Oh God I hate that sonofabitch. But more than that, he takes like 3 seconds to turn around and walk off into the distance when you kick him out. What the hell! I just want to search for some damn files.
That and you need to change the search behavior to regular search, without all the hand-holding that gets in your way...
I used to pick up my youngest brother from preschool/kindergarten every day for two years. Since he never wanted to leave, I was sitting around for about 10 minutes every day.
I have never seen little boys playing with dolls or dresses. Some of the girls did 'play like the boys' but most did play with dolls, etc.
I'm not disputing that society plays a large role, but your statement is wrong.
And most importantly, it doesn't come off as outlandish. I could realistically ask those questions, and realistically get those answers. So many ads are just ridiculous - everybody knows that brand new SUV won't be going through the wilderness or around hairpin turns on a mountain.
The fact that this ad could realistically be a video of a single person's searches (combined over time, of course) significantly improves it.
It was April 1, when they linked it from the homepage. If you can't tell that it's a joke, you're pretty stupid.
"commode-based TiSP wireless router", or "largely sanitary process -- provided you follow these step-by-step instructions very, very carefully.", or "our Plumbing Hardware Dispatchers (PHDs)", or the professional installation "which dispatches an army of factory-trained, sub-contracted nanobots from the TiSP Access Node. The nanobots travel with exhilarating nano-speed through the sewer system and into your home to perform the installation service, which should be complete within 15 minutes. Note: For your own physical safety and emotional well-being and in consideration of the nanobots' working conditions, please make absolutely certain that your toilet is unoccupied at the scheduled appointment time."
Foolish PR? Yes, I suppose there are plenty of stupid people around who might be fooled by the obvious joke. Frankly, I don't care - and apparently Google doesn't either.
I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure you can transport the host machine fingerprint to the client, and the public key to the server, and have it impossible to crack the connection without breaking the crypto.
IANACE (crypto expert) but I think the only avenue for MITM is on the *first* connection to the host, where you need to trust that the link is secure enough to not modify the fingerprint. If you don't need to trust that... I think you're safe.
With most SSH implementations, you can't ignore a cert change alert. It's more of a fatal error, at least with every SSH client I've ever used.
When I reinstall a machine (or regenerate a cert due to, say, a stupid upstream bug), it spits out a big nasty error and will not continue until I remove the offending key from known_hosts.
I've seen many people on Slashdot suggest such a thing. Microsoft may be ridiculous, but it's likely they didn't come up with the idea.
In any case, the idea itself isn't terrible - it's only consequences of this that make it a bad idea (loss of anonymity, censorship, etc). The concept itself isn't a bad one. Loads of people aren't competent enough to not ruin it for everyone else.
If I were inclined to suggest something like this, it would be an ISP level thing. The ISP by default would allow you on to a NATted firewalled connection with a private IP address and filtering between hosts on the same virtual subnet. By passing a (standardized) evaluation or test or something, you'd be allowed IP addresses on the real internet. Sort of like a playpen for idiots.
These have the same problems as with a "driver's license", though, so I don't support them. Just saying Microsoft isn't nuts.
And keep in mind this guy shot down his own idea a few seconds after voicing it. I'm sure it was more like a thought experiment.
How long did that take them? Look at Outlook Web Access - it still doesn't allow you to use the useful interface if you don't use IE, despite the fact that Firefox handles it fine. (try switching your useragent)
They've just *barely* started supporting other browsers. I guess that's cause for some praise, but Google has supported other browsers since the beginning.
The solution *is* already written, and they literally *do* just have to flip a switch to deploy. I'd feel better if the code was in escrow, but this is second-best.
I disagree. I find that the DRM in Steam is value-added, actually. When I move to a new computer (even a friend's computer) I can download my games and be up and running in a few hours.
If you think Steam's DRM is bad, should every user have access to every game, but reminded to "only install games from this list that you've bought"?
That's a good way to think about it. Peer review, like the market, only works with honorable actors. Scientists are presumed to be honorable, so the way peer review is structured doesn't attempt to look for deliberate forgeries or falsehoods. Peer review is more along the lines of "this conclusion isn't backed up by your data" or "you forgot about this possibility" - that is, it catches mistakes or oversights. And it's pretty good for that.
These spates of disreputable science (this, and the ghost writers for example) is a good bit concerning. There historically hasn't been much deception at all, at least in modern science... I hope this isn't the harbinger of politics-as-science.
I did an independent study class in high school in my junior year. I shared the classroom with an 8th-grade class (not concurrently) and there were a few dozen posters up from some sort of project.
I walked around the room and every single poster had a "their/there" or a "to/too/two" or "your/you're". Every. Single. One.
Now when I was in 8th grade, neither I nor anyone in my class made anything close to that number of mistakes (and I have the papers to prove it).
That grade is the current sophomores. The classes before them are more-or-less OK on the grammar front, but I shudder to think what will happen when these people start writing on more than posters...
I think it's because my class, and a few classes behind mine, grew up before everybody had high-speed internet. Using the internet was slow, and it was a treat. Those 8th-graders were only 6 in 2000. They grew up with DSL and cable... so instant messenger was a fact of life. I think that's the biggest factor.
Just remember that cars haven't been controlled by your own grit for a while now. I'm talking primarily about power steering and brakes.
Let me explain. I'm an EMT, and I drive a 14,000 pound ambulance. It's a box mounted to a F-350 (diesel) chassis made by Ford. It's really quite comfortable.
Last summer, I had the fan (serpentine) belt break on me. This powers the cooling pump and fan, the primary alternator (secondary is on a separate belt), power brakes and steering, and the AC. It turns out it was a frozen AC compressor that burned through the belt.
In any case, the vehicle was not controllable at even a few miles an hour. Thankfully, the belt broke in the hospital parking lot, but even going 10 miles an hour to leave was enough to make the vehicle not stop, even using all my weight and strength. We were rolling up an incline, so it was fine, but we were not decelerating the vehicle in a meaningful way.
Second, the power steering is a necessity for a vehicle of that size. You can wrestle the wheel without it, but it takes a lot of work and therefore a lot more time to turn the wheel. Couple that with the almost-complete loss of brakes, and you've got problems.
We were fine, got into a safe spot, and got a tow. But had we been going down the curvy highway from a few minutes before, I am convinced we would have been killed. I could not have kept the turns on that road, nor avoided the cars without brakes.
My point is, we already rely so much on mechanical systems. That's what the problem was in this case. It's easy to cry "no fly by wire" because it's harder to understand than a linkage, but it may not be less safe. The ability of electronical systems to self-monitor is something that your standard throttle can't do.
In the end, perhaps we should combine the two, something like a dead-man's switch? The ECU sends a pulse to a relay every half-second as part of it's main loop - if that relay doesn't like what it hears, it releases a spring that closes the throttle. If the ECU crashes, it doesn't send the pulse and the car slows.
It is speculative crap, and had you read most of the other posts you would have seen that (let alone TFA). The specific problem is with a sticky bushing. In those instances they can demonstrably pull out the part and show you how it takes too much force to move, perhaps even more than the return-spring can supply. This means that pushing the accellerator will make it sluggishly return - or not at all.
There *may* be an ECM issue as well (though there's no evidence of it), and the code update to give the brake pedal priority fixes an obvious design flaw, but that's not what's at play now. What they're talking about is a known faulty *mechanical* system.
No, they're not accurate. Neither is being particularly truthful, but Verizon is outright lying. They're comparing apples to oranges.
Verizon's 3g is more like AT&T's 2g (EDGE). AT&T's 3g (really HSDPA) is wicked fast (I've gotten a real-world 4.5mbps with 100ms latency). I don't think Verizon has anything that even comes close to that. So AT&T's HSDPA service is pretty limited, sure, but they have 2g (which is Verizon's 3g) over their *entire* service area.
There's a lot of things AT&T needs to improve on, but I don't think their coverage or technology is one of them. They just need to deliver what they're capable of more frequently.
I feel sorry for you, if that's the view you have of humanity. I think most people would act if they witnessed a problem and were able to assist. I know I would (I'm an EMT so thrusting myself into a 'situation' is par for the course).
That's a fallacy. This law applies to violent crime. I see no problem with compelling a person to call 911 for a stabbing/rape/etc if they're able. That's just basic human decency and frankly I'm a little sickened that it is even needed.
If they try to modify this to apply to any crime, then we have a problem.
If you're having trouble doing this with X, then maybe you should read the rest of the comments talking about how possible it is, and relatively easily.
Yeah, chip cards have been hacked for years in satellite TV systems. Much harder than a magstripe, harder enough so that there's easier ways to steal someone's money, but still possible.
I'm not smart enough to figure out how many credit card numbers exist - except that I know that it's not 10^16 because many numbers are invalid. For anyone who wants to figure this out, credit cards need a merchant code and an account code. I think the account code can be pretty arbitrary, but there are only a dozen or so merchant codes. And the whole thing needs a checksum.
Are there enough credit cards to let everyone use single-use numbers all the time? Maybe we should get only one alternate card number, whose default state is "locked" except for explicitly stated merchants, which default back to "locked" after one charge...
I wish we did. I've seen a few devices in the past year that were Chip and PIN (one was at a nearby CVS... can't remember the rest).
Still not sure how it's more secure than a normal magstripe. I guess you can't clone a chip so easily as a magstripe... but that's why I consider my plastic only slightly more "lose-able" than cash, and still keep it safe
Slashdot Mirror
Oh God I hate that sonofabitch. But more than that, he takes like 3 seconds to turn around and walk off into the distance when you kick him out. What the hell! I just want to search for some damn files.
That and you need to change the search behavior to regular search, without all the hand-holding that gets in your way...
Maybe I'm just a bit irrational...
By definition. A ballistic missile is defined by the fact that it is suborbital.
Oh really? Have you actually done this?
I used to pick up my youngest brother from preschool/kindergarten every day for two years. Since he never wanted to leave, I was sitting around for about 10 minutes every day.
I have never seen little boys playing with dolls or dresses. Some of the girls did 'play like the boys' but most did play with dolls, etc.
I'm not disputing that society plays a large role, but your statement is wrong.
And most importantly, it doesn't come off as outlandish. I could realistically ask those questions, and realistically get those answers. So many ads are just ridiculous - everybody knows that brand new SUV won't be going through the wilderness or around hairpin turns on a mountain.
The fact that this ad could realistically be a video of a single person's searches (combined over time, of course) significantly improves it.
It was April 1, when they linked it from the homepage. If you can't tell that it's a joke, you're pretty stupid.
"commode-based TiSP wireless router", or "largely sanitary process -- provided you follow these step-by-step instructions very, very carefully.", or "our Plumbing Hardware Dispatchers (PHDs)", or the professional installation "which dispatches an army of factory-trained, sub-contracted nanobots from the TiSP Access Node. The nanobots travel with exhilarating nano-speed through the sewer system and into your home to perform the installation service, which should be complete within 15 minutes. Note: For your own physical safety and emotional well-being and in consideration of the nanobots' working conditions, please make absolutely certain that your toilet is unoccupied at the scheduled appointment time."
Foolish PR? Yes, I suppose there are plenty of stupid people around who might be fooled by the obvious joke. Frankly, I don't care - and apparently Google doesn't either.
Wow. Sucks to be you.
I'm dead serious.
That's what the NTVDM *is*. It's effectively a virtual machine, though it's closer to a virtualizer than a simulator (more like VirtualBox than Bochs)
I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure you can transport the host machine fingerprint to the client, and the public key to the server, and have it impossible to crack the connection without breaking the crypto.
IANACE (crypto expert) but I think the only avenue for MITM is on the *first* connection to the host, where you need to trust that the link is secure enough to not modify the fingerprint. If you don't need to trust that... I think you're safe.
With most SSH implementations, you can't ignore a cert change alert. It's more of a fatal error, at least with every SSH client I've ever used.
When I reinstall a machine (or regenerate a cert due to, say, a stupid upstream bug), it spits out a big nasty error and will not continue until I remove the offending key from known_hosts.
I've seen many people on Slashdot suggest such a thing. Microsoft may be ridiculous, but it's likely they didn't come up with the idea.
In any case, the idea itself isn't terrible - it's only consequences of this that make it a bad idea (loss of anonymity, censorship, etc). The concept itself isn't a bad one. Loads of people aren't competent enough to not ruin it for everyone else.
If I were inclined to suggest something like this, it would be an ISP level thing. The ISP by default would allow you on to a NATted firewalled connection with a private IP address and filtering between hosts on the same virtual subnet. By passing a (standardized) evaluation or test or something, you'd be allowed IP addresses on the real internet. Sort of like a playpen for idiots.
These have the same problems as with a "driver's license", though, so I don't support them. Just saying Microsoft isn't nuts.
And keep in mind this guy shot down his own idea a few seconds after voicing it. I'm sure it was more like a thought experiment.
How long did that take them? Look at Outlook Web Access - it still doesn't allow you to use the useful interface if you don't use IE, despite the fact that Firefox handles it fine. (try switching your useragent)
They've just *barely* started supporting other browsers. I guess that's cause for some praise, but Google has supported other browsers since the beginning.
The solution *is* already written, and they literally *do* just have to flip a switch to deploy. I'd feel better if the code was in escrow, but this is second-best.
This has come up before. See http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10642189&postcount=28
I disagree. I find that the DRM in Steam is value-added, actually. When I move to a new computer (even a friend's computer) I can download my games and be up and running in a few hours.
If you think Steam's DRM is bad, should every user have access to every game, but reminded to "only install games from this list that you've bought"?
That's a good way to think about it. Peer review, like the market, only works with honorable actors. Scientists are presumed to be honorable, so the way peer review is structured doesn't attempt to look for deliberate forgeries or falsehoods. Peer review is more along the lines of "this conclusion isn't backed up by your data" or "you forgot about this possibility" - that is, it catches mistakes or oversights. And it's pretty good for that.
These spates of disreputable science (this, and the ghost writers for example) is a good bit concerning. There historically hasn't been much deception at all, at least in modern science... I hope this isn't the harbinger of politics-as-science.
I did an independent study class in high school in my junior year. I shared the classroom with an 8th-grade class (not concurrently) and there were a few dozen posters up from some sort of project.
I walked around the room and every single poster had a "their/there" or a "to/too/two" or "your/you're". Every. Single. One.
Now when I was in 8th grade, neither I nor anyone in my class made anything close to that number of mistakes (and I have the papers to prove it).
That grade is the current sophomores. The classes before them are more-or-less OK on the grammar front, but I shudder to think what will happen when these people start writing on more than posters...
I think it's because my class, and a few classes behind mine, grew up before everybody had high-speed internet. Using the internet was slow, and it was a treat. Those 8th-graders were only 6 in 2000. They grew up with DSL and cable... so instant messenger was a fact of life. I think that's the biggest factor.
Just remember that cars haven't been controlled by your own grit for a while now. I'm talking primarily about power steering and brakes.
Let me explain. I'm an EMT, and I drive a 14,000 pound ambulance. It's a box mounted to a F-350 (diesel) chassis made by Ford. It's really quite comfortable.
Last summer, I had the fan (serpentine) belt break on me. This powers the cooling pump and fan, the primary alternator (secondary is on a separate belt), power brakes and steering, and the AC. It turns out it was a frozen AC compressor that burned through the belt.
In any case, the vehicle was not controllable at even a few miles an hour. Thankfully, the belt broke in the hospital parking lot, but even going 10 miles an hour to leave was enough to make the vehicle not stop, even using all my weight and strength. We were rolling up an incline, so it was fine, but we were not decelerating the vehicle in a meaningful way.
Second, the power steering is a necessity for a vehicle of that size. You can wrestle the wheel without it, but it takes a lot of work and therefore a lot more time to turn the wheel. Couple that with the almost-complete loss of brakes, and you've got problems.
We were fine, got into a safe spot, and got a tow. But had we been going down the curvy highway from a few minutes before, I am convinced we would have been killed. I could not have kept the turns on that road, nor avoided the cars without brakes.
My point is, we already rely so much on mechanical systems. That's what the problem was in this case. It's easy to cry "no fly by wire" because it's harder to understand than a linkage, but it may not be less safe. The ability of electronical systems to self-monitor is something that your standard throttle can't do.
In the end, perhaps we should combine the two, something like a dead-man's switch? The ECU sends a pulse to a relay every half-second as part of it's main loop - if that relay doesn't like what it hears, it releases a spring that closes the throttle. If the ECU crashes, it doesn't send the pulse and the car slows.
It is speculative crap, and had you read most of the other posts you would have seen that (let alone TFA). The specific problem is with a sticky bushing. In those instances they can demonstrably pull out the part and show you how it takes too much force to move, perhaps even more than the return-spring can supply. This means that pushing the accellerator will make it sluggishly return - or not at all.
There *may* be an ECM issue as well (though there's no evidence of it), and the code update to give the brake pedal priority fixes an obvious design flaw, but that's not what's at play now. What they're talking about is a known faulty *mechanical* system.
No, they're not accurate. Neither is being particularly truthful, but Verizon is outright lying. They're comparing apples to oranges.
Verizon's 3g is more like AT&T's 2g (EDGE). AT&T's 3g (really HSDPA) is wicked fast (I've gotten a real-world 4.5mbps with 100ms latency). I don't think Verizon has anything that even comes close to that. So AT&T's HSDPA service is pretty limited, sure, but they have 2g (which is Verizon's 3g) over their *entire* service area.
There's a lot of things AT&T needs to improve on, but I don't think their coverage or technology is one of them. They just need to deliver what they're capable of more frequently.
Yes! Heil Hitler and so on. That's exactly the right idea - it'd fix everything. It'd be like a final solution...
I feel sorry for you, if that's the view you have of humanity. I think most people would act if they witnessed a problem and were able to assist. I know I would (I'm an EMT so thrusting myself into a 'situation' is par for the course).
That's a fallacy. This law applies to violent crime. I see no problem with compelling a person to call 911 for a stabbing/rape/etc if they're able. That's just basic human decency and frankly I'm a little sickened that it is even needed.
If they try to modify this to apply to any crime, then we have a problem.
If you're having trouble doing this with X, then maybe you should read the rest of the comments talking about how possible it is, and relatively easily.
Yeah, chip cards have been hacked for years in satellite TV systems. Much harder than a magstripe, harder enough so that there's easier ways to steal someone's money, but still possible.
I'm not smart enough to figure out how many credit card numbers exist - except that I know that it's not 10^16 because many numbers are invalid. For anyone who wants to figure this out, credit cards need a merchant code and an account code. I think the account code can be pretty arbitrary, but there are only a dozen or so merchant codes. And the whole thing needs a checksum.
Are there enough credit cards to let everyone use single-use numbers all the time? Maybe we should get only one alternate card number, whose default state is "locked" except for explicitly stated merchants, which default back to "locked" after one charge...
I wish we did. I've seen a few devices in the past year that were Chip and PIN (one was at a nearby CVS... can't remember the rest).
Still not sure how it's more secure than a normal magstripe. I guess you can't clone a chip so easily as a magstripe... but that's why I consider my plastic only slightly more "lose-able" than cash, and still keep it safe