"Saving lives" is an absolute term. Even in your extreme example, 80 convoys being blown up will result in fewer deaths than 90 convoys being blown up. The ratio of deaths to successful convoys would be higher, but fewer humans would be killed.
Maybe due to doubled security, VERY optimistically twice as many fail, so best case only 80 convoys get blown up by the 100 martyrs.
You are assuming that these attackers are just as willing to attack a convoy with beefed up security because they are actually seeking martyrdom. They aren't. The majority of people attacking the convoys are not suicide bombers; they are fighters who would prefer to continue living. In general, the more security there is, the fewer attacks there will be.
Let's take your argument to its extreme. Imagine that the military were shipping uranium out instead of oil. Since it is so energy dense, 500 convoys of oil can be replaced with a single vehicle carrying uranium. Since there is now only one vehicle, the military can afford to put a whole tank regiment around it along with apache gunships overhead to deter attacks. Do you still think the insurgents would attack? Probably not, since they would obviously be slaughtered.
Actually, even a supervising parent is not enough to protect the kid from legal attack. From TFA:
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street"
- King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten
I find it bizarre that there is even a possibility that a 4 year old can be considered legally liable for "risky behavior such as running across a street". Children at 4 years old have not developed the mental capacity to properly judge the effects of their actions. Holding them personally legally liable is crazy. There are arguments to be made that the parent or a supervising adult may be liable for some failure, but holding the 4 year old liable is very odd. What punishment can there be? The child has no assets. Is taking the child away from the parents and into state custody warranted? If not, then what penalty will be enforced? Nevermind the fact that the child probably doesn't even remember the incident anymore and hence any punishment will be completely pointless.
The offended parties voluntarily read his comments of their own free will, which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
He used Facebook, The offended parties didn't choose to view his comments - by the time they saw the comments and knew what they were saying, it was too late to avoid them.
from a site which they do not own or administrate
So what? It is obviously possible to be grossly offended without owning or administrating a web site.
which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
So what? The relevant laws govern sending grossly offensive messages. Or do you think that a British citizen should be deemed to be acting outside of British law when he uses a foreign web site? That viewing or trading incredbily offensive material (e.g. child porn) would suddenly not be a crime in Britain solely when done on a foreign web site?
And anyway, your argument is irrelevant because Facebook already does do business in the UK, and is therefore subject to UK law.
Everyone on 4chan will be screwed.
The vast majority of 4chan users do not harass members of the general public in a criminal manner.
It's about the possibility that the Chinese could find a vulnerability in the operating system that could be exploited, or get a better read on what the listening capabilities of the sigint gear is, which means knowing what you need to do to better avoid it.
To your first point - I seriously doubt that the NSA wrote a new operating system from scratch after the Chinese got a copy of the binary of the existing OS. What are they going to do, keep writing a new operating system every time someone gets a copy of the old one? At 50 million lines of code, and a cost of $850 per LOC (NASA is $850 per LOC, and the NSA's code is just as sensitive as NASA's and will have similar development process and associated costs), that would be $42.5 billion. That's crazy. So I would assume that the "new" OS is just an upgrade of the existing one, which will have the same undiscovered bugs.
And to the second point - that the Chinese will be able to learn how to avoid the intelligence gathering - the OS is not really important here. Since they have all of the hardware and software the Chinese are going to be able to figure it out. Changing the OS isn't going to stop them or even slow them down, since the actual hardware and algorithms for monitoring won't be significantly changed.
The article quotes Richard Clarke on a hypothetical Chinese cyber attack:
Within a quarter of an hour, 157 major metropolitan areas have been thrown into knots by a nationwide power blackout hitting during rush hour. Poison gas clouds are wafting toward Wilmington and Houston. Refineries are burning up oil supplies in several cities. Subways have crashed in New York, Oakland, Washington, and Los Angeles. . . . Aircraft are literally falling out of the sky as a result of midair collisions across the country. . . . Several thousand Americans have already died.
Firstly, China isn't going to attack the U.S. - going to war with one of your largest trading partners and a nuclear armed state would be stupid. But if China were to wage war on the U.S. then the deaths of a few thousand people and the associated chaos would be chickenfeed compared to the effects of nukes raining down on American cities. I wonder whether this kind of alarmism is meant purely to scare people into accepting increased defence spending, or whether the people at the top honestly believe what they are saying?
The Navy’s experts didn’t believe that China was capable of reverse-engineering the plane’s N.S.A.-supplied operating system, estimated at between thirty and fifty million lines of computer code, according to a former senior intelligence official. Mastering it would give China a road map for decrypting the Navy’s classified intelligence and operational data.
If China had reverse-engineered the EP-3E’s operating system, all such systems in the Navy would have to be replaced, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. After much discussion, several current and former officials said, this was done.
This makes no sense. Compromise of the OS binary meant that a new operating system had to be somehow created, and every system had to be reinstalled? I can't understand why compromise of a single system led to every other system being vulnerable - that would be a gaping security hole.
False. It may have been true at one time, but even Sarah Palin is pro-decriminalization, if not outright legalization
She said "If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot". Her position appears to be aligned with those that think the growers and supply lines should be illegal, and police should continue to target those, but not target individuals smoking a joint in their own homes. There are huge problems with that approach, as it leaves the supply side under the control of criminals.
I think what you mean is "Republican politicians".
Maybe. Libertarian thoughts and liberal social attitudes are becoming more mainstream in conservative society. The world is changing, and attitudes towards cannabis are softening, but this conservative response is still quite typical.
"conservatives" (and more specifically libertarians)
Libertarians are generally socially liberal. You might call them fiscally conservative, but I'd hesitate to call them plain old "conservative" - for example, conservatives are strongly against gay marriage, whilst libertarians are pro-gay marriage due to their stance that a minimal government shouldn't regulate consensual marriage.
you'd ban Gandhi from speaking, because his words were inflammatory and could have caused violence, even though he was explicitly pacifistic.
This is a strawman argument, since I never mentioned banning anything. Besides, banning is quite often counterproductive - attempts to ban Nazi speech in Germany enables them to play the "we are the victims" card. On the other hand, maybe it does help prevent the rise of another Hitler? Who knows? It is impossible to tell one way or the other...
The solution to these problems is better education and knowledge for the general population. People need to learn to ignore those who would manipulate them into feeling angry and emotional, and instead maintain a rational and reasoned level of debate.
Along with explicitly saying, repeatedly, that violence is never an answer and that his vision for "restoring" America is not an armed revolution. Yes. Classic.
Yes, and Miron Cristea was a holy man who never explicitly called for Jews to be murdered. Overtly preach peace, fan the flames of conflict, and stand back. High profile people ranting against others in such a hateful and aggressive manner has an effect even when the call is not directly to violence.
Maybe you have heard of Byron Williams, who is facing four counts of attempted murder after being intercepted on his way to carry out a massacre at the liberal Tides Foundation? As that article says, "it's not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by his fans, he would do well to stop encouraging extremists" and "It's not that Beck is directly advocating violence... but he's giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe."
"It is important that everyone in public life, whether on the right or on the left, realize that words have consequences." - Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, senior Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
"The Becks of the world are people who are venting their opinions and it is inflammatory, it generates a lot of emotion and generates in some people overreaction that apparently happened in the California case," - Rich Roberts of the International Union of Police Associations
1) That's the least-useful Wikipedia page I've ever seen. It doesn't even discuss proposed methodologies for implementing its subject - it just has an extremely short definition.
3)... I'm curious to see how you're going to get the RFID chip to cough up enough information to verify that it knows the private key, without giving away enough information to allow key determination through heuristic analysis anyway...
Yes the Wikipedia article is a bit short, hopefully someone will fix it. I highly recommend Applied Cryptography as a good starter that will cover the information you're looking for.
Because he called for a civil war? Or are you just repeating what you think he said? I'm curious why you believe that, other than typical DRD4 soft-headedness.
Glenn Beck: Democrats are vampires "going after the blood of our businesses... Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers."
Miron Cristea: "The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them."
It is difficult to not read those two quotes in the same light - the implication of the message is quite clear - that a certain group of people are a threat to you and your way of life, and it is up to you to do something about it. It is the classic strategy of identifying an "enemy", telling the people how bad that enemy is and what atrocities they are committing, and then standing back and watching what happens.
Give a logical reasoning test to subjects and correlate with political affiliation.
Here's an interesting one. Alcohol ranks higher than cannabis on all measures of harm to both oneself and society at large. Logically, if the aim of drugs policy is as stated - to minimise the harm that drugs cause - then either both drugs should be treated the same (legal/illegal) or cannabis should be legal and alcohol illegal. That is the only logical result given the stated premise for drug control (a premise that appears to be accepted by the population at large). Conservatives are generally opposed to legalising cannabis. Liberals are generally supportive of legalising cannabis. Which is the more logical in this case?
after reading the title, that is exactly what i was hoping for.
Awesome, let's make everyone exactly the same! I, for one, welcome our new heterosexual, uniform-skin-toned, drugs-and-alcohol-hating, women-should-be-in the-home-not-working, lets-pretend-the-world-never-changes population! </sarcasm>
Actually, it seems you should've read the article:
people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average
So, according to the hypothesis, liberals seek out novelty and challenges, have more friends, and gain more life experience. Those are generally acknowledged as positive traits - maybe the true genetic flaw is in those who lack a copy of this specific gene variant? Anyway, interesting to see this follow on from similar news in 2008.
This seems silly; any transfer from any flight inside of the US doesn't require this step as long as you are still in a secured area. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
Schipol Airport @ Amsterdam does the same. It makes some sense to just security check everyone regardless. The main problem with the trust model is transitive relationships - you trust Korea, Korea trusts Abu Dhabi, AD trusts Cairo. Now you have people being security checked at Cairo and able to travel through Korea and into Europe/U.S. It exposes the entirety of the trust network to failures at the weakest point.
I am against security theatre. I am also against executives of companies that must pay for security measures crying that those measures cost too much to implement. Any effectiveness review should be carried out by independent experts rather than the companies that stand to gain the most financially by relaxing security.
Yet the TSA won't let me take a bit of juice or water through security? What a crock.
I never understood why people are so annoyed by not being able to take a drink through security. You can buy a multitude of drinks on the other side, everything from hot coffee to litre bottles of vodka. You can also fill up water for free from fountains or taps in the bathroom. Why is it such a big deal, that annoys so many people, that you can't take your own drink through? A couple of dollars added onto the cost of a flight to buy a drink isn't that much.
Easy, just scan people as they walk by, record their numbers and get yourself an adjustable implant. You could change identities whenever you please. That is probably the easiest to spoof of all.
Zero-knowledge password proof. We've had the technology for several decades to implement systems where mutual authentication can take place without exposing private keys or passwords.
Human beings manage to identify each other pretty well based on previous knowledge, often only visual information. As technology advances the technology to uniquely identify people will become more accurate. And more importantly - and a fact that a lot of people miss - the system doesn't need to be perfect, it only needs to be more accurate than the system that it replaces. For example passports - a unique chip ID+personal knowledge+biometric is a more accurate form of authentication than a photograph and some minimum wage guy comparing it to the holder's face several thousand times a day. I can see why people find biology based authentication intrusive, and celebrate when it fails in situations like this, but it's a small victory in a rather irrelevant environment. The technology to uniquely identify and authenticate an individual is going to get better, and it is going to become harder for the average person to forge and use an alternative identity.
Many places do buy and use Redhat, but guess how many Centos servers they would also have installed and used.
Exactly. I personally know of at least two organisations that are using customised CentOS platforms. One has >1000 servers, the other a couple of thousand servers and desktops. Both have full time support teams, neither pay for any outside support. Based on what I have seen, the number of commercial support licenses sold by Red Hat and the rest of them is a very inaccurate indicator of actual deployments.
One of the definitions of "costume" is something like "The garment worn by an actor to depict a certain character in a particular period" or an "actor's stage clothing".
I was actually a little disappointed when I saw one of the Darth Vader suits in real life. In the movies it looks awesome, but in real life you can see that it doesn't look realistic at all. The pack on the front of the belt was the most obvious flaw - it looks like a bit of cardboard painted matte black with red circles painted on it that are meant to be buttons. The other bits of "electronics" look equally as tacky unfortunately. The materials bill was probably only a few hundred dollars. Yes, I know it's what it was used for that makes it valuable, but I can't help but feel that for $300k you'd be able to build your own Darth Vader suit kitted out with loads of electronics that was actually fun to mess around with, rather than having an investment piece that you'll want to preserve rather than use.
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes.
It is just as modular as any other OS now-- they just don't provide the users the opportunity to change the shell or other components.
The iPhone is just as open as any other device now -- they just don't provide the users the opportunity to change the applications or other components.
"whose grandfather happened to be the surgeon to accidentally slice open the H.M. skull in the first place"
The surgery was no accident - it was a planned procedure that the doctors (correctly) thought would stop the epileptic seizures that H.M. was experiencing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Saving lives" is an absolute term. Even in your extreme example, 80 convoys being blown up will result in fewer deaths than 90 convoys being blown up. The ratio of deaths to successful convoys would be higher, but fewer humans would be killed.
Maybe due to doubled security, VERY optimistically twice as many fail, so best case only 80 convoys get blown up by the 100 martyrs.
You are assuming that these attackers are just as willing to attack a convoy with beefed up security because they are actually seeking martyrdom. They aren't. The majority of people attacking the convoys are not suicide bombers; they are fighters who would prefer to continue living. In general, the more security there is, the fewer attacks there will be.
Let's take your argument to its extreme. Imagine that the military were shipping uranium out instead of oil. Since it is so energy dense, 500 convoys of oil can be replaced with a single vehicle carrying uranium. Since there is now only one vehicle, the military can afford to put a whole tank regiment around it along with apache gunships overhead to deter attacks. Do you still think the insurgents would attack? Probably not, since they would obviously be slaughtered.
Finnish? Are they going to sue Linus Torvalds?
Actually, even a supervising parent is not enough to protect the kid from legal attack. From TFA:
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street"
- King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten
I find it bizarre that there is even a possibility that a 4 year old can be considered legally liable for "risky behavior such as running across a street". Children at 4 years old have not developed the mental capacity to properly judge the effects of their actions. Holding them personally legally liable is crazy. There are arguments to be made that the parent or a supervising adult may be liable for some failure, but holding the 4 year old liable is very odd. What punishment can there be? The child has no assets. Is taking the child away from the parents and into state custody warranted? If not, then what penalty will be enforced? Nevermind the fact that the child probably doesn't even remember the incident anymore and hence any punishment will be completely pointless.
The offended parties voluntarily read his comments of their own free will, which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
He used Facebook, The offended parties didn't choose to view his comments - by the time they saw the comments and knew what they were saying, it was too late to avoid them.
from a site which they do not own or administrate
So what? It is obviously possible to be grossly offended without owning or administrating a web site.
which isn't even located in a country governed by the laws which you described.
So what? The relevant laws govern sending grossly offensive messages. Or do you think that a British citizen should be deemed to be acting outside of British law when he uses a foreign web site? That viewing or trading incredbily offensive material (e.g. child porn) would suddenly not be a crime in Britain solely when done on a foreign web site?
And anyway, your argument is irrelevant because Facebook already does do business in the UK, and is therefore subject to UK law.
Everyone on 4chan will be screwed.
The vast majority of 4chan users do not harass members of the general public in a criminal manner.
It's about the possibility that the Chinese could find a vulnerability in the operating system that could be exploited, or get a better read on what the listening capabilities of the sigint gear is, which means knowing what you need to do to better avoid it.
To your first point - I seriously doubt that the NSA wrote a new operating system from scratch after the Chinese got a copy of the binary of the existing OS. What are they going to do, keep writing a new operating system every time someone gets a copy of the old one? At 50 million lines of code, and a cost of $850 per LOC (NASA is $850 per LOC, and the NSA's code is just as sensitive as NASA's and will have similar development process and associated costs), that would be $42.5 billion. That's crazy. So I would assume that the "new" OS is just an upgrade of the existing one, which will have the same undiscovered bugs.
And to the second point - that the Chinese will be able to learn how to avoid the intelligence gathering - the OS is not really important here. Since they have all of the hardware and software the Chinese are going to be able to figure it out. Changing the OS isn't going to stop them or even slow them down, since the actual hardware and algorithms for monitoring won't be significantly changed.
The article quotes Richard Clarke on a hypothetical Chinese cyber attack:
Within a quarter of an hour, 157 major metropolitan areas have been thrown into knots by a nationwide power blackout hitting during rush hour. Poison gas clouds are wafting toward Wilmington and Houston. Refineries are burning up oil supplies in several cities. Subways have crashed in New York, Oakland, Washington, and Los Angeles. . . . Aircraft are literally falling out of the sky as a result of midair collisions across the country. . . . Several thousand Americans have already died.
Firstly, China isn't going to attack the U.S. - going to war with one of your largest trading partners and a nuclear armed state would be stupid. But if China were to wage war on the U.S. then the deaths of a few thousand people and the associated chaos would be chickenfeed compared to the effects of nukes raining down on American cities. I wonder whether this kind of alarmism is meant purely to scare people into accepting increased defence spending, or whether the people at the top honestly believe what they are saying?
The Navy’s experts didn’t believe that China was capable of reverse-engineering the plane’s N.S.A.-supplied operating system, estimated at between thirty and fifty million lines of computer code, according to a former senior intelligence official. Mastering it would give China a road map for decrypting the Navy’s classified intelligence and operational data.
If China had reverse-engineered the EP-3E’s operating system, all such systems in the Navy would have to be replaced, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. After much discussion, several current and former officials said, this was done.
This makes no sense. Compromise of the OS binary meant that a new operating system had to be somehow created, and every system had to be reinstalled? I can't understand why compromise of a single system led to every other system being vulnerable - that would be a gaping security hole.
False. It may have been true at one time, but even Sarah Palin is pro-decriminalization, if not outright legalization
She said "If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot". Her position appears to be aligned with those that think the growers and supply lines should be illegal, and police should continue to target those, but not target individuals smoking a joint in their own homes. There are huge problems with that approach, as it leaves the supply side under the control of criminals.
I think what you mean is "Republican politicians".
Maybe. Libertarian thoughts and liberal social attitudes are becoming more mainstream in conservative society. The world is changing, and attitudes towards cannabis are softening, but this conservative response is still quite typical.
"conservatives" (and more specifically libertarians)
Libertarians are generally socially liberal. You might call them fiscally conservative, but I'd hesitate to call them plain old "conservative" - for example, conservatives are strongly against gay marriage, whilst libertarians are pro-gay marriage due to their stance that a minimal government shouldn't regulate consensual marriage.
you'd ban Gandhi from speaking, because his words were inflammatory and could have caused violence, even though he was explicitly pacifistic.
This is a strawman argument, since I never mentioned banning anything. Besides, banning is quite often counterproductive - attempts to ban Nazi speech in Germany enables them to play the "we are the victims" card. On the other hand, maybe it does help prevent the rise of another Hitler? Who knows? It is impossible to tell one way or the other...
The solution to these problems is better education and knowledge for the general population. People need to learn to ignore those who would manipulate them into feeling angry and emotional, and instead maintain a rational and reasoned level of debate.
Along with explicitly saying, repeatedly, that violence is never an answer and that his vision for "restoring" America is not an armed revolution. Yes. Classic.
Yes, and Miron Cristea was a holy man who never explicitly called for Jews to be murdered. Overtly preach peace, fan the flames of conflict, and stand back. High profile people ranting against others in such a hateful and aggressive manner has an effect even when the call is not directly to violence.
Maybe you have heard of Byron Williams, who is facing four counts of attempted murder after being intercepted on his way to carry out a massacre at the liberal Tides Foundation? As that article says, "it's not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by his fans, he would do well to stop encouraging extremists" and "It's not that Beck is directly advocating violence... but he's giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe."
That about sums it up. And this isn't even a left-wing position:
"It is important that everyone in public life, whether on the right or on the left, realize that words have consequences." - Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, senior Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
"The Becks of the world are people who are venting their opinions and it is inflammatory, it generates a lot of emotion and generates in some people overreaction that apparently happened in the California case," - Rich Roberts of the International Union of Police Associations
1) That's the least-useful Wikipedia page I've ever seen. It doesn't even discuss proposed methodologies for implementing its subject - it just has an extremely short definition.
3) ... I'm curious to see how you're going to get the RFID chip to cough up enough information to verify that it knows the private key, without giving away enough information to allow key determination through heuristic analysis anyway. ..
Yes the Wikipedia article is a bit short, hopefully someone will fix it. I highly recommend Applied Cryptography as a good starter that will cover the information you're looking for.
Because he called for a civil war? Or are you just repeating what you think he said? I'm curious why you believe that, other than typical DRD4 soft-headedness.
Glenn Beck: Democrats are vampires "going after the blood of our businesses... Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers."
Miron Cristea: "The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them."
It is difficult to not read those two quotes in the same light - the implication of the message is quite clear - that a certain group of people are a threat to you and your way of life, and it is up to you to do something about it. It is the classic strategy of identifying an "enemy", telling the people how bad that enemy is and what atrocities they are committing, and then standing back and watching what happens.
Give a logical reasoning test to subjects and correlate with political affiliation.
Here's an interesting one. Alcohol ranks higher than cannabis on all measures of harm to both oneself and society at large. Logically, if the aim of drugs policy is as stated - to minimise the harm that drugs cause - then either both drugs should be treated the same (legal/illegal) or cannabis should be legal and alcohol illegal. That is the only logical result given the stated premise for drug control (a premise that appears to be accepted by the population at large). Conservatives are generally opposed to legalising cannabis. Liberals are generally supportive of legalising cannabis. Which is the more logical in this case?
after reading the title, that is exactly what i was hoping for.
Awesome, let's make everyone exactly the same! I, for one, welcome our new heterosexual, uniform-skin-toned, drugs-and-alcohol-hating, women-should-be-in the-home-not-working, lets-pretend-the-world-never-changes population! </sarcasm>
Actually, it seems you should've read the article:
people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average
So, according to the hypothesis, liberals seek out novelty and challenges, have more friends, and gain more life experience. Those are generally acknowledged as positive traits - maybe the true genetic flaw is in those who lack a copy of this specific gene variant? Anyway, interesting to see this follow on from similar news in 2008.
This seems silly; any transfer from any flight inside of the US doesn't require this step as long as you are still in a secured area. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
Schipol Airport @ Amsterdam does the same. It makes some sense to just security check everyone regardless. The main problem with the trust model is transitive relationships - you trust Korea, Korea trusts Abu Dhabi, AD trusts Cairo. Now you have people being security checked at Cairo and able to travel through Korea and into Europe/U.S. It exposes the entirety of the trust network to failures at the weakest point.
I am against security theatre. I am also against executives of companies that must pay for security measures crying that those measures cost too much to implement. Any effectiveness review should be carried out by independent experts rather than the companies that stand to gain the most financially by relaxing security.
Yet the TSA won't let me take a bit of juice or water through security? What a crock.
I never understood why people are so annoyed by not being able to take a drink through security. You can buy a multitude of drinks on the other side, everything from hot coffee to litre bottles of vodka. You can also fill up water for free from fountains or taps in the bathroom. Why is it such a big deal, that annoys so many people, that you can't take your own drink through? A couple of dollars added onto the cost of a flight to buy a drink isn't that much.
Easy, just scan people as they walk by, record their numbers and get yourself an adjustable implant. You could change identities whenever you please. That is probably the easiest to spoof of all.
Zero-knowledge password proof. We've had the technology for several decades to implement systems where mutual authentication can take place without exposing private keys or passwords.
There really aren't.
Human beings manage to identify each other pretty well based on previous knowledge, often only visual information. As technology advances the technology to uniquely identify people will become more accurate. And more importantly - and a fact that a lot of people miss - the system doesn't need to be perfect, it only needs to be more accurate than the system that it replaces. For example passports - a unique chip ID+personal knowledge+biometric is a more accurate form of authentication than a photograph and some minimum wage guy comparing it to the holder's face several thousand times a day. I can see why people find biology based authentication intrusive, and celebrate when it fails in situations like this, but it's a small victory in a rather irrelevant environment. The technology to uniquely identify and authenticate an individual is going to get better, and it is going to become harder for the average person to forge and use an alternative identity.
Many places do buy and use Redhat, but guess how many Centos servers they would also have installed and used.
Exactly. I personally know of at least two organisations that are using customised CentOS platforms. One has >1000 servers, the other a couple of thousand servers and desktops. Both have full time support teams, neither pay for any outside support. Based on what I have seen, the number of commercial support licenses sold by Red Hat and the rest of them is a very inaccurate indicator of actual deployments.
One of the definitions of "costume" is something like "The garment worn by an actor to depict a certain character in a particular period" or an "actor's stage clothing".
I was actually a little disappointed when I saw one of the Darth Vader suits in real life. In the movies it looks awesome, but in real life you can see that it doesn't look realistic at all. The pack on the front of the belt was the most obvious flaw - it looks like a bit of cardboard painted matte black with red circles painted on it that are meant to be buttons. The other bits of "electronics" look equally as tacky unfortunately. The materials bill was probably only a few hundred dollars. Yes, I know it's what it was used for that makes it valuable, but I can't help but feel that for $300k you'd be able to build your own Darth Vader suit kitted out with loads of electronics that was actually fun to mess around with, rather than having an investment piece that you'll want to preserve rather than use.
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes.
It's not a strawman - there have been many claims that "the world is not warming", although it does seem to be a less popular position today than in the past. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Position: Global warming is not occurring
It is just as modular as any other OS now-- they just don't provide the users the opportunity to change the shell or other components.
The iPhone is just as open as any other device now -- they just don't provide the users the opportunity to change the applications or other components.
"whose grandfather happened to be the surgeon to accidentally slice open the H.M. skull in the first place"
The surgery was no accident - it was a planned procedure that the doctors (correctly) thought would stop the epileptic seizures that H.M. was experiencing.
. The only difference with meego is that the standard userland is already there, but nothing stopping you from installing what you need on android.
The major difference is that Android does not have Xorg. Every graphical Linux app will run on Meego. Try running a GTK or QT app on Android?
why would you want to install ruby on a phone?
For the same reasons that we used to install BASIC on computers running at only a few MHz. Not all applications require high performance C code.