The other trouble I've had is prerequisites being poorly defined.

I tried to take an AI course that said the only requirement was algebra. Sure! Suddenly, calculus! Though I struggled through that as I've had some prior exposure, what put the tombstone down for me was probability. I just couldn't wrap my head around it, and the course assumed you already understood it all.

Oh! I think I remember what goes on, now. The antennas are inductively coupled. If that helps!

Yes, nobody will fund their game.

One of their examples shows a motorcycle chase. But the user's option is to select straight ahead or turn right and follow. They're trying to do a canned cut-scene adventure. Those went out with Space Ace.

The only thing I would disagree with in this statement is the word "incompetence." It seems to me that any banker who could walk away with millions in bonuses after all that theft is an extremely competent criminal.

You don't need access to their PC if you have a copy of its credentials (otherwise, yes, it's a lot of effort to dig stuff out of a phone that probably could have come from the PC itself.) But who knows what kind of access you have to their PC? Perhaps you can send a corrosive DLNA packet to iTunes and get the credentials that way. Or maybe a snatch-and-grab phishing attack has only the capacity to send a few hundred bytes before it gets shut down, instead of letting you download all the juicy gigabytes of backup files.

Attacks don't always have to be directly on the repository of the info; sometimes it's very useful to be able to make them from a distance.

Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it. with 6001 hulls! When will they learn?

It's not really a MITM attack, it's spoofing credentials. It's copying the credential token from machine X, installing it on machine Y, then telling machine Y to connect to iCloud pretending to be machine X, and then downloading all the ancient backups in hopes they contained undeleted and unprotected juicy information.

In the past people have used "sort-of" MITM attacks* for jailbreaking, specifically to keep your iPhone from "upgrading" itself to the new version of iOS. The jailbreakers had figured out that they could restore from an old version of iOS and jailbreak it, so Apple wanted to stop that. They introduced SHSH blobs that contained your phone's signed version info, and when you wanted to install an old version of iOS from a backup, they would check to make sure you hadn't upgraded to a newer version. So the jailbreakers came up with a program called TinyUmbrella that you would load up with your iPhone's old SHSH blobs, and it would pretend to be the official Apple blob server. You'd modify your hosts file to redirect the Apple server at your local host, run TinyUmbrella, then launch iTunes. When iTunes wanted to restore the user-specified version of iOS, it would request the latest blobs, but TinyUmbrella would deliver them, tricking the phone into staying at its older version of iOS. In more recent versions of iOS Apple required the server to securely exchange the messages so iTunes could no longer be fooled, but this worked through about iOS version 6 or so.

Of course, this is not a MITM attack against iCloud, but rather against their update process. Still, it was a pretty clever hack.

* I say "sort-of" because TinyUmbrella did not intercept the blob exchange itself; it only stood in as a phony Apple server for a SHSH blob you had to extract on your own, using another tool.

"In" means at an "dedicated electronic reading point" in a publicly accessable library. Not necessarily the library that contains the paper copy. The main restriction is that libraries may not use this to reduce the need to buy multiple copies to satisfy demand.

This is great for scholars who really need to see some obscure published paper from 1982, and are not near a huge academic library. It's great for people who like to read out of print novels. It won't do anything for people who want to read the latest best-seller when all the library copies are checked out.

Well, reproducibility is part of peer review. If anyone is making decisions based on the results of one paper, they're idiots. Even if the research methodology was flawless, and the researchers are brilliant and honest with all their data, certain results can still come about as a result of chance. Obligatory xkcd

I wish we'd put more emphasis on reproducing published results, though. I've mentioned this before, but I feel like this would be the ideal work for grad students during their first few years, before they're deep in their own research. They need to get papers published, there should be journals devoted to publishing data from reproducing results. Students get experience writing papers and conducting research and everyone gets stronger peer review in their fields.

I know for a fact that the forms you submit to the OPM ask you in plain English "have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government"

Yes it does ask that and I also believe that question leads to guilt by association. It needs to be changed to:

Have you ever advocated the violent overthrow of the US Government?

That change will remove the friend of a friend of a friend is a terrorist thing.

Besides, if you were to apply that question to the government as a whole, then they too would fail considering the perpetrators of 9/11 itself was US supported during the Afghanistan / Russian war during the Reagan administration as "freedom fighters".

Was your high school's student parliament dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government? Don't you think that's maybe the kind of student activity you might find rather difficult to forget? Then it's probably not the same thing.

Private research dollars are expected to produce profitable innovations. Bell Labs wasn't run for the good of all humanity, it was run to innovate in the communications space, and it did. They made tremendous amounts of money on the research their lab produced. And the rest of us have continued to benefit from the existence of the transistor. But even though they were wildly successful, where are they now?

Government funded research isn't expected to produce profit, but instead to the betterment of all. Look at any the Big Science projects, such as anything NASA does, or the Human Genome Sequencing project. These projects aren't intended to produce money, they are intended to further our collective understanding.

If private labs are profitable, they are built and run. Google Labs, Microsoft Research, etc., they do a lot of useful stuff and donate much of it. Even the research universities are not contributing as much to the common good as they once did, and are now becoming profit centers for their schools. A tiny example is to look at how much money the University of Minnesota's ag laboratories have made patenting apple hybrids. This is something that once upon a time would have been shared with everyone.

Private money isn't the only answer.

If it's something you're passionate about, don't wait. I went back as soon as my son left the house, and I found I had more free time. Very satisfying.

Well, the neat part about operating in the reactive near-field is the reception is detectable. I'm not 100% on how it works, but I remember that much from studying for my ham license.

I don't know if it's possible to fake that phenomena.

Oh, lovely.

(I am fully aware that deauths happen outside of encryption and that's how aircrack and the like work. I was, perhaps naively, hoping this 'product' wouldn't exploit that.)