I'd presume that it would be multi-chambered, so you'd have to cause a really BIG rip in the ship to actually bring it down -- it's also really hard to bring down anything that's at 70,000 feet, even if it is as slow as a... well... blimp.
Granted, technology has changed (a lot) since 1960, but I think that the U2 spyplane flew at about that height -- among other things, because the Soviet union had very little that could reach it at that height. Weapons capable of reaching something at that altitude (no matter what it's size) are still hard to manufacture and probably even harder to hide.
Although Windows may be their OS of (cough cough) choice, there's no reason why we couldn't get them started on the transition over to a real OS. I'm shure that there's any number of geeks in the PNW / Lower Mainland who'd be real happy to help setup one or more of their boxes to dual boot into Linux with a boatload of software that they have only dreamed of getting on their Windows box.
If nothing else, just send them a Knoppix CD and instructions on how to
use ImageMagic for their purpose.
The Linux tools are available, and working... Why kludge around with a broken OS?
The FTC said the companies secretly installed the software on computers, causing systems to be overwhelmed by pop-up advertisements, and then sending them alarming messages saying they needed to buy "Spy Wiper" or "Spy Deleter" for $30.
That may be fraud, but it starts with blackmail. I'm sure that these people have also infrected a good number of federal government computers, so we can probably add Computer terrorism to the queue.
(I mean, the law exists... Might as well use it someplace usefull, no?)
That's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding, claiming you weren't,
No, it's more like driving dangerously, running over someone's dog, and then complaining that you were doing 55 in a 60 zone that you know is getting a 'School Zone' designation tomorrow.
The charge is dangerous driving, not speeding -- and if you do The same thing tomorrow the cops will have a choice of which law to charge you under.
A forensic examination of the lock would probably indicate traces of bic pen shavings -- probably proof enough that the lock had failed. They'd be hard pressed to get a ruling in their favor uner those circumstances, I think.
France tried to talk the US out of going into Vietnam and France tried to talk the US out of going into Iraq. Both appear
to have turned into little more than a boon and arms manufacturers and funeral home proprietors.
Where's the enemy in that?
How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed.
Yes - men are not friends. They are fawning parasites hoping to get a free ride on your coattails
If you're about to walk into what I'm sure is a nasty minefield, and I don't follow you, it doesn't mean that I don't want you to make it to the other side. It means that I like my feet firmly attached to my legs.
If before I stop walking, I say to you (multiple times) "don't go there, it's a frikin minefield!!!", it doesn't mean that I don't like you, it means that I think that you'd be better off with your feet attached to your legs too.
If I think you're crossing the minefield for all the wrong reasons, and there's a far safer crossing 5 miles down the road, and I tell you so, it doesn't mean I'm your enemy. It means that I prefer you alive to dead.
If your idea of a friend is someone who will quietly escort you into a minefield, knowing that you're both likely to die to no good effect, then don't expect me to be your friend.
If I think my friends are doing something dangerous and stupid and counterproductive (especially all three!), I will say so, and refuse to abet their constructive suicide. I expect no less from my own friends.
If I think a friend is embarked on a noble but dangerous journey -- but with the best plan possible under the circumstances, I will follow, and even lead them into the depths of hell and back.
Funny, huh? I thought I was actually being serious with my comment, but now that I look back at it, I guess that a little bit of sarcasm leaked thru -- but I really do think that that might be a very real legal argument. The original intent of the patent system was to document ideas so that they were available to the public -- Ideas that, were it not for the patent system, would not have otherwise been thought up.
We now have at least two patent applications and one academic papers
(or is that two?)
on this idea independantly developed (as far as I can see) in the same calendar year. And a commercial implementation at the beginning of the next year.
If that's not a sign that the idea is pretty obvious, I don't know what is. -- that's where my sarcasm kicked in....
Given that we now have at least two companies which have submitted substantially similar applications within a year of each other, it might be a pretty good sign that the only thing not obvious to most developers is the idea patenting something so stupidly obvious.
The patent seems to refer to preventing access based on the destination of the intended communication. It also only refers to access to the internet, and seems to explicitly exclude controlling access to the local intranet.
If all you want to do is control access to your wifi hostpot generally, then all you have to do is control access based on the SOURCE address, not the DESTINATION address.... In other words, ALL communication from an unknown MAC address is redirected to an authentication server, period. Once a machine is authenticated, then you can allow access generally.
This would, I think get around this patent. It's also the way that I would tend to approach this whole problem anyways. I haven't seen the other patent (yet), so I have no idea if this idea infringes on that one.
many people are sooo used to power steering that they don't know what it's like to be working with 'armstrong steering' (as some people refer to manual)..
The car manuals that I read actually suggested that you find an unused stretch of unpopulated downhill road, turn off the ignition, pump the breakes a couple of times to get rid of residual pressure, and then get used to using the vehicle without power support 'just in case'.
It's a very different feel.
It's like the question of what you say to someone who's paranoid that everybody's trying to prove that (s)he's paranoid... Do you say:
"Yes, You're right," or
"No, you're paranoid."?
It's their right... If they want to do that, then let them. My responses are aimed at the people listening to them, not to the speakers. The speakers are essentially lost causes, for the most part.
I have an ex roommate who would fit in the conspiracy theory group, and -- believe me -- hes not going to belive anything that he doesn't want to. He'll 'debunk' a "so-called fact" in one paragraph, and then use that same (just debunked) fact to 'prove' something else 33 paragraphs down.
I think that the value (in terms of nuclear fusion) of pumping that sort energy in such a short time is rather like the difference between 2 ounces of plastique vs a 3 ounce jelly donut. They both contain roughly the same ammount of chemical energy, but the plastique releases that energy much faster -- and thus more destructively (unless you feed the donut to a hyperactive 3 year old).
BTW: I'm presuming that he meant to say 3 mili-joules
because:
[samuel@me tmp]$ units 3milli-joule/femtoseconds tera-watt
* 3
He also doesn't describe the area of the beam either... which would have an effect on the overall energy.
(my calculations put it at about a 1 micron radius).
In any case, there are two things to focus on. One is the energy density and the other is the speed at which it is imparted. If you pump the energy in slow enough, then the atoms can dissapate it faster than it comes in. At some point, you toss in the energy fast enough that a portion of it accumulates -- hopefully enough to blow apart the atom (if that's what you're intending to do). I dunno the actual accumulated energy necessary to rip apart a nucleus. I never got that far in my physics courses.
Can you give me more information on exactly how an ultrashort pulse is better for initiating fusion than a slower pulse?
Must - read - comment - carefully. One character apart, but it's a very important character.
He was talking about using the terawatt laser to initiate (spontaneous) fission not fusion. -- I.E. the laser generates enough energy density to rip apart the nucleus of a atom (not smash two of them together)
The funny thing is that I've heard my version in Tehran from the guy who's running the souvenir shop on the corner of the former embassy grounds.
Not a shock... That's what they would have been fed by the current mullahs -- that Khomeini (may allah's graces be upon him [or however they say it)) was as anti-american and anti-western as they are.
(You know -- kinda like the way that Bush is now swearing that WMDs were never the reason why he went into Iraq.)
Khomeini spent a good deal of time in France during his exile, and I would expect that he was probably at least a bit thankful to the west for giving him a safe place to live during those years.
I damn near wrote a book on the issue, but I had no idea how to publish it at the time (I was fresh out of High School).
(( Just so you know. This is a pet peeve of mine -- ever since I realized (with shock and dismay) that the US
press was far from being balanced fair and open about the Iran Hostage Taking. I spent weeks researching
the various views on what was going on there from as many sources as I could possibly hunt down, and kept it up
on a lower level for months beyond that.
))
The embassy kidnappings in Tehran were done by a highly radicalized group of religious students active in the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini called the US embassy in Tehran a "US den of espionage" and ordered it kidnapped, and these students did it.
wrong. That's part of the public misconception. There were actually two invasions of the US embassy by radicals. The First one was in June, if I remember correctly. After that takeover, Khomeini talked them out after the first embassy taking and told them not to do that again. After the second taking, he sent his own sun in to talk them out again, but he failed.
The reason why he failed on the second time was public sentiment. Iranians at the time still remembered that the US had caused a counter-revolution in the early 60's that had returned the Shaw to power (and marked the beginning of serious brutality on his part). All along, they had simply been asking for an apology from the US for the (illegal) interference in Iranian government affairs and a promise not to do it again. (the later alone probably would have been sufficient).
When The Shah entered the US ostensibly (OK, and actually, too, but try and tell that to fearful Iranians) for medical treatment, radicals in Iran claimed that it was really to organize a second counter-revolution. The Iranians were too scared of a repeat of that fate to think straight (sound familiar?). The irony is that it was the US's unwillingness to verify it's compliance with international law that resulted in one of the most serious violation of the US's international law rights. (sound familiar?).
Khomeini made a number of attempts at moderating the hostage situation. Every time he did so, the US ignored his actions and undercut his intentions. The portrayal of Khomeini as able to get the hostages out with a snap of his fingers is entirely contrary to the effort that he had to take in the face of public sentiment and fears. Khomeini was in power by dint of public support only..
A couple of samples:
Given that the Iranian public support for the embassy takeover was based on the fact that it was scared shitless of a US counter-revolution, the absolute worst thing that Carter could have done was to threaten to invade Iran -- yet that was exactly what he threatened to do while Khomeini was attempting to convince people that the threat wasn't real.... Way to go USA!.
When Khomeini managed to negotiate the release of a small handful of hostages (mostly women, I think), rather than use it as an opening for the softening of dialogue, Carter simply hardened his stance and simply demanded more.
When Khomeini allowed a cleric's visit for Christmas, the big burn was about how they never allowed access to a half-dozen of the hostages (oops -- that's about how many were in the Canadian embassy!). This was further exacerbated by a Time Magazine article that declared him man of the year and compared him (unfavorably) to Hitler.
I think that it was about this time that Khomeini's moderate former prime minister was executed.
Despite all of this berating and threatening on the part of the US, Khomeini managed to arrange a second cleric's visit for Easter. The US response??? Actually sending in the marines (in the botched rescue attempt).
For the record: I have nothing against the rescue attempt, per se. but the timing sucked bigtime
This is part of the reason why (I think) Khomeini arranged to get the hostages out the same day that Regan was sworn into office. He wanted to get rid of
...Look to the world for your news, not just media in the US. Media outlets in other countries are not afraid to be critical of the US in their everyday reporting.
My first big exposure to this was during the Iran Hostage crisis in 1979. US Media was "Oh, those Iranians hate us, they want to kill us and they don't think straight.:
Canadian media got most of their feeds from US stations, but were more moderate... pointing out how Iranians liked the US people but had serious distrust for the US Government.
European media were essentially going "What the hell is the US Doing???? Are they nuts?????
They saw US actions in Iran at the time as counter-productive and generally stupid.
My reading is that US actions in the late 70s and early 80s destroyed the political lives of just about every moderate in Iran (most of them ended up dead), and pushed Iran from being neutral/pro US into being a heavily anti-US radical Islamic state. We're still dealing with that debacle -- including the very new quagmire in Iraq which has raised anti-US sentiment in the region to an entirely new level.
When Bush I led the Invasion of Iraq in 1991, Iraqis saw the incoming coalition as a savior. When Bush Sr. called on them to revolt against Saddam, many did so. Even after receiving a brutal drubbing at the hands of the US, Iraqi soldiers were doing things like spontaneously chanting "Long Live George Bush".
There was even a case of a tank crew coming across a bunch of American soldiers with their jeep stuck. The tank crew pulled the American soldiers out of their quagmire, and then happily surrendered to them.
What did the Bush Sr. do for them? Once he had achieved his objectives, he stopped what would have been a victory drive into a breathlessly waiting Baghdad, and modified the terms of Iraq's no-fly orders to allow Saddam to use his helicopters to brutally suppress the very revolt that Bush had called for.
He completely betrayed his allies (the people of Iraq). That is probably a very big part of what Bush Jr. had going against him when he invaded Iraq in the first place -- the name of his father who killed one part of the Iraqi population, and then betrayed the rest. Leaving them in the hands of a brutal dictator and punnishing them with sanctions to boot.
US actions in Iraq in this invasion (being very careless of neutral Iraqi lives) have made things even worse. Things like the debacle in Abu Gharab prison and the killing if Iraqi kids who had gathered around a disabled US tank have made things much worse.
For the time being, as long as Bush is in power, the USA has absolutely no chance of succeeding in Iraq.
If Americans want to salvage any sort of success in Iraq, the first thing they have to do is vote Bush out of office. -- Then Kerry needs to completely shift the attitude of the US military in Iraq to one of protecting and aiding Neutral Iraqis -- The US said that they went into Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and they now need to act consistent with those words -- or eat them along with bombs and bullets.
heat shield impact site opportunity.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
After looking at one of the images It would appear that the rover is tantalizingly close to the impact site of it's heat shield. (OK: It's about another 4 months drive across the Bonniville crater).
I'm thinking that the heatshield impact should have dug a pretty nice divot out of the ground, which might make a pretty good opportunity for examining deep layers of soil on the edge of a large impact crater.
Possible to find all sorts if interesting things in there... almost as good as the crater itself. (presuming that the rover can get out on the other side, that is.)
The complaints that I saw about Bowling for Columbine were mostly technical -- things like the way that he edited together bits of speeches by Clint Eastwood. What they didn't seem to be aware of is that News Sources like NBC news and Fox do much the same on a daily basis.
I've done my own low-budget documentary, and what I can say from experience is that condensing more than 60 hours of footage down to 50 minutes of documentary is not an easy thing to do. There will be distortions. Unless you release the unedited text (like I did here), then the only choice is how you're gonna warp things.
I've been on the inside of enough news stories to know that the 'big' media regularly induce distortions into what they report. My start into the area of politica and communications came from a recognition of such a distortion which left me both shocked and disgusted.
Moore is very open that he has an aze to grind, and how he's grinding it. As far as I'm concerened, this is the best he can do. It's far better than news sources like the NYT and FOX, ABC, etc. that pretend to be neutral but are, in fact, far from it.
(See, for example, the previous comment about big US media not bothering to report rulings against copyright prosecutions).
I think that the end result of this is going to be that (for now) making bootlegs is now legal, but I'm pretty sure that I could construe that commercially distributing and selling those bootlegs would be a violation of copyright. That, however is not what this distributor was charged with, so I'd expect that the's gonna get a 'bye' on this.
Many people who know of the TFA site may just find out about the
block the hard way (and decide that the problem is 'in the internet' (esp if they're in the middle of nowhere ))
I don't disagree that some people will use proxies, and that proves the uselessness of the DoD's block... Not only that, but the people most likely to use proxies (including somebody's zombied home PC) is preciesly the hackers they claim to be blocking.
More to the point, I expect that they know this.
The only purpose that I can see for blocking the site the way that they have done this is that they want to block foreign users without making it obvious to the people at home who think that the site is up and running and enabling fair access to being able to vote.
Unless you block every IP in the US (which probably accounts for about 50-75% of all zombie machines and open proxies), this block is absolutely worthless.
In fact, what they should do, if you really follow their logic, is encase their sparc box in cement, drop it to the bottom of the Hover dam reserve, and put a guard around the reserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Luxky me... My number is 668.
Thank god for permanent markers.
Granted, technology has changed (a lot) since 1960, but I think that the U2 spyplane flew at about that height -- among other things, because the Soviet union had very little that could reach it at that height. Weapons capable of reaching something at that altitude (no matter what it's size) are still hard to manufacture and probably even harder to hide.
A terrorist with a really big slingsghot.
If nothing else, just send them a Knoppix CD and instructions on how to use ImageMagic for their purpose.
The Linux tools are available, and working... Why kludge around with a broken OS?
That may be fraud, but it starts with blackmail. I'm sure that these people have also infrected a good number of federal government computers, so we can probably add Computer terrorism to the queue.
(I mean, the law exists... Might as well use it someplace usefull, no?)
No, it's more like driving dangerously, running over someone's dog, and then complaining that you were doing 55 in a 60 zone that you know is getting a 'School Zone' designation tomorrow.
The charge is dangerous driving, not speeding -- and if you do The same thing tomorrow the cops will have a choice of which law to charge you under.
A forensic examination of the lock would probably indicate traces of bic pen shavings -- probably proof enough that the lock had failed. They'd be hard pressed to get a ruling in their favor uner those circumstances, I think.
France tried to talk the US out of going into Vietnam and France tried to talk the US out of going into Iraq. Both appear to have turned into little more than a boon and arms manufacturers and funeral home proprietors.
Where's the enemy in that?
Yes - men are not friends. They are fawning parasites hoping to get a free ride on your coattails
If you're about to walk into what I'm sure is a nasty minefield, and I don't follow you, it doesn't mean that I don't want you to make it to the other side. It means that I like my feet firmly attached to my legs.
If before I stop walking, I say to you (multiple times) "don't go there, it's a frikin minefield!!!", it doesn't mean that I don't like you, it means that I think that you'd be better off with your feet attached to your legs too.
If I think you're crossing the minefield for all the wrong reasons, and there's a far safer crossing 5 miles down the road, and I tell you so, it doesn't mean I'm your enemy. It means that I prefer you alive to dead.
If your idea of a friend is someone who will quietly escort you into a minefield, knowing that you're both likely to die to no good effect, then don't expect me to be your friend.
If I think my friends are doing something dangerous and stupid and counterproductive (especially all three!), I will say so, and refuse to abet their constructive suicide. I expect no less from my own friends.
If I think a friend is embarked on a noble but dangerous journey -- but with the best plan possible under the circumstances, I will follow, and even lead them into the depths of hell and back.
We now have at least two patent applications and one academic papers (or is that two?) on this idea independantly developed (as far as I can see) in the same calendar year. And a commercial implementation at the beginning of the next year.
If that's not a sign that the idea is pretty obvious, I don't know what is. -- that's where my sarcasm kicked in....
Given that we now have at least two companies which have submitted substantially similar applications within a year of each other, it might be a pretty good sign that the only thing not obvious to most developers is the idea patenting something so stupidly obvious.
If all you want to do is control access to your wifi hostpot generally, then all you have to do is control access based on the SOURCE address, not the DESTINATION address.... In other words, ALL communication from an unknown MAC address is redirected to an authentication server, period. Once a machine is authenticated, then you can allow access generally.
This would, I think get around this patent. It's also the way that I would tend to approach this whole problem anyways. I haven't seen the other patent (yet), so I have no idea if this idea infringes on that one.
The car manuals that I read actually suggested that you find an unused stretch of unpopulated downhill road, turn off the ignition, pump the breakes a couple of times to get rid of residual pressure, and then get used to using the vehicle without power support 'just in case'.
It's a very different feel.
Obviously, this person never tried that.
- "Yes, You're right," or
- "No, you're paranoid."?
It's their right... If they want to do that, then let them. My responses are aimed at the people listening to them, not to the speakers. The speakers are essentially lost causes, for the most part.I have an ex roommate who would fit in the conspiracy theory group, and -- believe me -- hes not going to belive anything that he doesn't want to. He'll 'debunk' a "so-called fact" in one paragraph, and then use that same (just debunked) fact to 'prove' something else 33 paragraphs down.
BTW: I'm presuming that he meant to say 3 mili-joules because: [samuel@me tmp]$ units 3milli-joule/femtoseconds tera-watt * 3 He also doesn't describe the area of the beam either... which would have an effect on the overall energy. (my calculations put it at about a 1 micron radius).
In any case, there are two things to focus on. One is the energy density and the other is the speed at which it is imparted. If you pump the energy in slow enough, then the atoms can dissapate it faster than it comes in. At some point, you toss in the energy fast enough that a portion of it accumulates -- hopefully enough to blow apart the atom (if that's what you're intending to do). I dunno the actual accumulated energy necessary to rip apart a nucleus. I never got that far in my physics courses.
Must - read - comment - carefully. One character apart, but it's a very important character.
He was talking about using the terawatt laser to initiate (spontaneous) fission not fusion. -- I.E. the laser generates enough energy density to rip apart the nucleus of a atom (not smash two of them together)
Not a shock... That's what they would have been fed by the current mullahs -- that Khomeini (may allah's graces be upon him [or however they say it)) was as anti-american and anti-western as they are.
(You know -- kinda like the way that Bush is now swearing that WMDs were never the reason why he went into Iraq.)
Khomeini spent a good deal of time in France during his exile, and I would expect that he was probably at least a bit thankful to the west for giving him a safe place to live during those years.
I damn near wrote a book on the issue, but I had no idea how to publish it at the time (I was fresh out of High School).
The embassy kidnappings in Tehran were done by a highly radicalized group of religious students active in the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini called the US embassy in Tehran a "US den of espionage" and ordered it kidnapped, and these students did it.
wrong. That's part of the public misconception. There were actually two invasions of the US embassy by radicals. The First one was in June, if I remember correctly. After that takeover, Khomeini talked them out after the first embassy taking and told them not to do that again. After the second taking, he sent his own sun in to talk them out again, but he failed.
The reason why he failed on the second time was public sentiment. Iranians at the time still remembered that the US had caused a counter-revolution in the early 60's that had returned the Shaw to power (and marked the beginning of serious brutality on his part). All along, they had simply been asking for an apology from the US for the (illegal) interference in Iranian government affairs and a promise not to do it again. (the later alone probably would have been sufficient).
When The Shah entered the US ostensibly (OK, and actually, too, but try and tell that to fearful Iranians) for medical treatment, radicals in Iran claimed that it was really to organize a second counter-revolution. The Iranians were too scared of a repeat of that fate to think straight (sound familiar?). The irony is that it was the US's unwillingness to verify it's compliance with international law that resulted in one of the most serious violation of the US's international law rights. (sound familiar?).
Khomeini made a number of attempts at moderating the hostage situation. Every time he did so, the US ignored his actions and undercut his intentions. The portrayal of Khomeini as able to get the hostages out with a snap of his fingers is entirely contrary to the effort that he had to take in the face of public sentiment and fears. Khomeini was in power by dint of public support only..
A couple of samples:
I think that it was about this time that Khomeini's moderate former prime minister was executed.
For the record: I have nothing against the rescue attempt, per se. but the timing sucked bigtime
This is part of the reason why (I think) Khomeini arranged to get the hostages out the same day that Regan was sworn into office. He wanted to get rid of
My first big exposure to this was during the Iran Hostage crisis in 1979. US Media was "Oh, those Iranians hate us, they want to kill us and they don't think straight.:
Canadian media got most of their feeds from US stations, but were more moderate... pointing out how Iranians liked the US people but had serious distrust for the US Government.
European media were essentially going "What the hell is the US Doing???? Are they nuts????? They saw US actions in Iran at the time as counter-productive and generally stupid.
My reading is that US actions in the late 70s and early 80s destroyed the political lives of just about every moderate in Iran (most of them ended up dead), and pushed Iran from being neutral/pro US into being a heavily anti-US radical Islamic state. We're still dealing with that debacle -- including the very new quagmire in Iraq which has raised anti-US sentiment in the region to an entirely new level.
When Bush I led the Invasion of Iraq in 1991, Iraqis saw the incoming coalition as a savior. When Bush Sr. called on them to revolt against Saddam, many did so. Even after receiving a brutal drubbing at the hands of the US, Iraqi soldiers were doing things like spontaneously chanting "Long Live George Bush".
There was even a case of a tank crew coming across a bunch of American soldiers with their jeep stuck. The tank crew pulled the American soldiers out of their quagmire, and then happily surrendered to them.
What did the Bush Sr. do for them? Once he had achieved his objectives, he stopped what would have been a victory drive into a breathlessly waiting Baghdad, and modified the terms of Iraq's no-fly orders to allow Saddam to use his helicopters to brutally suppress the very revolt that Bush had called for.
He completely betrayed his allies (the people of Iraq). That is probably a very big part of what Bush Jr. had going against him when he invaded Iraq in the first place -- the name of his father who killed one part of the Iraqi population, and then betrayed the rest. Leaving them in the hands of a brutal dictator and punnishing them with sanctions to boot.
US actions in Iraq in this invasion (being very careless of neutral Iraqi lives) have made things even worse. Things like the debacle in Abu Gharab prison and the killing if Iraqi kids who had gathered around a disabled US tank have made things much worse.
For the time being, as long as Bush is in power, the USA has absolutely no chance of succeeding in Iraq.
If Americans want to salvage any sort of success in Iraq, the first thing they have to do is vote Bush out of office. -- Then Kerry needs to completely shift the attitude of the US military in Iraq to one of protecting and aiding Neutral Iraqis -- The US said that they went into Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and they now need to act consistent with those words -- or eat them along with bombs and bullets.
I'm thinking that the heatshield impact should have dug a pretty nice divot out of the ground, which might make a pretty good opportunity for examining deep layers of soil on the edge of a large impact crater.
Possible to find all sorts if interesting things in there... almost as good as the crater itself. (presuming that the rover can get out on the other side, that is.)
It's not just a triangle It's a reasonable representation of a fractal pattern.
I've done my own low-budget documentary, and what I can say from experience is that condensing more than 60 hours of footage down to 50 minutes of documentary is not an easy thing to do. There will be distortions. Unless you release the unedited text (like I did here), then the only choice is how you're gonna warp things.
I've been on the inside of enough news stories to know that the 'big' media regularly induce distortions into what they report. My start into the area of politica and communications came from a recognition of such a distortion which left me both shocked and disgusted.
Moore is very open that he has an aze to grind, and how he's grinding it. As far as I'm concerened, this is the best he can do. It's far better than news sources like the NYT and FOX, ABC, etc. that pretend to be neutral but are, in fact, far from it.
(See, for example, the previous comment about big US media not bothering to report rulings against copyright prosecutions).
I think that the end result of this is going to be that (for now) making bootlegs is now legal, but I'm pretty sure that I could construe that commercially distributing and selling those bootlegs would be a violation of copyright. That, however is not what this distributor was charged with, so I'd expect that the's gonna get a 'bye' on this.
Humans will be able to respond to this. Modem autodialers will not (at least not without a huge amount of added intelligence).
BTW: I'm patenting the process :-)
I don't disagree that some people will use proxies, and that proves the uselessness of the DoD's block... Not only that, but the people most likely to use proxies (including somebody's zombied home PC) is preciesly the hackers they claim to be blocking.
More to the point, I expect that they know this.
The only purpose that I can see for blocking the site the way that they have done this is that they want to block foreign users without making it obvious to the people at home who think that the site is up and running and enabling fair access to being able to vote.
Unless you block every IP in the US (which probably accounts for about 50-75% of all zombie machines and open proxies), this block is absolutely worthless.
In fact, what they should do, if you really follow their logic, is encase their sparc box in cement, drop it to the bottom of the Hover dam reserve, and put a guard around the reserve.