Further, your non-story is about anomalous traffic they couldn't explain, so out of an abundance of caution they forced everyone to change their master passwords. Hardly a smoking gun.
That doesn't explain why certain people immediately start derping about Al Gore the instant global warming is brought up, as in they're the first to mention it. It's just a derailing tactic.
I want you to quit externalizing the costs of your cheap polluting energy onto the rest of us. You should have to pay for the damage coal does vs. cleaner forms of energy like natural gas or fission instead of making your grandkids' generation suffer.
Why do anti-enviros keep bringing up Al Gore instead of focusing on the issues? It's like you'd rather make childish personal attacks instead of trying to solve the problem, and that's sad.
People who advocate giving money to "the poor" and "disadvantaged" do not give their own to the poor and disadvantged -- they just get other people to do it
Because if I gave a little extra each month to the "poor and disadvantaged" it'd be pissing in the wind, no matter how much I give - there are simply too many of them. If we raise taxes to pay for helping the poor and disadvantaged (or even if we force employers to pay a living wage and not be subsidized by their employees taking government aid) it'll make an actual difference.
Nice strawman, though.
When will people just open their eyes? I just wonder at what point the common drones out there will begin to notice.
Wake up sheeple! Come on, that's the most stereotypical fringe libertarian saying ever.
Why do anti-enviros keep bringing up Al Gore instead of focusing on the issues? It's like you'd rather make childish personal attacks instead of trying to solve the problem, and that's sad.
I am an old fashioned "greenie", I believe in science based policy, I've never understood why people think that means I should shiver in the dark waiting for a clean energy utopia arrives?
Because if they can strawman your argument, they think it means they can ignore you instead of addressing the issues. It comes down to tribalism (us vs. them), denial, and not wanting to change their lifestyles and/or pay more taxes.
I tried setting up the above VM with VirtualBox a couple years back and it kept having problems with the mass-storage emulation; it would get so far in the boot sequence and then freeze. IIRC it happened with both IDE and SCSI.
I've gotten Debian 2.2 to run reasonably well in VMware Player. Network and SCSI worked pretty well, don't think the sound did due to a missing driver, and I had to do some work to make X use the VESA framebuffer:
0) In lilo.conf, add "vga=791" (or another value) to the kernel invocation. May have had to compile a kernel with fbdev first. 1) install the xserver-fbdev package 2) copy/usr/share/doc/xserver-fbdev/examples/XF86Config.fbdev to/etc/X11/XF86Config. 3) edit XF86Config to reflect the color depth chosen in the vga= stanza in lilo.conf; with vga=791 it's 16 bits. 4) Same file, edit mouse information to reflect what VMware provides (device is/dev/gpmdata (I have gpm installed, otherwise probably/dev/psaux) and protocol is Microsoft). 5) Edit/etc/X11/Xserver and replace first line with the path to the FBDev X server, e.g. "/usr/bin/X11/XF86_FBDev".
Now you should have a functioning X desktop, assuming you installed the packages. It won't be fast, since it's just the VESA framebuffer, but it's probably the best you can get with VMware and the ancient XFree86 stack in Debian 2.2.
Note that the VMware guest utilities will/not/ work.
The F-86 was developed before the MiG-15 entered combat service. The only thing the MiG did to the Sabre was make the Air Force deploy it quicker because the MiG spanked everything else the Air Force had.
Likewise the MiG-21 and F-4; the F-4 was developed not specifically because of the Fishbed, but because the Navy (and later the Air Force) wanted a modern fighter and it happened that the Fishbed and Phantom were the most modern fighters each side had in Vietnam; they weren't even the same class of airplane: the MiG-21 was a small, fast light fighter/interceptor and the F-4 a big, heavy do-everything fighter-bomber/interceptor, just as the F-16 and Su-27 were in different classes.
I'm not convinced that a bouncing bomb would have been all that effective against ships. The delivering aircraft still has to be close to the target, flying straight, low, and at a certain airspeed, and it's an unguided bomb so there's still a decent chance of a miss (several bombs missed the German dams, for instance). We had other planes that attacked low-and-slow; they were torpedo bombers and fell out of use after 1945 due to being excessively vulnerable to flak during their low, slow and straight attack runs.
In any case, we already had a fairly similar and effective attack method: skip bombing, which works with conventional bombs.
Some people aren't intelligent enough to understand that things are complicated and there are no simple answers, no one thing to blame for our problems. Those people tend to be teabaggers.
Slashdot Mirror
Was Bush smart enough to know he was lying?
It's certainly possible that some rebels used to be in the Ukrainian military and were trained on SAMs.
Further, your non-story is about anomalous traffic they couldn't explain, so out of an abundance of caution they forced everyone to change their master passwords. Hardly a smoking gun.
You are probably an idiot.
Pfft. You seem to think Slashdot stories have any credibility, or that a vulnerability from three years ago still matters.
You're adorable.
Using a password manager with one strong master password + randomly-generated passwords unique to each website is better.
That said, the linked paper is long and math-heavy, so I rate it likely the submitter (and the "editor") misunderstood something.
That doesn't explain why certain people immediately start derping about Al Gore the instant global warming is brought up, as in they're the first to mention it. It's just a derailing tactic.
I want you to quit externalizing the costs of your cheap polluting energy onto the rest of us. You should have to pay for the damage coal does vs. cleaner forms of energy like natural gas or fission instead of making your grandkids' generation suffer.
Why do anti-enviros keep bringing up Al Gore instead of focusing on the issues? It's like you'd rather make childish personal attacks instead of trying to solve the problem, and that's sad.
People who advocate giving money to "the poor" and "disadvantaged" do not give their own to the poor and disadvantged -- they just get other people to do it
Because if I gave a little extra each month to the "poor and disadvantaged" it'd be pissing in the wind, no matter how much I give - there are simply too many of them. If we raise taxes to pay for helping the poor and disadvantaged (or even if we force employers to pay a living wage and not be subsidized by their employees taking government aid) it'll make an actual difference.
Nice strawman, though.
When will people just open their eyes? I just wonder at what point the common drones out there will begin to notice.
Wake up sheeple! Come on, that's the most stereotypical fringe libertarian saying ever.
Why do anti-enviros keep bringing up Al Gore instead of focusing on the issues? It's like you'd rather make childish personal attacks instead of trying to solve the problem, and that's sad.
As long as it's cheap
You mean, as long as you can externalize the downsides on everyone else and not pay for them up front.
I am an old fashioned "greenie", I believe in science based policy, I've never understood why people think that means I should shiver in the dark waiting for a clean energy utopia arrives?
Because if they can strawman your argument, they think it means they can ignore you instead of addressing the issues. It comes down to tribalism (us vs. them), denial, and not wanting to change their lifestyles and/or pay more taxes.
How much is Israel spending, though, and how much of Iron Dome's cost is borne by American foreign aid?
Why? Nobody reads them anyway.
I tried setting up the above VM with VirtualBox a couple years back and it kept having problems with the mass-storage emulation; it would get so far in the boot sequence and then freeze. IIRC it happened with both IDE and SCSI.
Win98SE works a lot better in VMware Player because VirtualBox doesn't have guest utilities for such an old OS.
I've gotten Debian 2.2 to run reasonably well in VMware Player. Network and SCSI worked pretty well, don't think the sound did due to a missing driver, and I had to do some work to make X use the VESA framebuffer:
0) In lilo.conf, add "vga=791" (or another value) to the kernel invocation. May have had to compile a kernel with fbdev first. /usr/share/doc/xserver-fbdev/examples/XF86Config.fbdev to /etc/X11/XF86Config. /dev/gpmdata (I have gpm installed, otherwise probably /dev/psaux) and protocol is Microsoft). /etc/X11/Xserver and replace first line with the path to the FBDev X server, e.g. "/usr/bin/X11/XF86_FBDev".
1) install the xserver-fbdev package
2) copy
3) edit XF86Config to reflect the color depth chosen in the vga= stanza in lilo.conf; with vga=791 it's 16 bits.
4) Same file, edit mouse information to reflect what VMware provides (device is
5) Edit
Now you should have a functioning X desktop, assuming you installed the packages. It won't be fast, since it's just the VESA framebuffer, but it's probably the best you can get with VMware and the ancient XFree86 stack in Debian 2.2.
Note that the VMware guest utilities will /not/ work.
How many of those guys under you would be married if they had a normal 40-hour job? Pretty hard to meet a MOTAS if all your time is spent working.
The F-86 was developed before the MiG-15 entered combat service. The only thing the MiG did to the Sabre was make the Air Force deploy it quicker because the MiG spanked everything else the Air Force had.
Likewise the MiG-21 and F-4; the F-4 was developed not specifically because of the Fishbed, but because the Navy (and later the Air Force) wanted a modern fighter and it happened that the Fishbed and Phantom were the most modern fighters each side had in Vietnam; they weren't even the same class of airplane: the MiG-21 was a small, fast light fighter/interceptor and the F-4 a big, heavy do-everything fighter-bomber/interceptor, just as the F-16 and Su-27 were in different classes.
I'm not convinced that a bouncing bomb would have been all that effective against ships. The delivering aircraft still has to be close to the target, flying straight, low, and at a certain airspeed, and it's an unguided bomb so there's still a decent chance of a miss (several bombs missed the German dams, for instance). We had other planes that attacked low-and-slow; they were torpedo bombers and fell out of use after 1945 due to being excessively vulnerable to flak during their low, slow and straight attack runs.
In any case, we already had a fairly similar and effective attack method: skip bombing, which works with conventional bombs.
Some people aren't intelligent enough to understand that things are complicated and there are no simple answers, no one thing to blame for our problems. Those people tend to be teabaggers.
Despite John Ringo's alarmist fantasies, no.
That's extremely short-sighted. Eventually the economy wins because we have less of the pollution and other environmental damage from coal.
Austrian-school economics isn't evidence-based, so he doesn't care.
Sorry, no. That's a conspiracy theory website.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...