A steganographically-encrypted file is safer than that same file in the public domain. How much safer is open for debate, but you are probably safer with both layers in most individual *implementation* situations.
Where the debate comes alive is in two main areas:
1) Design. An open system design tends to be more trustworthy for reasons explained elsewhere. Obscurity in the *design* of any particular layer is usually bad idea (but obscurity in the choice of layers may be a good thing, e.g. what vault you chose or which tested open source encryption algorithm you picked).
2) Testing. If many people use the same system it becomes obvious if a vulnerability is found, and more people are looking for cracks. That same system in a one-off implementation is less obviously secure, even though (paradoxically) it may have been made more secure through obscurity.
Does anyone make a cable and/or a tiny Male2Female adapter that passes through only the power pins? With one of those on our keychains we could safely charge our iDevices anywhere without fear of data diddling.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to research this, but I'm sure someone said the same thing in the early days of USB.
We'll see if "rumors of its death are premature". I am just happy we are moving towards a faster local I/O standard and applaud Apple for having the guts to champion the technology it thinks is best.
If it can be defeated with a 2D picture, why not up the ante and ensure that the target is 3d by scanning it with a cheap laser? Sure this could be defeated too, by people fabricating mannequins. If this is within your threat model, then you could require the subject to speak a phrase, then scan the series of facial movements for recognition. The black hats would then have to build an android replicant, requiring the white hats to counter with.... um... typed passwords?
If you look closely you can clearly see that it's just the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) in "outer orbit" doing a routing scientific study. Nothing to see here, move along.
I think you need to re-read the article mentioned in ToMuchToDo's original post. While it is true that they are comparing years, the accident rates quoted are "per 100,000 flight hours (the 100,000-hour measure being the statistical standard)".
I stand by my statement that reduced flying will increase those rates.
Quote: With the soaring price of avgas I wouldn't be surprised if accidents were down slightly simply because people are flying less.
Actually, if people were flying their planes less you would see the opposite effect; the number of accidents per hour flown would go up because the pilots flying would be out of practice.
"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree with your point, but your math is incorrect. Assuming a nuke hitting a city destroys it, and that each rocket has a 90% chance of hitting is target, the probability, p, of any one city being destroyed is:
p(destroyed) = is p(at least one missile hits) = 1 - p(no missile hits).
p(no missile hits in 50 trials) = .9^50 = 0.00515... leaving p(destroyed) = 1 - 0.05 which is about 95%! .9^100= 0.0000265.. which means p(destroyed) = 99.997%!
p(no missile hits in100 trials) =
which actually proves your point much better!
Get a rider on your home insurance policy that covers replacement of the hardware.
Automate regular backups to the Internet to protect your software.
Encrypt your data to protect your passwords, identity and privacy.
Am I missing anything?
By crossing two or more electromagnetic beams, each of which is of insufficient strength to stimulate the reaction,can one focus the drug's release at the point where they intersect if the combined energy exceeds the required threshold?
I'd bet money too. But not my life.
Agreed, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial (followed by a fair hanging)
Since the state is not charging him with a crime, though, it is completely reasonable (IMHO) for the public to gather and analyze evidence sufficient to compel it to do so. In the mean time, yeah, the guy's life has been torn to pieces. it would suck to be him.
But if I were him I would most definitely *not* prefer my day in court. Not only are there very few circumstances in which I would voluntarily put my life in the hands of a Florida jury, but Zimmerman will still largely be "guilty" in the minds of the public regardless the outcome. Perhaps even more so after an acquittal.
If he is smart he has already fled the country and made a book deal to pay for it. If he doesn't have the brains or the emotional fortitude to leave America he should just end it all, (hopefully by taking a casual stroll down the streets of Camden or Compton wearing a sign, like Bruce Willis' character did in Die Hard with a Vengeance. That would be cool.)
A trial doesn't sound like a smart option for the guy though.
She doesn't want a computer. Get the family and any of her remaining friends to visit her more often.
People, many of your implementation examples aren't "either/or" situations. From a practical standpoint you are usually better with a layer of each: security and obscurity, For example, a strong vault that is hidden is better than the same one exposed. A steganographically-encrypted file is safer than that same file in the public domain. How much safer is open for debate, but you are probably safer with both layers in most individual *implementation* situations.
Where the debate comes alive is in two main areas:
1) Design. An open system design tends to be more trustworthy for reasons explained elsewhere. Obscurity in the *design* of any particular layer is usually bad idea (but obscurity in the choice of layers may be a good thing, e.g. what vault you chose or which tested open source encryption algorithm you picked).
2) Testing. If many people use the same system it becomes obvious if a vulnerability is found, and more people are looking for cracks. That same system in a one-off implementation is less obviously secure, even though (paradoxically) it may have been made more secure through obscurity.
Does anyone make a cable and/or a tiny Male2Female adapter that passes through only the power pins? With one of those on our keychains we could safely charge our iDevices anywhere without fear of data diddling.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to research this, but I'm sure someone said the same thing in the early days of USB.
We'll see if "rumors of its death are premature". I am just happy we are moving towards a faster local I/O standard and applaud Apple for having the guts to champion the technology it thinks is best.
Well, yes, but that's something entirely different to the point you were originally trying to make.
I was not this thread's original poster. My first and only comment was about the meta-data.
Glad to hear we agree, though. :-)
Perhaps, but there is no excuse for not including meta-information like track names. That would only have taken up less than 1Kb
At least the RIAA and MPAA are not grabbing my penis, fondling my beasts or rubbing their hands all over children yet.
This airport theatre is OBSCENE, ethically and morally wrong on EVERY level.
Your passion for civil rights is admirable, but if you have both a penis *and* breasts you may not be the spokesperson we are looking for.
Silly man, if he had added just one moon rock to his shopping cart he would have qualified for free shipping.
If it can be defeated with a 2D picture, why not up the ante and ensure that the target is 3d by scanning it with a cheap laser? Sure this could be defeated too, by people fabricating mannequins. If this is within your threat model, then you could require the subject to speak a phrase, then scan the series of facial movements for recognition. The black hats would then have to build an android replicant, requiring the white hats to counter with.... um... typed passwords?
ITYM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
Better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial
Don't use MS Word.
Can you think of a better way to install a rootkit in the computers of the currently targeted group?
If you look closely you can clearly see that it's just the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) in "outer orbit" doing a routing scientific study. Nothing to see here, move along.
Yeah, I cut and pasted the wrong URL. ToMuchToDo's subsequent post referred to http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29293775-85f9-4007-817c-bd65a1060dda
which contained the quote.
Sorry for the mixup. Fly safe.
I think you need to re-read the article mentioned in ToMuchToDo's original post. While it is true that they are comparing years, the accident rates quoted are "per 100,000 flight hours (the 100,000-hour measure being the statistical standard)".
I stand by my statement that reduced flying will increase those rates.
See: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html
Quote: With the soaring price of avgas I wouldn't be surprised if accidents were down slightly simply because people are flying less.
Actually, if people were flying their planes less you would see the opposite effect; the number of accidents per hour flown would go up because the pilots flying would be out of practice.
And yes, IAAP (I am a pilot).
If they succeed will China's announcement ring with the same national pride as it did in this video?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ4K0hHin9s&feature=user
It seems to me that the users who most need anti-phishing protection are the ones least likely to change their defaults.
http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228
"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."
They can't block 95% of the Internet! :-)