sigkill

There is another interesting way of thinking about this. They might be more inclined to use air travel than road because the 'element of control' is lost from them in both modes of travel. So they would then compare the time it takes to reach the destination and since air travel is faster, they might even end up sucking up the TSA pat-downs.

Reminds me of that episode with May saying something on the lines of "We're going at 400kmph... and we've got air-conditioning and radio". Now, that is serious engineering.

This is from wikipedia. Pardon my language, but what the actual fuck. An arranged appointment for playing? I really feel sad for kids now in America.

Thanks.

Heck, I won't be surprised if someone's startup is inspired by that. I can already see usage of some tech that vaguely resembles the Oculus Rift (and yes, the Virtual boy of the past), ah you know what, just go watch it. You will not be disappointed.

Everyone should get an analytics account and see the insane amount of things that Google can track for YOU, for FREE with just three lines of extra code on your page.

Your concept sounds interesting. Could you, by chance fill your about page on HN (a bitmessage address will do too) so if I want I could PM you.

You want to be secure, then it needs to be in such a way that there's minimum reliance on a central server. But in that case, what happens if your local machine (which is both your mailserver and an end client) is offline? Should the email bounce around in the network (like bitmessage does)? Or should you notify the sender with the standard "Mail Subsystem Delivery failure" that we all know and love.

Actually after reading this, I want to seriously sit down and write a spec but if I include the assumption that there is a chance for the end-server/recipient to be offline, it throws everything into chaos.

And yeah, changing providers is just a matter of altering a field or two in the host records page.

Without getting into the discussion of the security factor of biometrics, the working mechanism of the lock itself is such that when it detects a success, a small servo engages some sort of a gear which enables you to complete the mechanical circuit (so to say) when you push the door lever down and move the physical lock with human effort.

This means that the battery is never constantly used, only when the actual sensor is active. Even if it were dead, there exists a manual key override. Also, (I've tested this personally), the factor of safety is quite good in that, the lock starts beeping "LOW BAT" a good 3-4 weeks before the battery is completely drained. Also, (Another one) it doesn't leak information about low battery until there's a successful entry, so an evil attacker can sit near your house activating the sensor all day and he won't know his progress in draining the locks' battery.

The problem is, as long as it was a physical object it was all fine, sort of atleast. You could put anti tamper mechanism (like safes with relockers) that would destroy the core technology/secret if someone tries to pry it apart. But with computer code and mathematics, it's guaranteed that the attacker/pryer is able to make millions of duplicates at zero extra cost. So if approach #564 doesn't work, all he has to do is cp ../downloads/file ../project/reverseengineer/ and boom he has another copy to work with.

The only thing holding an intruder out of a system is the solidity of the mathematical concept that system is based on. And now that the intruder knows that there's a break, and that he potentially will gain a lot by discovering it, he can continue unhindered.

Obviously I'm preaching to the choir, but if you've encountered such people you should give this analogy. In the real world, the guy needs to buy your widget each time he fails to reverse-engineer the anti-intrusion mechanism, but if he were able to make a 100% replica copy of the widget and work on that copy he could try everything. So if he fails once, he'll just make another copy and try a new approach at opening your widget. He knows it's broken, and there's no real extra "cost" associated with duplicating the widget to try again, there's literally no stopping him until he gives up.

Another thing that crossed my mind was this. The manufacturers would want to keep this knowledge (i.e. that the exploit exists) secret, but ~~if~~ when he discovers the backdoor, do you want to be considered responsible for your car being stolen instead of the manufacturer for the manufacturer's mistake? Would you not prefer that the manufacturer calls you and recalls your car to the garage and replace it with a better part? It's a shame because Bentleys, Porsches, and Audis are NOT cheap. You're paying for the name, and at times like this, when the name comes under fire they should do something and stand by their customers instead of against them.