Datasets:

jkruk

/

tech-data

like 0

Exactly. But I don't understand why these people are so dedicated to making things "kid friendly". Sure, it looks good on paper. But instead of CEO's playing babysitter, how about the parents step up and be parents . Heaven forbid you monitor what your child is doing on a computer that essentially connects them to loads of porn, child molesters, scams, and con artists. I know when I was younger, we had one computer--a desktop. Where was this desktop located? The dining room. Everything I did was able to be seen. I didn't get my first laptop until college. Now, kids have their laptops, cell phones, everything within the privacy of their rooms and can be doing/searching for anything and everything. Don't get me wrong, I believe teens deserve their privacy. They're going to look at porn. It's natural. But point being, if a curious kid wants to find porn, they're going to. Especially if you hand them the hardware to do so.

My friend and I got high and watched it once, and then had a brainstorming session (complete with notes on a yellow legal pad) about how to do the sequel. Translating from Marijuanese and some doodles of boobs, this is what we came up with: Brewster has become an eccentric billionaire, and had several children, some adopted, with his wife (the paralegal from the first movie). Now, his grandchildren are set to inherit his fortune (cast made up of 20 something comedic actors of any race). All of this exposition occurs over the opening credits, beginning with a summary and epilogue of Brewster's Millions shown in newspaper titles. It starts with Brewster and his happy family, maybe a nostalgia shot of John Candy and Jerry Orbach with Richard Pryor, transitioning to 90's era AOL news headlines showing "Brewster's Bunch" of adopted children, followed by clips of shitty reality shows featuring the embarrassing stupidity of his grandkids, and eventually ending up on FOXNEWS.com with the headline "Brewster Dead, Family Members Sue for Control". The first scene is all of the various grandchildren arriving via helicopter, cigarette boat, stretch Prius. There is the standard motley crew of character tropes, the cocky entitled guy, the oblivious celebutant with a sextape, the kind-hearted charity worker, the one that gets high all the time, and any others that the plot may require. Basically they are brought to an office at the law firm where they are told that, as Monty was disappointed by what greedy motherfuckers they had become, he decided to teach you a lesson. And, here to read his will as Monty Brewster is actor Eddie Murphy (as himself). There is an aside where the lawyer mentions that the will was written at a time when Murphy was still an A-list celebrity, but at least they got him cheap. Eddie Murphy, doing his best Richard Pryor impersonation, reads the conditions of the will. Brewster's greatest enjoyment was the look of joy when he hired someone, or helped someone, and saw a look of elation on their faces. Lately, instead of elation, he saw relief, and realized that people don't have dreams anymore, just a fear of failing. His grandkids didn't get this, because they never faced any chance of failing. As they all wish to gain controlling interest in the estate, they are set against each other in competition. They will have 30 days and 30 million dollars each. They must spend it all, but not on themselves. They must spend the money helping other people. Not giving to charity, but actually meeting individuals, finding out what they need, and spending the money WITHOUT anyone finding out. Giving people money isn't an option, the kids have to spend it to help individuals. Any act of charity that is discovered, and the person is disqualified. Any money spent on themselves, and they were disqualified. They had an allowance with which to eat and live, but beyond that they can't even buy someone else lunch. The result is they each simultaneously look like the worst kind of rich assholes, while trying to covertly help as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The winner is the one who spends all the money AND helps the greatest number of individuals. The winner gains control of the estate, and is also responsible for taking care of the losers. It is strongly implied that certain participants would cut off their cousins completely should they win. After reading the will, they sit in silence as it sinks in, and the stoner says to Murphy, "That was awesome! Now do Bill Cosby!" "Man, fuck you" Murphy says, as he leaves. That's as far as we got plot-wise. We also had a side note that we should work in Warren, aka the dad from 7th Heaven, aka Dennis and Dee's real dad. Maybe even Rick Moranis. Hollywood, you take it from here.

Having owned a series of desktops-turned servers, I would suggest that the average user buy a network drive (NAS) if the goal is simply to store files. Units can get pricy, but basic models start at 1tb for just over $100. The DIY model does offer the potential for a very carefully tailored security solution (and email), but either requires a Windows license (most at that point in its life is either XP or Vista) or a time investment to learn how to configure Linux. If you know or are interested in Linux it's time well spent, but in no way does it compare to the 15 minutes, no prior knowledge needed setup of a Seagate or WD NAS. If you're going to use a DNS service and port forwarding to access remotely, you need to do homework on protocols. Cheap turnkey NAS units may by venerable to interception if accessed from outside their home network. (I have a way to VPN into the network my NAS is on, so I rely on that as protection instead). In addition my P4@3GHz was power hungry, loud, and hot. I would strongly advise C2D or P4s with better than stock cooling if placement options limit it to where you spend time. Then again, all of the above is based on personal experience (two Ubuntu server P4s, a Debian C2D, and a WD NAS), so your mileage may vary. So

The largest is actually Amazon, but there are several more. HP is definitely in the top three working with the government. This article is definitely talking about consumers, but it seems to say that cloud computing is dead. That's so far from true. It's actually booming, and government is going to drive it. The fact that CSPs can offer SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS will save loads of money. (And hopefully protect against laziness and ineptitude.) Plus medium and small business are going to utilize the shit out of cloud technology because it is, by far, the cheapest way for them to get things done. Remember, we're not just talking about data storage, we're also talking about the ability to run virtual machines and software as you need it. I certainly have my apprehensions about data storage. Especially since the NSA/FBI/etc will just take what they want and bully CSPs. However, I won't ring the death bell because there is such a drive to cloud computing as well as great potential.

Cloud computing always has and will be great. Don't worry I have a story to illustrate this. I was given the role of project manager for a web application we had to build. The problem with this application is that nearly all of the client's workable budget needed to be used on development, not hosting. I shopped around looking at servers and I came upon two options a dedicated server from limestone networks ($200/month) or Amazon AWS ($30/month). The limestone network server had a 30-day-trial and I just signed up for AWS in their free tier. I installed a previously created application to both services. Amazon's Cloud Platform performed 200% faster, the network and IO were better than I could ever expect. Since then my company has never used another physical server, and we've saved thousands.

Somebody eli5. whats the big deal. You can 3D print stuff.. I've seen the 3d models of people. I am going to go all 5 year old with my confusion. o the person is copied and it looks like a Han solo action figure but cant move the arms or legs. The inside of said person isn't copied. Organs blunt and so on. Now on cars. You will 3D model the car. But the engine parts and all the parts inside every different engine part won't get copied. Are they saying you can get dimensions of all these things on paper and then plug in said points to the machine and then you have to manufacture the engine yourself putting every piece together every screw in place and so on and yadda yadda.. The only thing that seems like a possibilty is the chassis of the car the outside design and then nothing else. I don't understand are you fabricating the screws as well? Once the engine is done and assembled and you hoisting it in the car? I think too much has been jjumped to conclusion on 3d printing and to get a car i would put it in the realm of 50-100 years in my worst guesses as to when in might MIGHT be possible.

Put yourself in the shoes of a civilian living nearby to enemies (real or imaginary) of the flying robots with missiles for which no one can be held responsible. You have suffered for years with your friends and family dying around you to human soldiers. This is an evil situation, I'm sure you will agree. Now recently the soldiers have been replaced by flying robots; worse still, those who own the flying robots have declared that your friends and family that are now dying to the robots are the responsibility of no one! This is absurd. Those who own the flying robots are responsible in the same way that those who controlled the soldiers (or the soldiers themselves) are responsible. I can't imagine a world where the act of letting a killer robot loose upon a group of people does not entail some level of responsibility. To me, that's like dropping a bomb on a city and claiming that the bomb, and not you, is responsible for the dead.

ha >Drones have been hackable for years. In 2009, defense officials told reporters that Iranian-backed militias used $26 of off-the-shelf software to intercept the video feeds of drones flying over Iraq. And in 2011, it was reported that a virus had infected some drone control systems at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, leading to security concerns about the security of unmanned aircraft. Hilarity ensues! Anyway...... we're not going to have Skynet as some people have asserted. Won't happen. Although we'll give greater autonomy to machines and smart systems, the human element is going no where fast. Anyone who knows policy knows this will not happen and probably will not change directions in our life time. I can confirm for a fact a company I've contracted with has had dealings with chips on par with human-like intelligence (Surveillance apparatus). We've got companies like TrapWire and SAIC building tons of this computer stuff. Boeing, Lockheed are obviously in on this too. It's no conspiracy and it's nothing to fear, because drones aren't going to start doing this any time soon. We're not going to have automatic kill sessions drones launch out like we've seen in the new terminator movie... New faster methodologies behind safe communications and smarter algorithms and better technical maneuvers like 'hover' or 'circle' are the new and have been the new paradigm since 2006. If coms are cut, the drones self adjust. This the equivalent of AI. When integrated into a computer system that can track human movement, do facial recognition and recognize potentially harmful / suspicious behavior and you ad a 2.5 GP pixel camera, you've got a perfect storm for abuse of oversight, but not abuse of machines. There could be disastrous consequences should it malfunction and fire in anger on friendlies. This is why we will never give the computer the ability to make that call. Computers also remove military jobs, and jobs someone like me would likely fill today. They (the ones profiting from employing said people) seek to prevent this (see the CIA's disposition Matrix and Pakistan civilian/geographical assassination program). As such, policies (especially domestically) have stringent guide lines stipulating a minimum of a two party confirmation before any clearance to fire is given. This is why if you've ever played COD or watched helicopter attack videos you've got a man in the sky looking for approval from a man on the ground who is usually getting approval from FOB / some type of Central Command. Also, on a side note, if you hop a fence onto white house property in the wrong spot, you're dead on ice by computer's hands. Drones can already make these choices. We just don't let them.

It comes down to pressure - and if you Google around for info on reloading .40, you'll find plenty on it. Basically .40S&W runs at MUCH higher case pressures than .45ACP and as such the cases have to withstand more damage. Combine that with unsupported chambers (well, relatively) in some guns (Glocks) and you get bulging that requires resizing, which works the brass (thereby weakening it) and a very tight range of safe lengths (the overall length of the cartridge heavily influences the resulting pressure) and if you aren't careful, or want to run major pressure loads, you can have a problem. If you're careful with reloading, or run light pressures, there's no real issue to reloading it, as long as you watch the cases (which you should be doing any time you reload a case). Some more at: [this S&W forum]( what an 'unsupported chamber' [looks]( like.

Actually the reality is A LOT more grim. Kevlar is a fabric that can stop a bullet, but one of the problems, actually, of non-rigid bullet resistant armor is that it doesn't do anything at all. If you're wearing a completely loose kevlar suit with no rigid plates in it, the bullet will actually fully penetrate you, but be held back by the fabric, resulting in a bullet wound, expect that the bullet is pulled back out of the wound by the fabric. As it turns out, before everyone figured this out, there were many instances of surgeons working on bullet wound patients freaking out because they couldn't find the bullet in the wound. The bruising and broken bones you speak of happens with rigid, plated armor. If you get shot in the middle of the chest while wearing a kevlar non-rigid suit, you're going to die all the same : \

Thing is, this is still fabric. Even if the bullet doesn't penetrate, it still transfers its kinetic energy to the fabric, which transmits it to the wearer. Because it's a thin fabric (think suit thin), it doesn't seem like it could disperse the force. So, at best, you end up with a wicked bruise, broken ribs underneath, squished organs.

That... is a ridiculously stupid argument >.> You do realize that unless it's a fairly high class organization, almost no criminal/gang can just import this shit themselves, right? Ignoring the high costs of the suit itself, there's still the fact that smuggling things across borders is expensive , especially when it's into a country surrounded by water. The people doing so know that it's fairly high risk and will pretty much always try and bleed every cent they can from those doing the importing. Think you can just sneak it into an ordinary shipment? Well, guess again. If you get caught with that shit in your legal items, you're going to be fucked. And nobody at all is going to take that risk for you unless they're getting paid a nice chunk of change. Countries like Australia are even harder because when you have a fairly nice life, you aren't as willing to take risks on ruining that for anything under a great price. It's a lot of hassle and a lot of work to get shit like that into a country that closes their regular means of transport. It's certainly doable, true, but it's enough to keep it away from a fair portion of criminals. And even for the ones who do manage to get that stuff in, they're going to be spending much more than they would otherwise.

Military body armor is also stupidly heavy and sends a good chunk of veterans home with life long debilitating back problems. It also is less than ideal in terms of heat casualties especially fighting in the desert. With ~1% of soldiers/marines experiencing combat, and many less taking hits, we're basically trading a few major injuries for lots of lesser ones.

There was a bestof a few weeks back where someone went in depth into how this was not necessarily a good move, the failure to take them down was more about poor shooting and tactics but because they wouldn't admit to that, blaming the ammo was better PR. Then there was loads of info about the standard round actually being superior but gun manufacturers didn't object because reworking the guns and selling Super Turbo turned to 11 ammo was a nice cash cow.

I can completely believe this. I have a 10mm handgun (I collect and use them regularly - it's a hobby) and frankly, it's my least favorite to shoot. The kick is fucking ridiculous . The barrel ride because of this constantly and consistently takes you off target, so you have to reacquire the sight picture before you can shoot again.

Ehhh. I've worked for a company selling body armor before, and know enough about the actual products and players in the industry to be highly suspicious of this supposed suit. Lots of small time companies tend to pop up out of nowhere and offer some new wonder-armor solution for ridiculously low prices or weight, and yet none of them ever pass NIJ standards testing. There has been a company with similar formal wear built over fairly standard IIA vests that's been around for a few years, and I've seen their products at SHOT, but never heard any independent reviews of whether they worked as advertised. "Carbon nanotubes" sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me. Amendment II is the only company I know of advertising the use of "Carbon Nanotube Technology" in their armor, but yet they haven't produced any NIJ certifications for their vests (other than a single legacy model). Building ballistic protection into an inner layer behind the normal suit would be quite easy. Or just go buy a high-end level IIA vest, put an undershirt on over it, and then put on a normal suit. The catch is, either way you do it, you're adding bulk and weight to the clothing and it may or may not be noticeable to people nearby (if they're looking for it). What they almost certainly have not done is figure out a way to replace normal clothing fibers with mythical carbon nanotubes so that you can weave a normal-looking piece of fabric into a magic bulletproof deflector shield.

Yahoo gets hacked all the time. I'm surprised they even announce it honestly. I've had my long-abandoned yahoo mail account get hacked and spam people when i had a 23 character high-entropy password, and no password recovery enabled. Their security is a joke. Hell they can't even get spam filters right.

The problem with your argument is that the energy in wind at velocity V scales as V^(3). If you double the speed of the wind, energy goes up by a factor of 8. So if their example 2mph wind blows for 10 hours and then a 15 mph wind blows for 1 hour, there is 42 times more energy in the short burst of moderately fast wind than in the 10 solid hours of slow wind. There simply is very little energy in slow wind. If wind is too slow for a regular turbine, then there isn't much energy to be extracted. If this system confers an advantage over the 75% Betz efficiency of a regular turbine, it means you have wasted your money by putting a turbine in a place where the wind is ridiculously slow and where there is little power to be made.

When you get an IPv6 address, you can get two things -- a "non-temporary address" (ia-na), which is the public IP address of your router or device, and a "prefix delegation" (ia-pd), which is the subnet your router is given to assign to your network, and thus your router is responsible for routing (the "delegation" part). The "/64" subnet notation tells you how many bits are used for the prefix, and by subtracting that from 128 (because IPv6 addresses are 128-bit numbers) you get the number of bits that can be used to assign addresses on your network (this is identical to IPv4 subnet shorthand like /8 or /24, where an IPv4 subnet like 192.168.0.0/16 means you have 16 bits you can use for addresses, like 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1, and so on). Anyway, a /64 block of addresses is the smallest block usable in many IPv6 applications. If you go smaller than that (some super stingy ISPs have tried to go as small as /96), a lot of stuff will break. Given that the smallest subnet you should use is /64, if you wanted multiple subnets for whatever reason (logical or physical network separation) you need something bigger than a /64 to work with. Comcast, by default, will give /64 subnets for prefix delegation unless your router tells them that it can support more. If it can, then Comcast will give up to a /60 (allows for 16 /64 subnets, because the 4 bits = 16 values). I think I've figured out how to get that /60 on my linux box ( prefix ::/60 infinity; ), I just need to have the free time to sit down and play with it and make sure I get everything else (radvd, dhcpd6, bind, etc) set up right with the new block(s).

No. TV usually implies that your receiver is directed to [these frequencies]( and associated encodings. On the other hand, most cheap devices (accessible in poor regions) are equipped with just Wi-Fi chips, and can't receive and decode TV signals without very heavy modifications. This company's idea is to transmit content through Wi-Fi as broadcast. I'm not sure how this is technically possible without interfering with the already overcrowded Wi-Fi channels, but I'm sure that's something the governments will solve before permitting this company to use satellite transmitters.

I work as a server at Chilis with these tablets on the tables and it does really help us out. It makes our jobs easier yes but would you rather have a tablet to let you see the desserts, alcoholic drinks, and appetizers or would you rather have a server that has to rush to answer everyone of your questions about every drink and appetizer that we have. Therefor neglecting other tables. Sometimes we need help catching up and getting back on track.

This isn't just about improving hardware. The Cisco ASR9k is a fairly new routing platform. I work for a company that has a lot of routers that take and share full routes. Last August, the full routing table hit 492k routes. The ASR9k platform is fairly robust. But there was a problem that Cisco didn't tell us. The Trident linecards could only handle 512k routes. But that wasn't true either. Even with v4 & v6 routes we hadn't crossed the 512k route total. However, our route tables began to churn. More or less cycling routes out of the RIB as they were deemed old or stale (although that was an arbitrary number - any route could be flushed) Now according to our guys at Cisco this was non service affecting. It was just cycling routes and added a bit to CPU utilization. It wasn't OMFG high CPU, but the boxes did run a bit hotter. However the churning routes caused a problem. If we had a BGP peer in our route table that ended up getting cycled out, it caused the BGP peer to flap. NSA my ass. Cisco gave us a bandaid. We added a config change that more or less stole from the layer 2 memory to add to the layer 3 memory pool. More memory, more routes. However, when you made this config change, you had to reload the entire linecard or entire router - I don't remember for sure. Either way, most of our boxes were populated with 50%+ Trident linecards. So, I ended up working a 36+ hour day, missed seeing a festival with several of my favorite bands with back stage passes. All because one of our biggest vendors didn't share that one little detail. If we'd been warned a month in advance, even a week ahead of time - we could have updated our routers with this one single line of config and we wouldn't have had an outage. Now - if a company is using a router like the GSR 12k that went end of support five years ago and that box shits the bed, well - someone should have noticed 4 years ago that memory and CPU were at their breaking point. If a company is using hardware like the ASR9k, it should be safe to assume the 512k limit wouldn't be an issue. And before anyone jumps on the Juniper bandwagon, I've worked in network ops for the better part of 15 years. While Cisco gear does die, it is generally due to one of two things. One, the hardware is old and when the box reloads the magic black smoke is gone and can never return. Or it is a box with one of the bad DIMM modules, and all you have to do is swap out the memory stick, and the router is happy with life again. With Juniper, I swear to god those things are built out of recycled beer cans at best. I have never seen a hardware platform on the higher end with such an amazing hardware failure rate. Edit:

What you're touching on is part of the problem but not in the way you intend. Things change, technology changes, markets change. The key is finding that balance between what the product costs, what profit you want to make, and what the consumer is willing to pay. What can affect that balance is the options available to the consumer. If the consumer has no option, you can charge more, but being able to charge more depends on you maintaining that monopoly or that control, because if you're charging more than a product/service is worth, or more than consumers are willing to pay, then as soon as a better option comes along they'll bolt from you. Because aside from now having a better option, they also resent you for exploiting them. Your example of cars doesn't really fit, because any physical product just cannot be viewed in the same context. It doesn't mean it's "ok" to steal a movie, it just means that it's not black and white and the contexts are entirely different. But to keep with a car comparison for sake of discussion, look at the Japanese and American auto industries. These industries took very different approaches. American companies would develop the car, then determine a price point based on the costs and how much profit they wanted to make. Japanese companies did the opposite, they picked a price point first and then designed the car with that price in mind. This resulted in Japanese companies making quality, efficient vehicles at better prices, and also took consumer needs practically. When the gas crisis hit, you had decades of lumbering, impractical, often grandiose obnoxious American cars up against small, efficient, quality Japanese cars. The American hubris was their own worst enemy, and it took them decades to catch up. You didn't start seeing quality US economy cars until the 2000s. American companies also had a lot invested in union costs, and American unions had a fundamentally different approach than their Japanese counterparts. From one source: > "What was happening here, was that rather than focusing on wages and benefits, as American unions do, this union was focusing on keeping the economy strong in order to protect the job security of union members. “The Japanese union believed it had a responsibility to help increase Mazda’s productivity, and improve its competitiveness.” “Under this philosophy, the union and management were not adversaries, as they were in America, but partners, each working to create a successful company.” The difference was that all Japanese autoworker unions are company unions; thus, their fortunes are linked absolutely to those of the automaker. > I remember reading at one point in the 90s, that Chevrolet/GM actually lost money on your average Cavalier sold because the unions ran rampant and so much money went into union costs, such as health and pensions, etc. (That's objective, not anti union.)

Hypothetically, let's make piracy legal. Everybody downloads music for free. The entertainment industry, who traditionally make money from sales, lose that money. The question is then, how do you make money from people who you are giving away free stuff to? Add value somewhere else, and monetize somewhere else. Spotify understands this concept, adding value by sheer convenience and monetizing by subscription/advertisement. I bet your next question is, "how do you suppose we do that, internet-savvy person?" If people knew an ideal answer to that question, that idea alone is worth a lot of money to you. Models like Spotify and Netflix aren't as broken as you imply, and they are in fact doing very very well. You appear to be stuck in the traditional (but logical) concept that "the entertainment industry loses out because of piracy". But, that's the old entertainment industry. You better move to a freemium model quick, and the premium better well be worth it.

Sounds like a very low number to me. You could attach a dollar value to it any way you like, but that wouldn't make any sense in figuring out how much money the original owners of the content are "losing" to the torrents. It's an interesting thought, but I don't see how it makes any difference. As it could be argued that without torrents, nowhere near as many people would get interested in any particular media (because of payment and regional restrictions etc), which would significantly lessen any of that medias marketability.

If you look at keyholes, you'll see manufacturers put in different horizontal intrusions. So even locks for identical purposes will always have different keyways. Then there's the variation by purpose: some locking-requirements need stronger keys, so they'll end up with a thicker (or taller) key. Finally, the precision making the wafers or pins inside the lock will determine how many variations there can possibly be. Precision costs money: a million thingies at 1/1000th of an inch precision will be a lot cheaper than a million at 1/10000th of an inch. Greater precision means more possible steps or different sizes, means more possibilities in keys. There are all kinds of constraints on this, I'm grotesquely oversimplifying. For example, it may be necessary that your key, in order to slide in, must always have the deepest "valleys" near the tip. It'so also possible that you can't have combinations of the shallowest and deepest valleys next to each other. Finally, the production line may need a simplification: on Thursdays, we use up all the combinations of a certain type because the supply truck arrives on Friday. Because of these constraints, it's not impossible to find another car that will at least unlock with your key. Post-90's, many manufacturers have put electronic chips in the keys, so the mechanical and electrical combination is what makes your car unique. This isn't done on your front door (yet) because there's no power source to run the electronics yet. (There are plenty of DIY electronic door locks, they're just not as common as electronic ignition locks in cars.)

PhD student in Medical Physics here. This level of detail isn't anything new. MRI has the potential for sub-millimeter resolution given the right conditions, and has for 10+ years. The problem is scan + computation time. More detail = longer time with the patient on the scanner. Clinical imaging really breaks down to a numbers game. If you give me 2 hours with the patient on the bed (sedated to reduce motion artifacts) I could give you some of the most gorgeous images you've ever seen. The problem is that MRIs are expensive . They're expensive to purchase and expensive to operate. In order to pay for their MRI, your hospital needs to get as many patients scanned on that machine as possible. So doctors (and MRI techs especially) are under a lot of pressure to settle for the minimum image quality necessary to diagnose a patient while minimizing errors (false pos/neg) in order to minimize patient time on the scanner. The case is much the same for CT, with the added wrinkle that CT involves ionizing radiation. This means that longer scan times (in order to get higher quality images) pose not only a cost issue, but can potential be hazardous to the short and long term health of the patient. There's a lot of really cool stuff you can do to reduce exposure during imaging and there's a lot of people working on ways to improve image through computational methods while reduce radiation exposure at the same time.

I love MRI (hence the reddit name), but I respectfully disagree with your second paragraph. I personally work with MRI, CT, ultrasound, and radiography. I also have a peripheral interaction with PET and other nuclear medicine scans. There are many reasons beyond cost, time, and availability for which I recommend other imaging modalities. Just a small fraction of examples: claustrophobic patients, trauma patients, patients in with unavoidable movement (tremors, writhing in pain, etc.), lung diseases, coronary calcium scoring, bone tumor characterization (multimodality), patients with metal near the area of interest (poor images), foreign object scanning and removal..... I have never had a patient have a safety problem because of dental fillings. They may make the images around the mouth poor, but no harm to the patient. Electronic devices like pacemakers can be a problem with MRI. Also some ferromagnetic objects can be dangerous such as iron shavings in the eye, or some aneurysm clips. Ferromagnetic implants are not the only or even the most important safety concern. The most deadly factor in MRI is the projectile effect. If someone inadvertently brings something ferromagnetic into range of the scanner's magnetic field, it can become a missile. This is an unfortunate cause of deaths from MRI. MRI contrast media can rarely cause series allergies, even death. MRI contrast media can also cause nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with advanced renal disease. MRI can cause patient burns (rare).

I've been using my kindle for a while, and although I don't use the keyboard much, it doesn't really get in the way. Plus the ability to end an argument by loading up wikipedia on it is pretty handy. I haven't used the Nook much, so I can't fairly judge, but the one thing that I did notice while trying out a display one is that page turning is much slower on the Nook, whether or not that bothers you will depend on how fast you read. However the Nook is far more hackable, so it's a personal preference. Whether getting either one is worth it? It's worth it if you read a lot, and can't conveniently carry a bookshelf with you. I doesn't replace dead tree format for me, but it is extremely handy that I can carry around a hundred books with me between home a college. And the biggest benefit to both is that if you ever get a random urge to read a book, you can get it nearly instantly. That's probably the coolest thing about it. Or if I finish a book, and want to read the sequel, I can be in literally less than a minute. Also, it's really handy to have to eat and read at the same time, because it lies flat.

Except that WebOS allows for multiple distribution channels, has a huge homebrew community, and let's you do whatever the fuck you want with your device, including overclocking, re-skinning, etc. Only apps in the "app catalog" need to be approved by Palm, whom have been worlds more lenient than Apple in that regard. And if you want to distribute an app that won't be accepted into the catalog (undocumented API's, etc) you can legally do so through the Web Distribution channel.

If you're anything like me, odds are you developed slightly bad posture from being hunched in front of a computer all day. I used to get terrible migraines to the point of going blind and vomiting. I actually narrowed down the cause to my shoulders/upper back years before, but only went to a physiotherapist every 6 months or so, which sorted things out temporarily. Then, after a car accident that required rehab for my shoulder, I went to a biokineticist, who diagnosed the posture issue, which caused some stabilization muscles in my back to weaken to the point of uselessness. We trained those during the course of a month or so and 5 years later, I'm yet to have another migraine.

That's the thing in these situations. YOU, and others, don't believe we need to spend the money on these things. There are lots of other people who believe we should. Everybody is an expert when they think someone else is doing something the wrong way and that they could do it better. I'm not trying to insult you personally, I just think that most people look at things from only a few viewpoints and ignore other just as valid viewpoints because they don't fit the model they think the world should fall into. It would be great if we could reallocate all of the defense budget to education or social programs or infrastructure, etc. The reality is that the world is filled with other countries that are looking out for their own interests and if they believed they could achieve their interests better by stepping all over us and getting away with it, they totally would. Because we are strong, they have to respect our interests as well. That's not to say we couldn't do things differently or better. But changes in policy require changes in the environment as well, and the world isn't going to change overnight.

First, these aren't new F-15's that they are producing. These planes already exist and are being flown today. They are only replacing the radar and related electronics. Significantly cheaper than a whole new jet and more bang for your buck. Second, the logic behind developing and constructing newer and newer military equipment is that you want to be prepared for the war of tomorrow, not the war we're currently fighting or the one we fought yesterday. While I agree with some of the other posters in the thread that it is extremely unlikely that the U.S. and China will be engaged in a shooting war in the foreseeable future, it's not impossible. And they are by far not the only threatening country in the world. Russia is enjoying a military resurgence and there are lots of other countries that buy Russian and Chinese weapons that don't like us either. Yes, education is underfunded and healthcare is poorly managed. Throwing more money at them isn't the best answer. The reason that so many things in our country are fucked up is because our legal system is fucked up. It's so easy to sue for outrageous sums of money for trivial and frivolous matters. Therefore the doctors and hospitals have to charge a lot of money to cover their insurance costs to protect themselves from those lawsuits. And to cover the losses when they have to treat people that can't afford to pay for health insurance and then can't afford to pay their bills. Those same bills that they can't afford to pay because the doctors and hospitals have to charge to much to cover their own insurance costs. All because if something goes wrong on the table, the doctor or hospital gets sued for crazy sums of money. Then they have to claim their insurance which has to pay out those crazy sums and in order for them to make profits they have to charge outrageous premiums. It's a vicious cycle. If you offload all health costs to the government, people will still sue the doctors and hospitals for frivolous malpractice suits. But now it's tax payer money paying those court fees and penalties instead of insurance companies. It'll cost us even more. Same for education. Teachers cannot teach because they are afraid of getting sued. The biggest problem in schools today is a lack of discipline. But those teachers can't discipline their students because the parents know that in our fucked up legal system they can sue the school for the slightest thing done to their kids. The same kids that they don't want to take responsibility for raising so they just dump them on the school system. So they money that is spent on the school system isn't used to maximum effectiveness to begin with and any more money poured in will be wasted because the teachers have run up against a wall of not being able to effectively teach due to legal restrictions, not monetary. And while I'm sure that more money can make some difference in those situations, it's a case of diminishing returns unless you fix the root problem that causes the issues in the first place. The legal system of the US.

OK, you seem to be talking about a few different things here. IP is handled for each packet at the network layer, while MAC is handled for each frame at the data link layer of the network. In order to keep routing sane, different regions, organizations, etc are given a unique subnet. Large scale routing would be impossible if you had to use ARP on a global scale. This would be worse once you count in UDP and other datagram protocols. If everyone had a unique IP that was theirs and theirs alone, then you wouldn't be able to say that \8 subnet like 18 is at MIT, or 205 is in North America. You would need to rely on sending ARP requests to the entire world, which is a bad idea (and not possible, since ARP stays within the same subnet).

Look man at the end of the day what do you really believe? it's honestly not a complicated thing, Google's always been about cataloging the world's information, and Facebook has been about people. any cellphone you have can track you, even your dumbestphone. the NSA can read any email you send, any website can deduce your location to within the block just from your ip. people seem to worry about their privacy, but are quick to throw it away for a few services you have to look at it from a different view in. how long have you been hearing about the singularity? we're living in a world where the foundations of such an event are being laid down. so while Big Brother stomping on a face for the rest of time is a thing to worry about, know that these things that are happening, are for the advancement of technology, its just that as technology improves and the cost of entry lowers, more people with new ideas come in and can use said technologies for their own intent.

On the one hand I see why Comcast is trying to cap bandwidth. On the other hand, they have no right to turn off service. I know that ATT will charge you an extra $10 for 50 GB or something like that. My parents have comcast and I really like their internet. My parents pay like $100 for insanely fast internet (25+ Mbit) TV, and phone. It's like being in heaven whenever I go to visit and downloads are just zipping by. The fact that the person in this blog was uploading massive amounts of data and didn't check to see if this was counting as data usage seems like a huge oversight to me. The upload speed on most internet service is kept low to discourage people from using their computers like a server. While he did have all of his music backed up, he was certainly not in the wrong to try to upload all of it to a cloud service. With netflix and hulu and all of these other online streaming services becoming more and more popular, of course bandwidth usage will skyrocket. The ISPs would have to be crazy not to try to charge for this increase in bandwidth usage. I mean, we pay for electricity by the kWh, we pay for gas by the gallon, why not pay for internet by the GB? Of course I don't agree with it since I've always been used to an unlimited bandwidth cap. People don't get their electricity turned off if they're using it in excess, so why the hell would someone's internet get turned off because they're using a legitimate service?

Our telecom services and cable providers paid for the cables themselves. Why should other companies just be allowed to use their cables? America is much much much larger then the UK. I am trying to find a good source but the UK has [been compared to the size of Oregon]( although I think that might be wrong, the idea is the same Also as a network engineer I would like to make some comments: saying anyone with a phone line just sounds kind of wrong. Phone lines are usually RJ-11 or pots lines. This usually indicates that they have a restricted speed and can't do true ethernet. The wikpedia article on RJ45 (the standard is [ok]( In my short career I have only played with POTS lines a few times as it is mostly phased out. You CAN use phone lines for internet connectivity but you will notice that it can be quite restricted, and just because you have a POTS line (RJ11) does not mean it can become internet. A lot of times companies use RJ11 just b/c its already run in your house so they don't have to run new wires. What will most likely happen in the US is wireless will become very competitive. In most cities you are seeing fiber starting to be offered and the competition is wi-max and 4G which is quickly evolving to keep pace with wired internet. I am actually considering taking a Verizon tablet home with me in a few months when 4G comes to my area to test it as my home internet connection. The speed of 3G is already getting good enough a lot of times I am to lazy to connect to wi-fi and will continue reading whatever I am doing online (on my phone) on the wireless...

you can build it. You just can't buy it. It will redirect you to a local dealer. Read:

1 The idea that Internet access is now equivalent to an essential utility is the right one, I think. The argument gets messy in those areas of the world where Net access is not yet ubiquitous, but then water, gas and electricity are not yet ubiquitous either. (Yes, I know water was only very, very recently Back to the point, though, Internet access is pretty much essential in most developed nations and should, IMHO, be considered a utility in every sense. If that means it's metered, sure - as long as the cost is reasonable and discounting is tied to volume usage (instead of, as is often the case, the high volume users paying more). Not to go all tangential on y'all, but one of the big issues in all this is telcos and cablecos who insist on trying to "add value" to the provision of basic Net service, to extract more revenue and justify their praetorian practices. The idea of adding value to the Net connection makes about as much sense as offering electricity in chocolate, raspberry and mango tango flavours. Value grows at the edges, not in the wire. The telcos/cablecos still don't want to understand the [core concept of the Stupid Network]( Someone should carpet bomb the offices of Comcast with copies of the [World of Ends essay]( And to get back to the original point again, Finland - fine country that is - have indeed ruled that [broadband Internet access is a legal right](

How are you measuring that .2? I feel like for FDM machines resolution is pretty difficult to discuss. The filament my Mendel puts out is about 1.1mm thick, so in a layer it can only print 1.1 mm details, but it can place that 1.1 mm thick filament with an accuracy of about .05mm, (mine is slightly more geared down than normal in X and Y IIRC) so i can print itty bitty steps ~.35 mm thick (my layer height) by .05 mm wide. Does this make my resolution .35, .05, or 1.1? Also, a good knowledge of your printer is, at least at this stage, a necessity. My printed gears are drastically stronger than most because i use skeinforge to generate circular infill patterns for any part that will have more twisting load than crushing or pulling load. When i printed parts for my RC car, i made the frame with a .85 density, that means it weighed almost a pound, and it was just ABS. Then other parts of the car with less load (tail, bumpers, battery casings) got a density around .3, because why waste the extra weight? I haven't looked at the Up! software myself, but i doubt it gets near skeinforge's level of control. Oh and just for those that keep saying skeinforge is reprap, it's Bits & Bytes actually, but RepRap has sort of adopted it. Lastly, where do you think Up! came from? They took a Mendel, cross bred it with the Darwin and gave it a nice sleek industrial design, then put more precise steppers in it, invented a (pretty impressive) support material for it, and started selling them as proprietary devices.

Upvoted for

Is Sony in the right to ask these people to waive the rights on behalf of the card holders? Should it not be the personal responsibility of the credit card holders to monitor their users? >If agreement changes thereafter, I wouldn't be notified of it unless I also use PSN, or my kid told me about it. Do they not have parental controls preventing this? Shouldn't parents be responsible enough to tell their kids not to agree to new terms? Should parent's be giving credit cards to kids that are naive?

How can someone be legally bound to a contract that they cannot be proven to have signed or even read? Lawyer here. Actually "reading" isn't necessary, because you click on a response in any EULA certifying that you read it before entering the agreement. People used to try to argue that there was no meeting of the minds because the user / purchaser did not read the agreement they were entering. That argument consistently failed. It's a dead horse at this point. As to the signing part, the "clicking" on the agreement is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, the person who signed the agreement. That's enough for the person seeking to enforce the agreement to establish that it was likely you that entered it. Anyone else who signed the agreement for you (in writing or by clicking) did so fraudulently. It's your burden to prove that you were not actually the person who entered the agreement. That's not an easy road to hoe. Even then, most U.S. jurisdictions recognize estoppel, waiver, or other equitable theories that allow the seller (Sony) to enforce the agreement against you because: (a) Sony relied upon the representation that you entered the agreement in providing you services from that point forward; and (b) you accepted and benefited from those services with knowledge that somebody was delivering something for you. Look up "promissory estoppel" for one example of this type of equitable theory.

I'm by no means a gabe fanboy, but holy crap! It's incredibly refreshing to know that SOMEONE in the game industry understands the underlying reasons people pirate games. I wish the other companies would take note. The same concepts truly do apply to movies and TV shows as well.

This is the key. Focus on making your paying customers happy, giving them what they want, and their numbers will increase. If people on Youtube aren't posting your complete shows, but are making more than fair use of your content, ask Google to pay you your fair share of the advertising revenue. If they are posting your shows, negotiate a content distribution agreement with Google so that YOU can post your shows and get the advertising revenue from there. Don't DMCA, sue, or try to outlaw Youtube. Turn it into a profit center. A few folks will continue to pirate. If possible try to reach out, meet their needs, and make them paying customers. If you aren't successful, ignore them, you aren't selling physical goods, they don't cost you money like thieves do to a physical merchant. You have better things to do with your time.

Every single time I try to explain the Bob Parsons/elephant story to someone, they side with the elephant. Doesn't matter how I frame it, what type of person I'm talking to (male/female, liberal/conservative...), they always side with the elephant. Forget the fact that multiple people were having their food supply threatened, this guy paid to kill an animal so he's a bad person.

The issue is, how does Apple protect their IP? It's clear that Android, et al ripped off their idea and it's clear Android wasn't going this way until Apple did. It's also clear that if you're giving away the OS for free, you can beat Apple on cost. How should Apple defend themselves from companies that will just sit back, watch what they do and then steal it? You know, coming up with this stuff isn't for free, they have to invest money in it. If other companies are allowed to just rip them off, no one is going to spend money on research anymore.

Thank you for making this post. I made a student documentary of the homeless in Boston (there are 6000-8000 at any given time, several hundred of which are children), and I can tell you, all they want is a safe place to sleep (whenever they go to homeless shelters they'll have the shoes stolen off their feet, much less any other precious belongings) and a little respect. These people made mistakes -- with drugs, alcohol, or just pissing off their parents and getting kicked out. The difference between their drug addiction and everyone else's is that other people can afford to go to rehab, can afford to see a therapist for abusive parents, can afford a plane ticket to live with their relatives instead of their molesting father. But these people couldn't. So they're homeless. What most people don't get is that most homeless people CAN'T do drugs anymore -- unless they're one of the very small percentage who will buy drugs over food, and who die within a few months -- they have to eat. They don't care what it is they eat, how much they eat -- they just need some food. But more than that, they're brutalized everyday by ignorant people like, sadly, a lot of people posting on this thread. People would walk right into my interview of them, camera rolling, to insult them -- who wants to be on camera insulting a stranger? The hatred and disrespect of these people is preposterous. So you had enough money to escape your abusive parents and your heroine addiction, and you saw a homeless guy buy beer once, so now you have an opinion and you think you have every right to stereotype them. Stereotyping black people, women, asians, etc. is wrong, but for some reason with homeless people it's okay. I could tell you guys tons of stories about how these people ended up here -- immigrants who earned a masters in computer science, were laid off, then kicked out by their abusive boyfriend, unable to afford a ticket home, who started living in a field, not understanding how everything could go so wrong. I can tell you, the people I talked to would LOVE the opportunity to be a wi-fi hotspot -- they'd feel useful, people would have to talk to them without being rude, and they'd even be given a way to help people who needed something (wifi). They'd feel AMAZING. And with the homeless, a lot of the problem with getting back to work is (besides nowhere to start from) confidence and research -- even when there are homeless programs, who goes out into the fields and dives into dumpsters at 4am to find these guys to tell them? I had to do that to film 'em, and believe me, at least in Boston, no one else was doing this. So being in an environment with people on the internet, people who might tell them about programs or let them have a minute on their computer to research them -- it would be what these guys need most (besides a safe place to sleep).

Yeah, pretty much. I had Sprint since about a month before the EVO 4G launched. Last year, 3G just became... Laughable. I live across the street from a cell tower. When I first got my EVO, I could get 3mbps from it. Last month, I was lucky to get 200kbps. WiMAX coverage in Sacramento is awful unless you're in just the right spots, typically within 100 feet of a highway. Even then, good luck getting data through. I was lucky to get 1mbps from WiMAX when they installed a new tower here in town. Of course, every device I tried showed that the signal dropped off completely 200 feet from my house, on the closest side of a large residential area. It just got sad dealing with Sprint. I had to put a Verizon PRL on my phone just to get service at work, which (surprise!) was also right across the street (and a few parking lots) from a 3G tower... And less than a mile from both a Sprint call center (which had another tower on top of it) and a Sprint store (with a WiMAX tower across the street from it!). Then they sent me a letter saying that since I had used 300 minutes "roaming" on Verizon, and 0 on Sprint (I make calls when I'm at work. I rarely make/receive calls at home except when my father calls me while he's in the car) they were going to drop me, make me pay for the rest of the month, and the next month, but not 15 days of the month after that, and not pay the ETF. Anyways, on Verizon now. LTE's speedy, it's everywhere in Sacramento, and I haven't had any network-based issues.

I used to work for sprint and when this first came out we were required to let people know about this charge (back when it applied to 4g only) i stopped working there after it had gone to all smart phones, but last i knew it was still required. I quit not because i disliked sprint, but because it was a second job and no longer needed. what it sounds like to me is that you were dealing with a shady store. we have one here in Murray (corporate none the less) that pulls shit like this all the time. i worked for a 3d party store and we always showed the customer the break down of the bill. we couldn't give them exacts since we weren't sure about tax, but we explained everything else. i would look at reviews of the store you choose to work with. i currently work with the spring in sugar house (corporate as well) so far have been extremely helpful and kind.

I hold skepticism in the highest regard, and from this I can rarely ever give a straight answer of what I fully believe. I have trouble claiming that I'm identical to myself as I was yesterday, that I'm the same being, so it can be hard for me to claim anything. The most I can give are thoughts, and a general claim that may not be fully justified, but is better than a dartboard decision. It would depend on the 200 amendments that have been added. If they were purely additions, then I feel slightly comfortable claiming that it is the same, or as same as it could possibly be for identity that relies on a constitution. Using a human body analogy, most would agree that even if I grew an extra arm or two, then I'm still me. If I grew a couple dozen legs, another dozen arms, few extra sets of eyes, an extra mouth, etc, then those are just additions. If the amendments added are just things that tack on additional administration groups, then the core still remains. If the amendments however significantly changed or removed the original core of the constitution however, then it would not be identical. The original core I think would be the three branches, their responsibilities, and available powers/limitations. There is probably more to be said if I were to go into detail, but I won't for now. There is something to be said about what constitutes the being of a nation-state, that determines the identity of it, whether it is purely the government system that is in place, those running it, or the original intentions that set the nation state into being. For example, consider if we were to completely dispose of the democratic system of the US, and implement a technocracy or communist society (Communist in the original marxist sense of a near anarchy like state, not the totalitarian bullshit of russia/china.) If the original intentions of the enlightenment age and beliefs, valuing personal rights and freedoms are still maintained, then it could be said to be the same entity, just under a different system of management.

Of course, if you take into account the changes of government that took place after the Civil War (Union and Confederacy resolved into THE United States, not "these"), that buys us more time. Plus if you count the complete change in the role of government with the New Deal, that's a little more. Regardless, today's US federal government is nothing like the originally envisioned body meant to create laws, declare war, and tax (yeah, I know, leaving some stuff out).

This is like saying "Oh, also we know there's no way the bible is true because Jesus couldn't have been born in December." A little late to the party, we already knew Yahoo sucked, one more tiny piece of tangential evidence isn't going to change anything. Conversely, if we found out the same thing about Google's former CEOs they'd probably deserve a bonus for being even more bad ass.

My friend and I had long discussions about this issue (btw this is from May of last year). My point is, apart from news articles, I couldn't find other cases where the filter bubble is bad. For example, location aware event timings (if I search for "cinema", I want an implicit filter on my location, rather than every cinema in the world, or the one with the higher pagerank), disambiguated search related to my current interest (if I search for "python" or "eclipse", a good search engine has to understand that I'm a programmer and not studying zoology or interested in sparkling vampires). A similar bubble happens when you subscribe to subreddits, you are filtering the noise, but also excluding different and maybe interesting posts and point of views. Incognito mode is not (only) porn mode, but a way to get a view outside of the influence of the bubble, and should be used when searching for impartial opinions, but it is not what you usually want. Almost always what I want is the filter. It may be a controversial opinion, but what if the filter bubble is itself a meme in the hive-mind?

My friend and I had long discussions about this issue (btw this is from May of last year). My point is, apart from news articles, I couldn't find other cases where the filter bubble is bad. For example, location aware event timings (if I search for "cinema", I want an implicit filter on my location, rather than every cinema in the world, or the one with the higher pagerank), disambiguated search related to my current interest (if I search for "python" or "eclipse", a good search engine has to understand that I'm a programmer and not studying zoology or interested in sparkling vampires). A similar bubble happens when you subscribe to subreddits, you are filtering the noise, but also excluding different and maybe interesting posts and point of views. Incognito mode is not (only) porn mode, but a way to get a view outside of the influence of the bubble, and should be used when searching for impartial opinions, but it is not what you usually want. Almost always what I want is the filter. It may be a controversial opinion, but what if the filter bubble is itself a meme in the hive-mind?

This is a downside of Google search filtering, but there's also an upside. Localized results, for example, are a very powerful tool that Google offers. Knowing that I'm a programmer, Google will bring me to the Java (programming language) page, before the Java (coffee) page. There's big time-saving benefits to making your search more effective. I think the bigger problem is there aren't enough non-biased news sources that actually want to debate right from wrong. And that's because people -like- (in general) biased news. It's dramatic. It's spoon-fed at a level everyone can understand. It's not messy. It creates a competitive us-vs-them atmosphere that people really buy into (it's why sports are so effective for example). So, really, the problem is that people don't WANT to be informed about both sides and make good decisions. For example, if I truly want a non-biased approach, then my Google filter will start to prioritize NPV articles over biased sources like HP or FOX. It's only if I want to be biased and I only visit pages that are biased extensively that Google recognizes that I don't want conservative-leaning pieces and starts to filter them out.

This is what happened with Diamond. I was at my peak and then...it just fell away not all at once but gradually. Maybe my DS hinge breaking didn't help things either(which pretty much ruled out the eventual HG/SS). Maybe it was the region? FR/LG was my first time playing Kanto and I still felt the nostalgia. I liked Sinnoh and loved Diamond, but in retrospect, Hoenn's awesomeness meh'ed Sinnoh for me.

I'm typing on my phone so I'll have to keep to the salient points. It's meant for it, basically. Being e-ink is a big deal for a start. Because the screen radiates no light, and has no flicker rate, there is far less eye strain. It may not seem like a big effect, but your eyes get really tired looking at screens, particularly in a low light situation like reading at night. In fact, I've read that staring at a light source can prevent your brain from shutting down at sleeping time. Also, the buttons are in a really good spot. There's a large > button on each side of the screen, (and a small <), so no matter which way you're lying in bed with the kindle on a pillow there'll be a button in easy reach, so you don't have to disturb the covers on a cold night to turn the page, or put down your scotch if you're still up. The screen is about the same size and shape as a novel - not too wide that your eye has to traverse too far to read a line, and not too tall that you have to arch your neck down to read the bottom of the page. The battery lasts for approx a month of constant use on one charge. So you're rarely stressing about it turning off, and you'll never once be in the position of reading in bed with the power on. It feels nice in your hand. It wants to be held, and you don't get a sore wrist at any point. The interface is totally based around reading and finding books. Your laptop/phone is a computer, with hundreds of distracting things going on. Amazon will replace yours if you break it. It's elegantly simple to acquire content. Sure, it's not brain surgery to get books on your phone, but not as effortless as on the kindle, and it's always a good really result. How'd I do?

I dont have a data plan... I can get about 12 to 13 hours of battery life. When I say 12 to 13 I really mean. Going to school at 7 in the morning. Doing all my classes till 6 then staying an extra 2 hours to finish a lab. Then get home which is another hour later, eat and forget to plug in my phone. Then go take a shower and watch some yogscast. Then head to bed which is now around 11 and remember to plug in my phone to charge so my alarm will go off in the morning. (oh yea while at school I usually have my wifi on)

Galaxy wasn't my first choice, I wanted the new Lumia because of the pretty colors and since before iPhone I had used Nokia phones for about 15 years or so. Also saying goodbye to iTunes is great. Didn't know how much I hated it until I could use my phone without it. Being able to use my phone with any computer (I even can transfer files onto my Amiga OS4 based computer, try that with an iPhone) I can upload videos and pictures to my parents and in-laws computers without having to load iTunes onto them, it's great. I also like the better app selection for networking. Being able to easily connect to windows and linux shares is easy on Android. Though I did have good VNC software on my iPhone for when I needed to read a website that used flash. You know I am glad Apple put me off since I recently bought an tablet that was not a iPad. Removable storage without a stupid dongle is wicked. Should be standard feature for all tablets IMHO.

Which is why I was so butt hurt about the switch. I have the following items: iPod/iPhone docking mixer for my PA system, iPod/iPhone boombox, iPod/iPhone docking alarm clock, iPod/iPhone docking stereo in all three of my cars, about 10 cables and a couple of clip on battery boost cases. I WAS FUCKING PISSED BEYOND BELIEF that all that shit was now incompatible, I will stick with the iPods that I still own but will not give them another dime since I feel PERSONALLY BETRAYED by making all my shit incompatible.

Have not bought any apps for android, everything I need has been available for free so far. I was also pleasantly surprised I can run UAE on Android for when I need to play Amiga games. Switching was the best thing ever. Not even joking about the apps. So many very useful apps available for free, it's pretty damn awesome and Wii controllers with the NES emulator is dope as hell.

I work on both, but iOS applications sell far, far better. The marketplace on Android is the wild west. Working with Android is actually far easier for the average developer, in my experience. In terms of development ease, I find Java to be a much easier language and you're not forced into the design patterns that Apple crams down your throat. Yeah, you end up with a nicer overall experience on Apple, but from an ease-of-development standpoint...Android all the way. Double edged sword though, which is why you end up with a bunch of shitty apps flooding the Android marketplace, but much less so on iOS. Objective-C has a steep learning curve for an entry level developer...mostly because you are forced to manage your own memory, which can be difficult to get used to. iOS 5 (I think?) released something called Automatic Reference Counting which made life a bit easier. Arguably the biggest pain on Android, in my experience, is the varying screen sizes. With iPhone, you know what you're going to get...and that makes things a lot easier in some ways.

Okay, I think I figured out the huge thing you missed when writing this: >Unrelated, but Google got hit by a HARD "single day" loss on October 18th due to a fuck up by an external company causing panic. They're down 0.97% since then. Google's quarterly earnings results were released [3 hours early (link)]( on accident. You're crediting that as the reason their stock has fallen over 10%. The rest of the world is crediting it to the 20% drop in net profits compared to the previous quarter that was contained in the those reports. They are still down over 10% since that day, 240 hours later.

Not for me. With my bad vision, I hate having to either hunch over the keyboard to see the screen when it's on a table or how the screen on ALL laptops doesn't go completely back so I can have it vertically so I can use it in my lap easily.

So here's an amusing story you might enjoy. I just got my gs3 not too long ago as well. My roommate is watching Netflix on the Xbox, and I've got headphones on listening to music on my phone and connected to the WiFi. There was an odd button at the top of the (stock)music app. Looked like a monitor with a number 1 on it. Curious George(Brandon) me presses it not knowing what to expect. I look up, the Xbox turned off Netflix, opened up the music player, and started to stream my music through the tv. I had full control. So now every so often when someone is watching a sitcom on the Xbox I stream a cat picture or something to the tv to mess with whomever is watching something boring. (We're good friends, I'm not just a random dick).

Okay, I think I figured out the huge thing you missed when writing this: >>Unrelated, but Google got hit by a HARD "single day" loss on October 18th due to a fuck up by an external company causing panic. They're down 0.97% since then. >Google's quarterly earnings results were released 3 hours early (link)[1] on accident. You're crediting that as the reason their stock has fallen over 10%. The spin that's put on a piece of information has a huge effect. I believe it was amazon recently that had significantly lower than expected earnings, but since they put the right spin on it their stock went up instead of down. The spin on this was "GOOGLE'S REVENUE PER AD WAS LOWER THAN LAST YEAR. EVERYONE SELL", instead of "Oh, the revenue per ad is lower than expected because a higher percentage of the ads were mobile than expected. It's just business as usual." >The rest of the world is crediting it to the 20% drop in net profits compared to the previous quarter that was contained in the those reports no matter what time of day they are released. Oh, previous QUARTER. That's quite different. I was responding to what you said about the previous year. If you take a look at the differences in their quarterly income statements, you'll notice that revenue actually increased (and Selling and Admin and Cost of Revenue increased alongside it, albeit the Cost of Revenue by a fairly large amount), and the 609 million USD decrease in Net Income is tied very closely with the 424 million USD increase in R&D. To be precise, R&D was at 2,009 million USD, compared to 1,585 million USD the previous quarter. >They are still down over 10% since that day. Yeah, because that's how the stock market works. People still remember that panic and are wary. >

Proof that lifting fixes everything. Because he didn't even lift, he was scrawny and knew he wouldnt last in prison, he'd be someones bitch the first week.. if he had lifted, he might've had the confidence and strength to last in prison and get out on parole early.

My beef with GDocs is the horrible contortions you need to go thru to copy and paste between documents. Had some CSV tabular data in a Document and wanted to paste it into cells in a Sheet. In MS Office, Excel will happily take that data from the clipboard and arrange each item into it's own cell and proper row. You can't quite do that with GDocs. I ended up having to paste into a plain text editor, and move across bit by bit. Also, you don't use the standard Windows clipboard to paste between GDocs, you have to use a special "Web Clipboard" that doesn't have shortcut keys.

I'm guessing he means "one click hoster" - which is stupid, because that's pretty much exactly what this article is saying is on its way out. Also, if the other side is a "plant" by the MPAA your IP is still logged regardless of encryption (Something has to establish the TCP handshake and session). Private trackers, a seed box, and sftp have been the way to go for quite a while now. I don't know anybody who's been busted downloading from a private tracker. Some ISPs have been packet inspecting and throttling torrent traffic as well - hence SFTP from the seedbox. If you SFTP from a seedbox and get a notice from your ISP, break out the lawyers because its illegal for them to bust your encryption. Beyond that, one click hosters are inherently shitty. It's a gamble what you get, but that's no different than pirate bay I guess... unless you read comments. If there are comments, usually a warning down there if the torrent is malicious. You get no such thing on OCH.

You could go one level lower, Joules is a measure of energy. The screen drains the battery at 2 joules per second (that is two Watts). If you left it on for 1 hour you would drain 7200 joules. It is more convenient to say 2 watt-h instead of 7200 joules. When you say 2 watts per hours you are saying. 2 joules per second per hour? Or some sort of energy acceleration. A battery has so much energy, in your example 50 Wh, which would be 180 kj. The screen uses 2 watts, or 2 joules per second. If you ran the screen constantly for 24 hours it would use 48 Wh of energy, or ~173kJ.

You had better not be using any type of motorized transportation. You had better be using shears to cut your lawn. I had better never see you on atvs or motorcycles. You had better not be using any type of infrastructure electricity. You can't even have a cooking fire if you expect an argument like that to fly. Smoking tobacco or not, you pollute the air all the same. Just being alive, you are contributing to global warming. I'm not hearing that bullcrap. You are perfect example of the problem with the laws and practices in this country. You care more about personal safety than the freedoms of everyone in general. Laws are not for safety. Laws are for freedom. I could not have even planned a better example than your reply. Just so you don't misconstrue the situation. Freedom doesn't mean you have to be around, or put up with the smokers. It just means you can't write legislation against them at a government level. You can't demonize them in law for their choices. They have right to their happiness as well. Even if it's a stupid choice in your mind. Freedom means you have the right to not put up with the smokers in your own domain if you so choose. I'd love to lock away all the people who bathe in perfume. That's not my place. They have their rights. I do the proper thing and just move away from them. I go stand up wind. In an enclosed space, I might ask them politely to leave. If they won't(or can't) leave then I'll just deal with it like a big boy. I'm no more important than they are. I suppose your next argument is to outlaw refrigerated air-conditioning because those uppity people are killing the ozone. I'd love to see your face when you realize that all the things in the world around you, yourself included, are just chemicals. Everything causes cancer. Everything in this world is trying to kill you. If you don't go out and expose yourself to these things, you will always be weak to them. Your body can handle it. It was designed to. Not only are you destroying freedom, but you are slowing evolution at the same time. The world is meant to be experienced; the good and the bad. You are supposed to put yourself in danger. Go out and really live for a change. Go out and get sick. Go out and be tolerant of others. All that will only make you stronger and a better person. Life is not meant to be spent inside all safe and happy. If that's the way you spend your days, you will have never truly lived, and you will have no true allies. There's some common sense for you.

On the surface this headline quote is a seemingly penetrating indictment upon how much good internet will do when there are people who on a daily basis can barely keep their health in check let alone utilize computers to expound on ideas and thoughts through the interwebs. However, in my opinion, this is a cheap shot to the incredibly valid efforts of Google. As admirable as Bill Gates has been through all his third world efforts, the more he talks about situations in the general area of sub-saharan Africa, the more he seems to portray third world African people as completely helpless unable to ever learn things and simple is a trough where you can always donate money. These issues seems to come down to the teach-a-man-to-fish parable. With this effort of trying to wire all of Africa (seemingly), Google seems to be trying to be the ones that are offering to teach-man-to-fish. It sucks people are dying of AIDS, disease, and malaria. And it is completely correct that providing the right medicines, food, clothing and other essential material goods will save lives immediately, but what happens if people are afforded an outlet to finally learn how to do things, providing a knowledge-base outlet, increasing communication capacity making it an everyday affordable resource like it is in the east and west instead of the incredibly luxurious technology afforded to the select few. Regarding this topic, always recall listening to an interview on NPR about how other wealthier nations can help Uganda and other subsaharan nations riddled in poverty. The guy was some university education south African native or some other and the only thing he kept contending was, to actually help these nations, stop providing charity. He argued about how it's developed a national dependence upon the good will of other nations instead of providing it for themselves. His point was pretty powerful and every time issues of how to habilitate an underdeveloped poverty riddled nation, always think about his point about what wealthier can actually do to help.

This follow-up sentence is, to me, reinforcing the original quote rather than this being a case of a sentence out of context. He argues that "we don't have time to dick around and deal with structural issues like infrastructure and access to information; we have to give them medicine when they are sick and food when they are hungry." Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that Gates is arguing for a stovepipe approach charity, but the fact that this rhetoric relies on us imagining the betterment of the poor by imagining a single instance of directly experienced reality proposes that what must be changed, in order to help the poor of the world, is tangible interventions rather than structural changes that aren't perceptible like increased access to education, laws against corporate raiding (like in [Africa]( etc. In the follow up to the quote above he laments Google for abandoning a broader goal of charitable work* with the same dismissive attitude 'that what is needed by the poor is direct intervention rather than business-related charity.' That is, it would be better if pharmaceutical companies not only discounted their drugs to the needy, but they should also open up food shelters and offer clean needle programs or establish community outreach centers, etc. The rich should be engaged in more direct and varied engagements with poverty. Now, this sounds all well and good. The rich should be doing more than just what is easy for them to do because it's likely that they will profit from this charitable work*. But, what Bill Gates implies is that real problems can be solved for the poor even if: the corruption in government doesn't change, people aren't given a free media, the available capital that the country produces is taken away to other continents, etc. So, I again think that the original quote is not taken out of context precisely insofar as it says exactly what Bill Gates means that children can't eat the WiFi signals. Now, then, what is lost in Bill Gate's approach to charity is the fact of just how unimaginably important societal structures are for our ways of life. The child, who looks up and sees a balloon can't imagine just how much change the balloon is making in his country. I'm not claiming the child is stupid or ignorant of technology (though certainly Google would better its impact if it helped provide the computers needed to use the free wifi). Rather, I'm saying that he can't imagine the amount of people getting medical information, constructing communities with strangers, getting blue prints for building like [William Kamkwamba]( etc. And, this movement of increased access of Internet on Google's part also helps to embiggen the idea of free access that has, most recently, led to the public-access of research done with NHAA grants--but it would be a take a book to discuss the pro's and cons of open-access journals of specialized knowledge. The increased access to a free press, to information about elected officials that otherwise might be censored, etc. All things that can't be eaten or cure malaria, but access to information is slowly becoming as big of a right as access to health-care should be. One can rightly criticize, as Bill Gates has done (I imagine), that structural issues regarding politics and culture is something that a charitable organization can't in good faith do. Not only is it far more complicated to change the culture of, say, sexual activity in a country that isn't as virtually connected as America is, but it is much more effective to simply give out condoms and trained demonstrations on how to effectively use a condom; or, where does a charitable organization intervene in politics without simply making decisions for the people rather than letting them decide their own path? But all of this doesn't mean there aren't ways of laying the necessary ground work for a self-guided nation to even exist.

Right, and having primary accounts of these situations and issues isn't going to be a step up from westernized media attention and the usual "white man's burden" theme Areyoufuckingkiddingme?? Maybe if we had more primary accounts, REAL issues would be reported and REAL solutions would go viral, instead of unchecked organizations with commercials that focus on insane amounts of pathos (I'm looking at you, Kony 2012) Maybe having sources like Wikipedia could parallel what Mr. Gates notes as "connecting up schools," or is Westernized, federal education the only valid source of education? Maybe, if the knowledge was available, we would have more people like William Kamkwamba, who came up with relevant solutions to the problems in his local community. But NOOO, the only valid charity work is that which Bill Gates is doing.

I'd bet good money that the Loon project isn't just a goodwill mission. One of the biggest problems that Google now faces in it's expansion of the mobile devices market (and others) is the control that the major network companies have over mobile internet. Both Google and the cell companies know that the business model for the phone network (calls and texts) is dying. There is nothing that the cellular network can do that 4G can't. Google have tried to get around this but their relationship with the network providers is getting increasingly sour. One of the biggest reasons why Google Wallet hasn't taken off as they'd hoped is because AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile have all banned it from their devices and they have set up a competitor, Isis, in an attempt to grab a piece of the (potential) mobile payments pie. So how does Google get around this? Create it's own service. It has done a very similar thing with Google Fiber. When that project was initially announced Google stressed that it didn't want to be an ISP, rather that it was simply a mission of community development. One that might just topple existing ISPs in a few years. However, Google can't encroach upon the 4G network quite so slyly. Doing so would immediately threaten the network companies who still have strong control of which and how many devices use their Android operating system and their apps. So in comes the Loon project, providing mobile internet on the cheap for developing countries. Such a novel and different technology would find difficulty in gaining confidence and federal support if it were immediately launched in developed countries, however this deployment allows Google to both test it operationally and prove it's merits. I'm sure they've considered it as a possible solution to their mobile internet problem. Of course if it doesn't solve it, they'll probably just use [this] (

If it were only that easy.... Alas, cartels like the RIAA have [sued several people who don't even have computers for file sharing.]( It's not about justice, it's about fear. They believe that, if they put out enough [over-the-top ridiculous lawsuits]( they will scare people into paying [massively exorbitant prices]( to continue to support their outdated business model.

Let me preface this by saying that I am someone who works in a cloud hosting business. I specialize in the networking security portions of the business as well. This article speaks very clearly to me. As someone who's livelihood depends on the success of cloud hosting on US Soil, I can tell you that I am very much inclined to develop, introduce and propagate (and even flaunt) these security features that the article's author was talking about. Would you like on-the-fly IPSec VPN site-to-site tunnels for your back-end cloud server traffic at the push of a button? Would you like automatically configure SFTP or FTPS for your network at the push of a button? Automatic setup and user-add wizard for a client to site VPN for your firewall-protected network? Don't understand what any of what I just said and want a simple (or thorough) explanation to help them understand? How about a full website complete with easy "how to" guides, led over the phone or in person, to help you make sure every bit of security is in place for your networks, websites, and apps? There's plenty tech companies can do to make the user-server experience more secure. "Tech companies" doesn't just mean "the companies that make your phone and your computer." It also comprises the companies that host the websites you go to, the games you play, the apps you use, everyone that makes the internet work and makes the way you get on the internet work. There is a very high incentive for the IT world to develop tools, services, standards, protocols, and best-practices that puts the much-desired (and arguably much-needed) privacy back to the common man. Everyone in the general public is getting eyes and ears into an inkling of what the IT Security world has been raging on for decades, and they're finally understanding how gravely it affects their everyday lives. They're finally seeing the tit-for-tat process that's been raging on in the world of IT security: Infiltration methods and defense methods. Ultimately, over time, two sides that do not want to lose will systematically adapt to survive at any cost in order to fulfill their driving directives. For infiltrators, it's getting the desired sensitive information. For defenders, it's protecting the sensitive information. It's no different in the case of tech companies and the law-abiding NSA. In this case, they are, for all intents and purposes, lawfully acting as infiltrators. We in the tech community do NOT like this; we're included in the group of people that this is happening to. The world of IT Security is going to be very lively in the coming months (as they have been for the past couple of months), and it's something that A LOT of us have been feeling; we need a way to rage against the machine while staying within the law and not losing our jobs. The good news about this article is that, because it is on wired, it will likely be read by many in the IT community, including the CEOs of tech companies. It will get talked about on reddit, facebook, twitter, etc. and the various social media monitoring teams will catch wind of the commentary. Call me a hopeless git if you want, but I know and have the pleasure of working with plenty of fine folks that are able to make a difference in the security community. And we all love automating tedious tasks ('cuz all techies are lazies at heart) so we don't have to do any work to get a highly complicated/awesome result. I think "automating tedious tasks" essentially the concept of the cloud; "you ask for desired result X, and a bunch of automated processes do the necessary work to produce desired result X." This is a solution that is viable because the tech companies are able to legally stay within their bounds while essentially rendering something null and void that is ethically and morally wrong. And make a profit due to meeting a large demand. All it takes is one company's success to make the others catch on (it's like they want to also make more profits). That's the beauty of a meme! ;)

The 4s is free on contract while 5c is $99 and 5s is $199 if you're in the US. Off contract it's $449, $549, $649 respectively. Coming from a value perspective, it's wiser to skip the 5c and get a 5s or even a 5 (assuming they go on sale as retailers try to diminish their inventory).

I don't get that either - I'm intrigued by the Surface. I'm an iPad user, but I'm pulling for the MS to make a dent in Apple's tablet marketshare. The iPad still has a way to go before it's viable for more than media consumption and games, but without serious competition there's no incentive for Apple to do anything more than throw another half-baked edition of iWork at users and call it innovation.

God dammit, as I'm typing this message on my new RT, I really wish I knew about this offer a few days ago. Also, after much consideration I decided that the RT worked more for me than the pro. At a MUCH lower price of $500cad (with type keyboard) as compared to the close to $900 pro, the RT was a better choice for what I needed it for mostly - school (and the reddit browsing of course.) I feel as though the RT has gotten a lot of negative reviews from people that aren't justified. It comes with office - which saves me $100 or so (and yes I download most of my products legally) and it's light enough that I won't be walking around with a permanently sore back. I own a pc which I use mostly for gaming and bigger tasks, an ipad, a present for me (even though I've never been fond of apple products) and this recently acquired Surface RT for school. It works for me and it would work for anyone else that isn't looking for a replacement desktop.

I bought a Pro and wasn't that impressed, for the price. It should be able to blow away the iPad and doesn't. I know the surface is more than a consumption device, but leave it to Microsoft to make something so impressive so awkward. It's impossible to use literally on your lap, typing. The cloth keyboard is gimmicky and worthless, and the more expensive keyboard still misses letters if it's not on a flat surface. The touted kickstand only works at one angle, whereas most ipad cases have 3 or 4, and trust me, the angle is only optimal if placed on a desk in front of you. As a book reader it is too narrow and too heavy. The app store is depressingly vacant, which causes the user to miss out on the touch experience. As an experiment, go the the microsoft store and see if they have the apps you want, you'll see what I mean. Lots of details I don't like, the snap on power cable you have to fiddle with to get seated every time (I'm told the the Macbook Airs is like butter). The 1 MP camera. Oh, and back to "consumption device", Netflix stopped working after a couple weeks due to a bad video driver upgrade, which I had to factory reset the whole device to fix. Awesome. As a positive, the screen itself is amazing, and it is an actual computer so you can run full Office and other software. And drive multiple monitors (I've done 3). You can use a stylus on it, I don't. You can fold the keyboard back, which I rarely do. You can have live tiles, and the rest of the Windows 8 tablet experience. Windows 8, an OS so great they're rolling out an upgrade that reverts back to the old interface. Ultimately, I love the power the Pro has for its size. I feel like they rushed it out the door though, as a standalone tablet it's not at all elegant. That's it, oh and my battery's dying.

Nah, I think most of us have just lived through too many BSODs and random crashes. I've never had a laptop last more than two years, and to be fair, that's because I buy shitty Windows laptops. Generally, you get what you pay for and that's why many people buy Apple. The problem, however, is that Apple products are really just becoming shittier. For example, my wife went through 3 iPhone 4Ss before she got one that actually worked. Similarly, the hard drive on my MacBook Pro "died" 8 days after my warranty ended (1 year and 8 days after I purchased it). The Apple Store wouldn't fix it for me or even give me a discount (which I would expect with any laptop running Windows, but I paid a huge premium for Apple service). I did some Googling and found that Apple uses basically a defective hard drive cable. I replaced it myself for about 1/3 what Apple wanted to charge me.

Errrrr no. Unless you make the tablet with little access panels that you can unscrew to add new hardware, like a laptop, then you can't really have one that's "upgradable". You can't do that without compromising the device in terms of build quality and durability. For a tablet, which is supposed to be carried around in a bag or in a protective case, that's a pretty big deal. Tablets already have Solid State storage, it's soldered directly on to the PCB. Granted the chips they use tend to be a little slower than you get in SSDs, but there is still not much to be gained by adding in an SSD. Most of the parts in a tablet are custom-designed for that particular tablet, much like a laptop. This is because they have to pack everything into a tiny space. Laptops are only barely servicable, you have to disassemble all kinds of tiny screws and plastic clips to get to stuff. I imagine taking apart a tablet would be even worse. It's just not consumer-friendly.

This is WHY we have encryption. No one should ever be asked to hand over an encryption key. Ever. Whatever judge/agent etc came up with that idea should be in prison. Lets face it, if someone doesn't want the government to see something, and they have even a BASIC understanding of how to keep that information secret, the government will never see it without finding someone on the inside and torturing them What they did here was ruin some guys life/business and put all of his users at risk ( some of which mightve been journalists in dangerous countries! ). Its one thing to excercise power. Its another to show a level of incompetancy and lack of understanding of the technology that is unrivaled by any other organization in the world.

The only place on Earth that Nineteen Eighty Four references work for is North Korea. "We've always been at war with Eastasia" is an expression of concern about a government that has total control over all information to the point where it can erase all evidence that they ever weren't at war with Eastasia and nobody can argue otherwise, or more generally, make factually absurd claims and then proceed to manufacture/suppress evidence accordingly so that nobody can disagree with them.

Except the FAA regulations in question aren't protectionist rules written by big business; there are no incumbents around to have written them! It's only very recently that widespread commercial use of this airspace has even been considered and it's going to take a long time for the regulations to be considered and crafted. It's not like they can just show up and say "Oh yeah it's fine, fly commercial drones anywhere you like!" and anyone expecting it to be that simple is insane. This kind of change isn't something you want to blindly enact without a huge amount of consideration and input from all sectors. There are many unanswered questions and it will remain that way for years until provisional regulations are adopted and (more importantly) a body of case law is established concerning the changes. Until then nobody really knows how this will all shake out.

It's been a long time since I worked in EFT (13 years), but encrypted pin blocks are definitely transmitted in the transaction message with the card number and CVV/CVC at least part of the way. As an card issuing institution, if you're not receiving the pin block in the transaction messages, it's because someone else (network/switch) is performing pin verification on your behalf before you get the message. I could be wrong but I believe that as of 2002 or 2003, all pin functions must be performed in dedicated hardware (which is expensive) so that the keys can be kept physically secure, separate from a production environment where access is easier/common (admins/etc). Since it's expensive to buy/maintain/secure/audit a HSM, some institutions have the network/switch verify the pin for them. If this is the case, your system is only has to check or update a balance to return an approval code so there's no need to send the pin block. Unless it's been amended and I can't find it, ISO 8583 messages (the basis of the message formats Target will likely use to connect to other card networks/institutions) use a small 64 bit encrypted pin block and it's possible (likely?) that they may use the same 64 bit pin blocks internally. In other words, depending on where the breach occurred, the attackers may have loads of 64 bit encrypted pin blocks to play with. This is the part where I get fuzzy and expect a reddit flogging; Even though AES uses 128bit keys, if we know something about the small block of encrypted data, such as the first 32 bits are likely consistent, I believe it becomes significantly easier to brute force the key out of the pin block. From what I remember, a 4 digit PIN was typically represented in packed hex format in a 4 byte/64bit field left padded with 0s or Fs (1234 would be 00 00 12 34) and then encrypted. If I'm right about it being significantly easier to crack a 64bit block if something is know about it, hopefully by now they use random data to pad the field and rely on the verifying party to only check the relevant portion of the unencrypted pin. I don't know if it matters or would make it easier, but depending where the breach was; the attackers may even have an encrypted copy of the working key specific pin blocks were encrypted with (the key for the pin block is periodically changed and transmitted between points under a key exchange key). FWIW I never got too deep into the encryption itself. I primarily worked on interfaces (between our system and other institutions) so I only needed to know how to pass the keys/pin blocks to the HSM (Atalla) for translation to a different key or how to request a new working key.

Sorry, I just have to comment because your statement is very misleading. For background, I used to work in a call center for one of the largest banks in the US. I would talk to people who were confused about the different overdraft options all the time. I don't know exactly what terminology other banks use but at my ex-workplace we had overdraft service and overdraft protection . Overdraft service was what you signed up for if you wanted the bank to approve a charge that you don't have enough money for. Part of that service was agreeing to pay an overdraft fee (almost always $35) if that happened. Overdraft protection meant that, if you didn't have enough money in your checking it would draw money from a savings account to cover the difference, and then charge you a fee of $12.50. So, cheaper but you are still paying. You can ask the bank to turn off both, so you would think that any charge would be denied if you don't have the money in your account. There are, however, some huge caveats to this. People often don't realize there are different methods of processing payment but some transactions can still be approved, even if you tell your bank to never overdraft your account. A signed paper check can still be processed and if you don't have the money available you will get a returned item fee of $35. The person you wrote the check to will also often charge you return check fees. Also, the date on a check doesn't matter, a post dated check can still be cashed as long as its signed. An EFT (electronic funds transfer) can still be processed, same $35 fee. EFTs are basically when you give someone your account and routing number to process payment. Most common EFTs are when a merchant scans a paper check, processes it immediately, and then gives you the voided paper check back. Walmart does this. The Target debit card is also a common EFT. Lastly, any payment set up as 'reoccurring' like cell phone bills or netflix, again a $35 fee if you don't have enough money in your account.

If Target is found to be liable, the card networks (i.e. Visa, MC) may fine Target to cover the cost of reissuance, for fraud losses, etc.

My bank (an extremely giant one 'Of America' if you catch my drift) will even make sure you cover that overdraft by transferring $100 out of the linked account, even if you were only over by 1 cent. And, since you as the customer are so grateful for this service, you also pay $10 for the convenience. Oh and if you've reached your transfer limit from that linked account this month then you better be prepared to pay a bit more since it qualifies as such.

Hey saufsoldat my apologies, these days I just assume that everyone on Reddit discussing nuclear power understands the fundamentals of nuclear power economics but is just pushing their own agenda. My (long) response here assumes you are not one of them (us). Many controversial issues with large financial incentives follow a similar arc. To pick a few: is global warming man made, is smoking unhealthy, is DDT harmful, should cars have seat belts, is nuclear power economically viable etc. In these situations typically the corporations that have a vested interest spend quite a bit of money trying to tip public opinion and influence policy in what they consider to be their financial interests even if that direction contradicts the underlying facts. The fundamental problem with current nuclear technologies (which may not apply to fusion or thorium based power) is that the business is profitable while everything is going well but when the things go bad, a la Fukushima, the costs are so great that the company goes bankrupt and the country/public ends up footing a humongous bill. The cost of footing the bill when things go bad is in economics an "externality". Basically it's a business cost that is not born by the company. The solution for nuclear power would be for nuclear power companies to be required to carry insurance to cover expenses when things go bad. Insurance companies however will not insure nuclear power plants at all because the risks are too high. This fact can be interpreted as the market saying that nuclear power is not financially viable (compared with alternatives) when ALL costs are accounted for. So the argument that Fukushima is not Germany because "What is risk is there of Germany being hit by a powerrful earth quake and then a tsunami?" is not quite the right question because this is just one of many conditions that could cause a nuclear power plant to melt down. Again, we know that the sum of all the possible risks is too high since that risk is not insurable in the market. This situation however is not the worst thing facing nuclear power proponents. The worst thing is the clear and improving advantage of solar power over other forms of power generation. I will spare you a long harangue about this but suffice to say that in some places right now roof top solar energy is already becoming competitive with "naked coal". The benefits of solar are: no environmental negatives, it's distributed and it's getting cheaper and cheaper every year. The nuclear lobby know this and so they know that they need to pull out all the stops to get nuclear power plants going as soon as possible because in less than 10 years nuclear plants will be obvious non starters. This is why the nuclear sock puppets and astroturfers are all over Reddit now and will continue to be here until the war is obviously lost.

I wouldn't be so sure. [Archive.org]( has 28 captures from 10 Sep 06 - 9 Jan 14 and they are all the same. They appear to have only changed the website in the last few months; though perhaps this is a bug with the wayback machine? Regarding their Twitter: 1 tweet in 2008, 1 tweet in 2009, A handful of unrelated tweets in 2010 and 2011. Only in 2012 onwards is there even the hint of a prototype. Their facebook is much the same, only picking up at the start of 2012. They mention CES a few times (and the site talks about E3) but I didn't find anything on a cursory search.

I don't believe that number is entirely accurate in this context. Those numbers 2-8ms quoted by monitors, are the time it takes to change from grey to gray, or for the pixel to switch between colors, while yes it directly impacts things, and quality/etc... Its not the same as if you turn your head, and the time it takes the monitor to even start to switch, the time it starts to switch to finish is 2-8ms.

Sadly this could mean that an amoral programmer would be well served to write useful secure code for free, then introduce a bug "by mistake" because there was not enough funding.

Well, typically when a programmer publishes an open source project, they'll license it. The license will just spell out what somebody can and cannot do with the code... whether they can sell their project that depends on the open source code, whether they must give credit, etc. Things like that. Anybody working on a serious project would avoid using open source code that doesn't have a license clearly defined because it could spell trouble later. Technically a developer could release their work as public domain, too, but I don't see that a whole lot. If you're interested, [

Yes you can, but there are several things to consider: Most towers are designed to maximize lateral range, not vertical The speed of a plane means you would be switching between towers potentially dozens of times an hour. Which would end your battery. At cruising altitude, your phone may not be able to handshake to the next tower because it is out of range, aka repeated dropped calls. Standard interference principles apply, weather conditions and external factors can drastically reduce the reception range.

gt; Courts makes it unlawful to access site X for reason Y. &lt; People don't agree and create proxies. &lt; Proxies are explicitly advertised as helping to gain access to site X. &gt; Authorities take the proxies down. &lt; Outcry about how unjust the takedowns are because Z. While we all have different opinions on piracy and the legitimacy of sites like TPB, why can't we agree that breaking (or helping others break) the law is bad? A lot of us agree that the laws requiring you to wear a bicycle helmet are unnecessary but we all follow those laws without any questions. Why do we just ignore the reason they were taken down and instead make it sound like they were taken down for running proxies rather than proxies advertised as TPB proxies? Not to mention the ramblings about how they'll shut down darknet nodes, VPNs, every other proxy next and should shut down search engines instead. Especially when we have no qualms with other illegal content (like CP) being censored / unlawful to access. If the headline was "UK CP proxy shutdown" then we'd be angry that it wasn't done sooner but when it's about torrents then we are angry because it violates our freedoms and right to access any site we want.

The truth about many U.S. speed limits is that they were decided in the 70's when cars were huge and there was a gas crisis. Correspondingly they lowered speed limits for better fuel efficiency and for safety. However, modern cars are increasingly efficient, magnitudes more than the cars in the 70's. Furthermore, vast weight reduction with suspension and braking improvements plus other even more high tech features mean that today's cars are better equipped than ever to avoid accidents. Going even further, the safety of vehicles in an accident has increased substantially too. We can safely handle our cars at higher speeds than in the past, and furthermore, even if involved in an accident occupants are much more likely to survive today.

So basically one of the arguments will come down to: Poor people can't afford a new car, and are now banned from public roadways. One of the things I've heard (I'm on mobile or I'd dig around for the source) is that self-driving cars may also change our desire to actually own a car. Ride-share companies such as ZipCar and Car2Go are already starting to take their fare share of the market away from car sales and public transportation. Imagine how much more convenient this will be when, at the push of a button, a car is deployed to your house to pick you up. Sync a google ride-share car with google maps, type in your destination and current location and instead of getting directions, there's a button that says "Call Car" (or something similar). Within minutes, a car pulls up outside your house and off you go. This, in theory, will be cheaper than owning your own car, since you are only paying for the actual usage of the car when you're using it. Car ownership would still happen for the wealthy, and their car would be more personalized, syncing with their house automation, or loaded up with their Spotify playlist or whatever the future may bring. I am definitely in the camp of people who would hate to see manually driven cars outlawed from the highway. I love being in control of my car on cross-country trips (I don't even use cruise control). That being said, I think the ride-share possibilities with the self-driving cars could possibly negate the idea of poor people not being able to own one, at least to some degree. It's definitely an exciting breakthrough in technology, and while I'm excited for it, there are a lot of implications and consequences to bringing it into society. Lost jobs, new regulations and restrictions on manual driving, a massive restructuring of insurance and liability... I think there's a lot to address before we go all in with it.