Step 1: hijacking, hijackers incapacitate (maybe kill) pilots, take over the plane, switch off communications.
Step 2: passengers find out the plane has been hijacked.
Step 3: passengers kill hijackers.
Step 4: no-one on board that can operate the plane, switch on communications and take control of the autopilot, and all that's left for the passengers is wait for fuel to run out and the plane to crash in the sea, killing all on board.
Then he took awfully long to actually do that, and went to great lengths not to be detected. Someone that wants to kill themselves does so in the spur of the moment, which is why they can be talked out of it with relative ease by just stopping them from making the jump. If they don't change their mind themselves.
A pilot, knowing that he has many more people on board, would just ditch the plane headfirst in the water or in the ground if he really wants to kill himself and wants it so desperately that he wants to take the other 270-something people with him. This doesn't make sense, for suicide.
The acceleration of a controlled landing on water (or simply the end of a controlled glide path) may be not that much higher than the acceleration of a rough controlled landing on a poorly maintained runway during a typhoon. You may want the bolts to go off in the first situation, but not in the second. It's not that easy.
Was it that erratic? Shortly after this overland flight path was made public, aviations experts said they were following a common navigation route. Which is not necessarily a straight line. And which means that whoever was operating the plane, knew perfectly well where they were.
And how am I, a simple end user, to know that the Microsoft that the key says it is issued to (or who generated it), is not the same Microsoft that built the Windows the computer runs? Because the mailing address in the key is different? An e-mail address is different? I don't usually know which one is the "real" one. And that's about a well-known company, not an obscure software developer that I never heard the name of.
This are keys issued in a person's name. Names tend to not be unique, many people share the same given name(s)/surname combination. The same accounts for company names, where it's even easier to get a key with the exact same name as anyone can register a company in the same name as the company they want to copy.
Those keys are perfectly valid. CA's do not have to be compromised for this kind of "attack", they do their job and issue keys in the actual name of the applicant. It can't be that they refuse a key just because someone else somewhere in this world happens to share your name, and they got a key first.
This simple issue is not addressed here, but it's definitely closely related to this problem.
What may be impossible to shut down when flying, may be easy to do when on the ground.
Cutting the appropriate wire will do. If that's a problem for the engines, ground the aerial sending out the ping. It may not be easy to do, but it can be done for sure. Everything on an aircraft is accessible when it's on the ground.
Indeed the main complaint from relatives of the plane's passengers is lack of information, and lack of updates. It's of course a tough situation - they don't really know anything, a plane disappears without distress call in good weather, and then there is no wreckage or anything to be found. So yes, the pressure is immense to come with new information. Any new information.
It's indeed quite sure the people on board are dead. And I'm also quite sure the plane landed in the sea, not on land, as in the second case not only is debris much easier to spot - big plane, lots of debris, also very likely someone would have seen the fireball of the plane crashing into the ground. A hijacker flying the plane until it has run dry (preventing a fireball) is extremely unlikely; hijackers normally are not suicidal and will try to go somewhere the plane was not supposed to go, in the process informing air traffic control of the new flight path.
Because, those aliens having left with the plane and all, have immediately left the picture!
I mean, of course it's aliens that did it. It's the least unlikely explanation. We're just waiting for them to return the plane, so it can continue it's journey. I just hope they'll remember to give it enough forward momentum or it'll after all fall out of the sky.
Those were never meant to produce high quality audio. There is more to an audio player than the decoding of a digital sound recording.
The Pono player presumably is much better on that front. Otherwise, what's the point of focussing on high-quality recordings, if you can't play it in high quality?
Or you teach them that certain things are not toys. Why, maybe you even keep those things out of the kid's reach! Wow! Y'know, like every real parent has done throughout the ages. Knives, matches, car keys, stoves, cleaning chemicals, really there are things much worse than cellphones out there.
Confirmed. He's never had kids.
Or he's a true helicopter parent, not leaving the kids out of his sight for even a second at a time. However your assessment is the more likely.
Of course... but the problem is that they implemented the patch on their production servers (signing it into law), without going through the normal testing procedures (public hearing, discussion in the legislature). Actually they did it without any such test at all.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
Of course.
The problem lies in your comment on judges thinking it's OK as it's not nudity. It seems that you argue that (partial) nudity should be part of the equation - which if so, would make an upskirt totally legal if the victim would wear pantihose, in which case it's easy to argue there is no nudity at all.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written. They're not supposed to interpret the law, other than maybe at points where the law is unclear, in which case judges may reserve judgement on that exact ground, and ask the politicians to write the law properly.
And in the end this is what happened here, as within hours a new law was written. Now the speed at which that happened is worrisome to me, as it means there has not been proper discussion on the actual content of the law. It may have many unintended consequences, that are a result of not thinking it through properly, or it may have been used by some radical politician to advance his/her agenda.
Sounds like they should have invoked the DMCA in the quoted case. As an added bonus, they probably could have gotten the perpetrator on the hook for millions in penalties, and a few life terms in prison or so.
Unless it's obviously someone is a public figure (you happen to know the person is a famous singer, or the mayor of your town), he is not a public figure.
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
So in case the woman whose upskirt is taken is wearing pantihose, there is no issue as there is no nudity under that skirt: everything is covered up.
Afaik cats do have a need for vegetables in their diet. And in nature it's part of their diet: when they eat a mouse, they don't just eat the meat, they eat it all. And that includes the gut - undigested last meal of that mouse and all, forming an important part of the cat's meal. So cat foods producers often add some vegetable to the mix.
Otherwise indeed they're pretty much the most carnivorous species in the world.
It may become an interesting example of "crime doesn't pay" - the stolen goods will lose value quickly as no-one trusts BTC any more. And with soon no working exchanges left there is no way to actually convert those BTC into hard cash to begin with.
The tulip bulbs at least you can put in the ground, and then every spring you have some really nice flowers in your garden for years to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 1: hijacking, hijackers incapacitate (maybe kill) pilots, take over the plane, switch off communications.
Step 2: passengers find out the plane has been hijacked.
Step 3: passengers kill hijackers.
Step 4: no-one on board that can operate the plane, switch on communications and take control of the autopilot, and all that's left for the passengers is wait for fuel to run out and the plane to crash in the sea, killing all on board.
Then he took awfully long to actually do that, and went to great lengths not to be detected. Someone that wants to kill themselves does so in the spur of the moment, which is why they can be talked out of it with relative ease by just stopping them from making the jump. If they don't change their mind themselves.
A pilot, knowing that he has many more people on board, would just ditch the plane headfirst in the water or in the ground if he really wants to kill himself and wants it so desperately that he wants to take the other 270-something people with him. This doesn't make sense, for suicide.
The acceleration of a controlled landing on water (or simply the end of a controlled glide path) may be not that much higher than the acceleration of a rough controlled landing on a poorly maintained runway during a typhoon. You may want the bolts to go off in the first situation, but not in the second. It's not that easy.
Was it that erratic? Shortly after this overland flight path was made public, aviations experts said they were following a common navigation route. Which is not necessarily a straight line. And which means that whoever was operating the plane, knew perfectly well where they were.
Of course you know exactly which e-mail address belongs to which name, so it's no problem for you to recognise a fake.
And how am I, a simple end user, to know that the Microsoft that the key says it is issued to (or who generated it), is not the same Microsoft that built the Windows the computer runs? Because the mailing address in the key is different? An e-mail address is different? I don't usually know which one is the "real" one. And that's about a well-known company, not an obscure software developer that I never heard the name of.
This are keys issued in a person's name. Names tend to not be unique, many people share the same given name(s)/surname combination. The same accounts for company names, where it's even easier to get a key with the exact same name as anyone can register a company in the same name as the company they want to copy.
Those keys are perfectly valid. CA's do not have to be compromised for this kind of "attack", they do their job and issue keys in the actual name of the applicant. It can't be that they refuse a key just because someone else somewhere in this world happens to share your name, and they got a key first.
This simple issue is not addressed here, but it's definitely closely related to this problem.
What may be impossible to shut down when flying, may be easy to do when on the ground.
Cutting the appropriate wire will do. If that's a problem for the engines, ground the aerial sending out the ping. It may not be easy to do, but it can be done for sure. Everything on an aircraft is accessible when it's on the ground.
Indeed the main complaint from relatives of the plane's passengers is lack of information, and lack of updates. It's of course a tough situation - they don't really know anything, a plane disappears without distress call in good weather, and then there is no wreckage or anything to be found. So yes, the pressure is immense to come with new information. Any new information.
It's indeed quite sure the people on board are dead. And I'm also quite sure the plane landed in the sea, not on land, as in the second case not only is debris much easier to spot - big plane, lots of debris, also very likely someone would have seen the fireball of the plane crashing into the ground. A hijacker flying the plane until it has run dry (preventing a fireball) is extremely unlikely; hijackers normally are not suicidal and will try to go somewhere the plane was not supposed to go, in the process informing air traffic control of the new flight path.
Because, those aliens having left with the plane and all, have immediately left the picture!
I mean, of course it's aliens that did it. It's the least unlikely explanation. We're just waiting for them to return the plane, so it can continue it's journey. I just hope they'll remember to give it enough forward momentum or it'll after all fall out of the sky.
There are ways for pilots to secretly send out a message when hijacked.
Those were never meant to produce high quality audio. There is more to an audio player than the decoding of a digital sound recording.
The Pono player presumably is much better on that front. Otherwise, what's the point of focussing on high-quality recordings, if you can't play it in high quality?
Sounds scary.
Before you know it, those bullets encrypt YOU!
They'd likely steal that gun, use it to shoot you, and then steal the phone and anything else you have of value on you in the process.
Enable the "Wipe after X failures."
I presume you don't have kids :-)
Or you teach them that certain things are not toys. Why, maybe you even keep those things out of the kid's reach! Wow! Y'know, like every real parent has done throughout the ages. Knives, matches, car keys, stoves, cleaning chemicals, really there are things much worse than cellphones out there.
Confirmed. He's never had kids.
Or he's a true helicopter parent, not leaving the kids out of his sight for even a second at a time. However your assessment is the more likely.
Of course... but the problem is that they implemented the patch on their production servers (signing it into law), without going through the normal testing procedures (public hearing, discussion in the legislature). Actually they did it without any such test at all.
Now what could possibly go wrong?
A 16yo doing this shouldn't be tried as an adult to begin with.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
Of course.
The problem lies in your comment on judges thinking it's OK as it's not nudity. It seems that you argue that (partial) nudity should be part of the equation - which if so, would make an upskirt totally legal if the victim would wear pantihose, in which case it's easy to argue there is no nudity at all.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written. They're not supposed to interpret the law, other than maybe at points where the law is unclear, in which case judges may reserve judgement on that exact ground, and ask the politicians to write the law properly.
And in the end this is what happened here, as within hours a new law was written. Now the speed at which that happened is worrisome to me, as it means there has not been proper discussion on the actual content of the law. It may have many unintended consequences, that are a result of not thinking it through properly, or it may have been used by some radical politician to advance his/her agenda.
Sounds like they should have invoked the DMCA in the quoted case. As an added bonus, they probably could have gotten the perpetrator on the hook for millions in penalties, and a few life terms in prison or so.
By turning that question around.
Unless it's obviously someone is a public figure (you happen to know the person is a famous singer, or the mayor of your town), he is not a public figure.
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
So in case the woman whose upskirt is taken is wearing pantihose, there is no issue as there is no nudity under that skirt: everything is covered up.
You forgot to mention the part where they completely left out the YORP effect, which is blamed for the desintegration of the object...
Sorry to let you know that the end user can easily switch off the functionality.
The only bad thing here is that the ISP is doing it secretly.
Afaik cats do have a need for vegetables in their diet. And in nature it's part of their diet: when they eat a mouse, they don't just eat the meat, they eat it all. And that includes the gut - undigested last meal of that mouse and all, forming an important part of the cat's meal. So cat foods producers often add some vegetable to the mix.
Otherwise indeed they're pretty much the most carnivorous species in the world.
Indeed.
It may become an interesting example of "crime doesn't pay" - the stolen goods will lose value quickly as no-one trusts BTC any more. And with soon no working exchanges left there is no way to actually convert those BTC into hard cash to begin with.
The tulip bulbs at least you can put in the ground, and then every spring you have some really nice flowers in your garden for years to come.