Brittney Watters, who had arrived at the store at 3 a.m. and had two GPS devices and several toys in her cart, appreciated the speed. "It works well," she said. But there can be hiccups: The scanning gun sometimes stopped scanning, slowing the process down.
America: We can't buy shit fast enough!
I disagree. I think appliances have distinct and identifiable energy signatures, and depending on the detail the meter records this could easily translate to dependable information about you and your habits.
See regular spikes over the year on weekdays, starting at 7am which end at 8am? Your routine involves waking up at 7am, and leaving for work at 8am.
Regular spikes starting at 7am that last throughout the day (but level off at 8am)? Your routine is waking up at 7am, and working from home.
700 watt spike most mornings for 30 seconds? Your toast.
Likewise, your water heater will have a particular wattage and they could use that to tell when you shower.
Thing is, maybe they don't know what the specifics are for your appliances... until they care. Once someone cares, they can make a profile of energy signatures (1100 watt spike for
You basically just gave the summary for this paper: http://seclab.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/BergmanJJTGW11.pdf
Along the same lines, this would probably make the issue worse. Based on that tag, people are going to simply assume security and privacy where there is none.
Not only that, but even worse, this tag will give data miners something to latch on to. "Oh they're using the Do Not Track tag? There must be some juicy info here!"
I remembeer that movie. My parents made me sit through it when I was a kid.
The irony is that if you were to watch it in a theater now, you would also be watched.
Care to expand on what these are? Thanks!
That was my first thought, but their usage is even worse.
If we treat () as variable x, we get: 4+3+2=x+2=11
The problem here is not the use of the equal sign, it is their completely asstarded implementation of the parenthesis that is some how intended to imply one variable twice, with a line break in the middle.
What? No. That's not how the problem is supposed to be done. That is exactly the point too. The *children* are trying to do the problem like that because they have no fundamental understanding of what an equals sign is supposed to mean. Try reading the summary more carefully, and perhaps even the article if you dare! Maybe the next study should focus on reading comprehension...