Re: For killing flies.....
I've seen them. They're really popular in Southeast Asia. Clear your room of skeeters and get some exercise at the same time. They're actually available in America, too, though I disagree with the prices.
3884 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I've seen them. They're really popular in Southeast Asia. Clear your room of skeeters and get some exercise at the same time. They're actually available in America, too, though I disagree with the prices.
Experience tells me they do go forward but can react to the air from your hand. I've found better success with a cupped hand. The wind forces are different, so the fly can't detect it as easily, plus it can catch the fly in a trap if they think the cup is safe (it isn't; when you slam down, you make a shockwave in the air trapped by your hand; said shockwave can be surprisingly effective on the fly even if you don't directly smash it). I've had some success swatting houseflies bare-handed this way. Also, try tensioning your arm so that you slam down as quickly as possible when you release.
Something has occurred to me: something related to the perception of time.
Perhaps our perception of time can be affected by state of consciousness, too. I once recall a few mornings when I was groggy, having just gotten up, and happened to look at the wristwatch I had at the time. I could've sworn I was seeing the seconds tick by pretty quickly, but by the time I was fully awake, things seemed to be normal again. Now, I knew time hadn't sped up while I slept, so I wondered if grogginess caused us to perceive time differently as well. Have there been experiments into the perception of time in differing states of consciousness?
I'd always figured the big reason small animals perceived faster was simply because their nervous systems have less distance to travel. Barring everything else, neural impulses still travel at some fraction of the speed of light, and inter-synapse chemical reactions should still propagate at the same speed regardless of species, so all speeds being equal, it's quicker to navigate a two-inch brain than a ten-inch one.
Too bad I don't use mobile Chrome. I tend to stick with Opera Classic. It's a bit clunky these days, but it doesn't crash a lot the way the Webkit-based Opera does.
I'd like to know how sporadic they account (as in, how many minutes per day on average). Plus, many of these mom-and-pops may lack the resources or the desire to step up, meaning the credit card companies face a possible trade-off: force them and some of them could walk away. Plus, card companies in the US may not see enough of a risk-benefit to moving to Chip-and-PIN (US laws ALREADY protect consumers in the event of credit card fraud, capping liability). They already have robust anti-fraud measures in place, and this does very little for the shoulder-surf-and-slug or for e-commerce where you're basically back to the old-fashioned way. Also, there's a competing push: contactless cards.
Some places are SO remote that TELEPHONE access is sketchy. These kinds of places aren't even on stripes but still use the good-old-fashioned IMPRINTING machine. If you can't convince these types of people to switch to stripes, how in blazes are you going to take them the additional step(s) needed to to to Chip-and-PIN?
Still a compromised terminal can act as a Man In The Middle. Last I checked, the terminal performs some negotiation with the card prior to performing the transaction. Unless a number of exploits have already been addressed and new cards issued, these transactions can be altered to make the cards more vulnerable.
All right, then, nano- or picocomputers to satisfy the trend.
"Anyone else notice that in Asia they provide public 'Charging Stations' in airports, ferry terminals and almost anywhere. Meanwhile in some parts of the Americas, if you plug into a wall outlet at the airport, you'll be instantly tasered half to death and dragged off to serve 20-years."
Airlines are catiching on to the idea of charging stations. Depending on the airport, you can find them for your favorite airline free of charge (DTW, for example, has plenty of them at Delta gates). As for doing this more generally, I've given it a thought. Could make for an interesting startup opportunity.
While nothing is more research, researching a COVERT means of killing a man is not only highly researched, but also due to its nature full of TRADE SECRETS. Especially since these can be tools of the state (like the ricin umbrella), so plans tend to stay away from the public eye. Plus, with each discovery, the circumstances become more difficult. Right now, distance and security at the gate are the main things protecting VIPs who must speak in public. A gun would beat the distance problem in a way few others could, and those others would have difficulty beating the security at the gate (springs are invariable metallic, a bow would be harder to conceal and still be effective, especially if they can't be metal limbs, and a blow weapon would probably lack accuracy at range if its size is limited).
Plus there's the matter of the reduced metal content: handy for someone wanting to get past a metal detector and still be able to kill at 5-10 meters or so. The only thing you'd need beyond the liberator is a nonmetallic cartridge (has anyone tried using a ceramic slug in a carbon fiber casing or the like in one of these, resulting in a fully-nonmetallic distance weapon)?
Probably because some people rely on muscle memory to recall things like PINs. Some people don't like it when you mess with muscle memory.
No, more like downvotes to an overly-used cliche. Also, the thing about mobile devices is that it's more difficult to type things in. That's why a focus on gestures and PINs (which can use larger buttons). How many times have you missed on a virtual keyboard?
Write your signature twice at your normal speed. Note how different the two of them are, not just in appearance but also in time taken. Circumstances can alter our strokes and our timing, meaning unless a timing-based check is forgiving, we have a passing fair chance of missing. That's probably why timing hasn't been used much in current gesture checks like those seen in Android.
There is concern when it comes to pointers, which would have to be twice as big. Also, data alignment could be more costly for small values, as not accessing an aligned memory space usually incurs an access time penalty. So there are tradeoffs.
Another thing I've been thinking about is the increased address space could play into increased memory mapping of devices and so on. Would there be any benefit to, say, mapping the internal flash or some of the other internal devices (I suspect many of them are already mapped in the 32-bit space as few devices go beyond 2GB RAM).
"Samsung is also working toward designing their own ARM cores like Apple (and Qualcomm) are doing. The current Exynos CPUs are using ARM designed cores so they are comparable to the Apple A4 and A5, where Apple designed the SoC but dropped in ARM cores licensed from ARM, Ltd. It is quite possible Samsung's 64 bit ARM will be their own core, rather than using the A53 or A57."
No argument there. Odds are Samsung's 64-bit CPU will be an ARMv8-based Exynos SoC.
"But when Epic came up demonstrating their new game, at the same event, they said they got 5x the speed of iPhone 5. And they attributed that only to the 64-bit architecture. I'm not exactly sure how graphic calculations benefit from more bits."
I suspect this was less to do with the bit count than with the increased register space (more and bigger registers), allowing for faster memory transfers.
But in terms of moving raw data, if a register is twice as wide, it can hold more in it (8 bytes vs. 4). Since the busses are also twice as wide, it shouldn't take twice as long to load 8 bytes onto a 64-bit register vs. 4 bytes onto a 32-bit one. Plus, 64-bit CPUs tend to have more registers than their 32-bit counterparts, meaning more transfer space, potentially meaning faster memory transfers.
Probably due to architectural differences. Whereas MariaDB is basically a fork of MySQL, designed to be a drop-in replacement, PostgreSQL is a whole other beast which basically means a learning curve.
I guess to each his own. If your setup isn't overly complicated, migrating to MariaDB shouldn't break anything. It's designed as a drop-in so everything can be preserved, usually. Mine was simple enough: a few CLI commands and everything ported no sweat. But, your mileage may vary. It's worth at least a look and perhaps some time on a test rig.
As for the idea that a transaction fee will stop HFTs, given that the companies with the capital to build and operate an HFT routinely operate with billions of dollars at a time, any kind of non-exorbitant transaction fee would likely be absorbed by them as The Cost of Doing Business. And beyond that, suppose these companies decided to end-run around transaction fees?
But there are too many bags for that to happen, and more keep on coming every day. Part of the HFT's job is to FIND the bags...FIRST. And when a trade tales MILLIseconds, every NANOsecond counts. This is "first in wins" taken to inhuman extremes.
I suspect any attempt to curb HFT outside of the law (and the financial sector is one of the most influential in government) would just be sidestepped if necessary by means of their own feeds or markets.
Correct. Rose was left alive in Pete's World along with the cloned Ten (which I'm sure most are figuring is what David Tennant will be reprising for the special). Given the clone's circumstances, this would also allow for Tennant not to have to look younger for the special, either (since the cloned Ten was more human than Time Lord and therefore aged).
Never thought of it in those terms. My thought was that the Other, like Eight during the Great Time War, was probably forced into some bad but necesary things. He couldn't have done them "in the name of the Doctor" because this was before he became the Doctor (and that's why I don't think it's Eight; at least Ten acknowledged what Eight did--regrettably, yes, but it didn't seem like Eight abandoned the title during the Time War and resumed it when becoming Nine). I think of it like ultimate motive: why did the Doctor become (and assume the title of) the Doctor in the first place? It's not as if this has been discussed in significant detail, has it?
But he also got flak from the old school at the same time, so there's pressure in both directions.
It'll be curious to see how things are steered once Peter Capaidi becomes Twelve. After a rash of young Doctors, I have to wonder how an older one will be handled these days.
I think Moffat's been doing that since Matt Smith became Eleven. There's already a lot of edgy stuff and looks into the Doctor's sordid past.
My money's on 0, as in Hurt's the Other: the Doctor before he was the Doctor.
But then who do you trust for anything with global relevance? Who's to say YOUR non-US government isn't doing the same thing and just weren't caught doing it? The REAL real problem is we're at a lot point in the world of trust, and trust is an essential part of security. But in terms of security, our trust has become so ephemeral we're almost to the unusable "trust no one" state.
We're floating towards Descartian "Evil Genius" territory, and unfortunately (Sorry, Doc Smith), there is no genuine, imitation-proof symbol of trustworthiness in the universe (at least that we know of).
Two phrases come to mind. One: "Paranoids are just people with all the facts." Two: "It isn't paranoia if everyone really IS out to get you."
"Just because you can't tell the truth doesn't mean you're allowed to lie. If, for example, you are an executive at a corporation, making statements about company activities which are later shown to be objectively false is actually illegal under SEC regulations, and you can end up in prison for that (though more slowly than you might for telling the truth). The only thing that you can do with impunity is refuse to comment."
Unless the "refusal to comment" amounts to an implicit affirmative answer, since if they weren't involved, they would be able to answer in the negative. IOW, a "we can neither confirm nor deny" answer basically equates to an answer meaning "we're keeping a secret".
So what if you're caught between two laws, one saying you can go to prison for telling the truth, another saying you can go to prison for lying, the question is a direct yes/no, and vacillating amounts to admission?
But we just read that mixing RNGs in particular ways can't hurt and only help. How can mixing RNGs reduce their reliability? Are you saying an adversary could create a stream designed to negate (and thus sabotage) an RN stream? Or is something else involved?
Android is based a lot on Linux, and /dev/random IIRC isn't too different from its predecessor. However, since most Android devices use ARM, it doesn't have access to a hardware RNG. It can draw in a number of sources of "noise" like network transmissions and user input to help with the entropy issue, but perhaps it lacks the entropy for a more serious implementation.
There is research into alternate sources of entropy from other parts of the CPU. Given a sufficient workload, the registers and other internal workings of the CPU are volatile enough to create a source of entropy (this is the theory behind HAVEGE). Perhaps more research into other independent sources of entropy could be found (I can't think of any, though, off the top of my head that couldn't be subverted in some way).
And what if your data goes into the cloud ALREADY encrypted by an open-source and well-vetted algorithm? Remember, while the US itself may not publish codes they can't crack, last I checked they didin't restrict the IMPORT of outside algorithms, and there are plenty of sharp minds outside the US.
Wiki covers the subject pretty well.
And relax, it's full of citations where you can get further information.
In a nutshell, RC4 has flaws that reveal key information about the plaintext in the cyphertext. Using that, one could reconstruct the plaintext with some patience (or access to a cloud because RC4 usually doesn't have a lot of bits). Klein's attack, for example, could analyze the cyphertext from a bunch of WEP-encrypted frames and use them to recover the WEP key. Since it could be done over the air and in a short amount of time, WEP was essentially no good anymore.
So why haven't they done anything about quantum encryption, which if performed properly is provably secure by science (the flaws in it have come from implementation flaws, not in the fundamental theory)? Unless you're saying the NSA has defied international science (including science outside US control) and created a way to break Quantum Key Distribution undetectably.
But then again, how can Alice be certain she's meeting Bob and not Eve posing as Bob (and before you bring it up, Eve's a tomboy and an expert male crossdresser)?
The most difficult part of a secure conversation is STARTING it, because that requires a level of trust. Thing is, how do you do that in a DTA environment: one where anyone you meet could be the enemy?
But now you run into some "hard" problems.
b) Without Trent, how can Alice and Bob be sure they're talking to each other? For all they know (even in a face-to-face encounter), Eve is posing as one of them. It's such a problem that even Quantum Encryption says you need Trent. So how do you do trust without Trent?
c) And you notice how clunky TOR is? That's because mail can't run properly without an address. Similarly, IP packets require a destination, and that's in the header. So how do you mail an envelope when the addressee is INSIDE the envelope?
How does that make sense? If you can repeat the process, you can make it such that two tags return the same signal. As long as you can do that, you can forge the tag, full stop. It has to be a process that doesn't allow for control: like fingerprints, which are made by a chaotic biological process not under the person's control. Otherwise, one could control the process to make a duplicate. Thus the term "snowflake" (snowflakes form by a chaotic process, thus like this tag can't readily produce two identical ones).
More like a bad imitation of the Lens. It wasn't meant as much a masquerade as it was a means to replicate some of the other functions of the Lens like telepathy and increased mental ability: a way to combat the L2's. Thing was, they were too late as L3's had already emerged and would become the most advanced thinkers in the universe.
PS. You're right about Children of the Lens being the coda of the series.
By that reasoning, you're talking about a "snowflake" manufacture process: one that produces (by design) random patterns in the electrical medium. The process as such doesn't allow for duplicates because that part is outside the control of the manufacturer, but that's not to say someone couldn't contrive a different process that allows for control of that step.
Trying to build a forgeproof ID has been the subject of sci-fi for decades. Even the Lensman series ran its early books on the idea.
But isn't the first step to going after a bad guy IDENTIFYING them? And in a world full of splinter cells and lone wolves, how else are you going to identify the bad guys, particularly the ones within your midst? And since the threat they pose can be potentially existential, it's kinda "no holds barred": you either go Big Brother or let the bad guy at your neck.
I think it's more than cost that blocks their use. IIRC those high-frequency devices are very simple in nature compared to, say, a CPU. Plus note you used the word "extreme". That implies a bit of risk-taking that may not be desirable in a mass-market setting.
You're asking for something with the performance of DRAM but nonvolatile.
They've been working on that stuff for...about three decades at least. Tech up to now like Bubble Memory and Flash have always had strings attached. Bubble memory was slow and had to be heated up to work, while Flash is known to be slow to write and prone to lifecycle issues.
There are several candidates for the position: MRAM, RRAM, Racetrack memory (inspired by bubble memory), PCM, and so on. Thing is, none of them have reached wide-scale commercial release at this point. And while some are getting close, achieving the same size and scale as current DRAM tech is still going to take time, plus the tech has to survive the transition process AND be economical. Then the memory has to undergo a paradigm shift as it becomes more affordable, first replacing the RAM and THEN replacing the mass storage (which has its own level of economy of scale and will be more difficult to reach).
Well, as I understand it, one BIG reason for the switch to MTP is the fact that MSD require DISMOUNTING the device on Android so the other OS can mount it (it's a limitation of the spec's definition because USB assumes a master-slave relationship--multiple masters breaks the spec). Since many more apps are calling up the MSD, even in the background, this can be potentially destabilizing. MTP at least has the benefit of being usable on a live-mounted system.
That said, Google realized this isn't perfect. They've been trying to extend the spec to account for this, but I think they would appreciate a different specification to be adopted by the general computing world. It's just that no such alternative is forthcoming.
That's assuming your phone has the oomph needed for Android 4.0+. I tried it once on a Desire Z (T-Mobile branded G2) and found it was too limited in RAM to work properly (it kept FCing apps), so I settled on a Gingerbread ROM before selling it off to help pay for my new phone.
The thing is, how can you communicate very precise information in plain english without having first met the other party (which can itself be a tipoff)? And what if the plan changes and you have to send new coordinates or whatever and are unable to meet your second party again?
Plain english codewords like "birthday party" are only good for very limited scenarios. Once you get to a broader vocabulary, you're going to need something rather more sophisticated.
But that's the big problem. That you basically NEED a third party to vouch Alice to Bob and vice versa. Not even Quantum Encryption can seem to escape from that dilemma. Thing is, in this environment, if Alice can't trust Bob, what reason could they have to trust Trent, whom to Alice is just another stranger? Especially if Alice is in a hostile environment where DTA is the rule of thumb.