It's a genre of music, like "Rock 'n Roll", "Easy Listening", "Alternative", "Country", "Rap", etc. What you listed off were sub-catagories or sub-genres in the genre of Techno. All of these genres have hundreds of sub-genres, but they all have a similar basic style. For example, you're not likely at all to hear "electronic sounds" in Easy Listening music. There is some blending going on creating new sub-genres or cross-genres that mix Techno sounds with other genres like Country or Rap, but the primary sound is still that of the original genre.
BTW, when I think of techno, personally, I think of mixed music (i.e. not performed live) with a fast or heavy beat and digital sounds or otherwise electronicly altered sound. There is probably some Techno that would hit me way out of left field with that definition, but you can usually place it when you hear it. Same with all other genres of music.:)
Does that help? We just like to organize things more conveniently, that's all.
You can't build on it either, without accounting for the fact that your structures will sink during summer thaw (even deep pilings may not suffice).
That's bull, we can build massive million+ ton floating drill rigs with only limited attachments that are stable enough to suck oil through a straight pipe for thousands of feet out in the middle of the ocean. If we can do that, a stable domicile on a mushy bog is absurdly simple.
Piling tech is even fine, build the pilings long enough to hit bedrock and you won't sink. Ever. Unless you weren't paying attention and built on a fault line, then it could sink if the earth decided to swallow it up.
Don't confuse impracticality/laziness with impossibility. It doesn't even take an engineer to work out how to build a decent structure in a bog. People do it all the time in other places.
Logical error, your conclusion is not valid. It does not follow that Slashdot editors are people just because they are stupid.
A valid conclusion could be made with the following statement: People are stupid > Slashdot editors are people > Slashdot editors are stupid.
The reverse of that (which was not stated and so cannot be assumed) would be: Those who are stupid are people > Slashdot editors are stupid > Slashdot editors are people.
You cannot conclude anything from People are stupid > Slashdot editors are stupid. There is not enough information to make a valid conclusion about Slashdot editors beyond that they are stupid. It is nothing more than a correlation.
You could "fix" the problem by adding the word "only" to the premis, as follows: Only people are stupid > Slashdot editors are stupid > Slashdot editors are people.
That would be valid, but it also requires you to change the premis slightly to make it so.
I've got ya'll beat, I live in Anchorage Alaska, pop density 63/km2.
We have bus transit that isn't useless, but getting it to work for you will take some strategery. No metro or light rail, the railroad here is useless for everything but tourism and cargo (both of which are excellent, btw).
It's better than nothing, but Anchorage is over 1900sq miles and the bus system only covers about half.
Buses have these cool things on them called bike racks.
See, you can take a bicycle, strap it to the front of the bus, and then get on and ride! It's amazing!
Then, you can get off the bus, and grab your bike!
Pretty cool eh?
I tried biking to work once, the ride itself was great, a lot more pleasant than I expected, and even marginally faster than driving. However, my bike sucked, so the mechanics of riding were annoying at best, and I did not continue.
Now I commute 857 miles to work, so riding or driving are not an option.
Though I do know a few guys who commute several thousand miles to work.
Holy Crap! Are you telling me you can bike 50 miles in 20 minutes?
That's gotta be busting the world record wide open, that's what, 150 miles an hour?
You're amazing dude!!
What's that? Your commute bears no relation to the parent's 50 mile (1 way) commute? Oh really?
Pay attention man, even doing 25mph that's an hour bike ride, one way. While it might get him to work faster than his car, and about the same as his train, that's a pretty brutal daily ride for most people.
Plus, you'll destroy your bike in no time flat riding 500 miles a week. That's a lot for a bike to handle.
Luckily the Parent can take the train, and it probably costs less per month than bike riding gear/maintenance and certainly less than driving costs. Unfortunately for some people neither option is tenable.
You've missed the point. And while you apparently read part of the article, you didn't read all of it obviously.
That or you have no idea what Data is worth. Why do you think these guys are in this business?
The data on your machine is worth anywhere from about as much as the hardware, up to 1000+ times as much as the hardware, depending on how much cash you have in your bank account.
What this trojan did was "nuke" the OS. If it did its job well enough the fix won't be as easy as popping in a recovery disk (if you've still got it) to fix it, though a recovery partition aught to get you back to square one at least.
Depending on who got hit, getting their PC up and running could take anywhere from a few hours (unlikely, since that person probably runs AV software and is careful about where they visit), to a few days, to weeks depending on how often they use the machine.
If the whole point in tanking the OS was buy time to use stolen credit card and account info, it would be pretty effective, no?
Frankly, if all they did was somehow manage to short out the hardware without stealing any data, then it's not really much of a loss at all. Losing $50k out of your bank account, now that's a serious loss.
Most (and by most, I mean the vast majority) wireless networks don't use WPA2, which has yet to be broken (beyond brute force, which can be mitigated). Even worse than that, the last statistic I heard was that most networks that are secured are secured with WEP key encryption (couldn't find a recent stat, but most networks I see are WEP or WPA/TKIP). WEP is so breakable, it's about as bad as taking the front door of your house down and then putting up a sign that says "Un-authorized access prohibited" in place of it. It's rediculously insecure.
WEP has been insecure for years, and WPA PSK and WPA/WPA2 TKIP have both been broken, how long will WPA2's AES encryption hold out? It's already breakable with brute force, it just takes a while, and the only real defense is a long, complex key. How long until that is untenable? Or some flaw in the implementation itself is found?
In the building I work in, you wouldn't get past #3.
Most companies worth stealing data from also have security professionals, not receptionists, in front of the elevators. Furthermore, many companies use encrypted badging access systems (my company does this). No badge, no access.
For example, with my company, if you have legitimate business then an employee with the sufficient credentials can vouch for you and you can recieve a temporary badge. For this badge you get specific access rights (i.e. only the floor you need to be on) for a temporary period of time. Usually not more than 8 hours, though with further verification you can be given up to a monthly badge. Not just anybody can vouch, and in fact most users have the same restrictions a visitor would have, i.e. access to only one floor. You get more if you require it and have managerial approval (the managers can't approve everything though).
You must use your badge to access the main elevators (which are the only access to any of the floors beyond the lobby), plus once you are on a floor it is walled off and you need your badge access to get in.
The people distributing the badges are well trained in social engineering techniques and would be tough to fool. They also don't break protocol, which means weasling is not an option. If they DO break protocol, they tend to get fired, so they really don't want to break protocol.
While it's not impossible to fool them and weasle in, it would be incredibly difficult. You'd basically have to get a job there first, and then you could get in. Did I mention they run thorough background checks for everybody? Yeah... good luck man.
All that said, your #3 is a hell of a lot harder than sitting in the parking lot with breaking encryption. Granted, if the company's devices are all up to date such that they have the option to use the latest encryption (some devices still can't use WPA), then for now you are safe. But as soon as that is broken (and it will be broken eventually, they haven't come up with a hack-proof scheme yet) you have gone from secure, to incredibly insecure.
With a wired network, it's fairly trivial to make it almost impossible to physicaly access the network with an unapproved device, without even enabling any encryption. Things like locked wiring cabinets and disabling unused ports (both standard practice), keeping separate areas on separate vlans, etc. Simple things that make it difficult to just "plug something in" and sniff the network. Turn on any kind of connection authentication, and you've suddenly got all the problems with breaking into a wireless network to deal with, in addition to the physical access problems of a non-encrypted network.
Wired networks are inherantly more secure than wireless, it is not possible for the most secure wired network to be less secure than the most secure wireless network. Sure, a wireless can be "above average", but I guarantee most wireless networks only use WEP or breakable WPA encryption, which automatically puts them in the "less secure than wired" category.
Basically, any network that you can weasle into with a nice suit and a smile, and then find an unguarded network drop, probably doesn't have incredibly sensitive information on its network anyway. That or you've found a cherry ripe for the picking: a company that doesn't value its data as it should.
I would say well implemented wireless networks are more secure than the average wired network.
So wireless only wins when you compare a well implimented network to a moderate to poorly implimented wired network? If we compare a well secured wired network - with encryption, strong authentication, no default settings, and all unused ports physically disabled, even the most secure wireless network doesn't come close to the security of the wired network. Even with high security it barely manages to match the security of a wired network, for the simple limitation of physical access. The weakest link for wireless is the physical access. Most wired networks don't have encryption and strong authentication because they don't NEED encryption and strong authentication because it is already sufficiently difficult to access. For those that require a step up, strong authentication is generally what is chosen, and is sufficient in 90% of cases. Wireless, however, requires very very strong encryption for even the most simple tasks because it is simply insecure by its very nature.
Every scheme is breakable, given enough time, effort, and cleverness. There are techniques which require no valid authentication at all, and attack physical limitations (like memory) of the hardware itself. Cheap equipment is especially vulnerable, but expensive equipment won't save you necessarily either.
That is why one of the primary principles of network security is to restrict physical access to the network. For wireless, all you can do is obfusticate the signal as much as possible with encryption techniques and authentication methodologies. That level of security isn't even required on 99% of networks, because they can be secured physically. It would be rather simple to impliment strong encryption and handshakes on a wired network if necessary though, and some very secure networks do.
Plus, the simple fact remains that vampire clamps and the like don't work on much more than co-ax, and the time it takes to splice Cat-5 or better should send alarm bells all throughout the system. Unused ports on switches and routers can be completely disabled, making hacking such a device impossible without re-setting it. If you've configured your device correctly it simply will not be able to access the network on a default configuration. So you've killed a network segment, and now alarm bells are going out all over the place...
It's absurd to say wireless could ever be as secure as wired, because every technology that can be used to secure a wireless signal is easily adapted to a wired signal, with all of the inherant wired advantages on top of that.
For an example, take two numbers: 100 and 0. Add 100 to each number 10 times and see which one is higher. The number that gets to start with 100 will always be higher than the one that starts at 0, no matter how much you add to it. Wired security gets to start at 100, where wireless is stuck at 0, and all the advances in wireless are easily added to wired.
See why wireless can never be secured more than wired can be?
Since the fastest runners in the world have reaction times in the 170-190ms range, and unofficially at least the fastest "clicks" are all above 100ms (I averaged 232ms myself, just below average), I'd doubt you could notice, let alone be affected by, a 10-50ms disparity.
And I'm not sure how you can say 2ms response time leads to a 50ms disparity anyway, that doesn't make sense. Hell, there was a 70ms difference between my slowest and fastest clicks, and I couldn't notice the difference. The tech to get the response times so low does tend to jack colors and produce some odd artifacts, but none of those relate to how quickly it displays the data on the screen, not as far as I've ever heard anyway. Since the color/artifacting issues are relevant, and since 15ms vs 2ms is not noticeable, it's better to pick a 15ms LCD anyway.
Plus, a frame will generally be displayed at least 10 times, if it is displaying at 15ms, before you can actually react to it. Again, the response time argument for not going LCD is tired and nearly worthless.
The problem is probably just that you've been reading weird crap about LCDs, and haven't used them much yourself. Most likely to keep from justifying an upgrade.
Actually, if you really want to prove me wrong (and find out for yourself if the LCD response time is really the issue), go to Humanbenchmark.com and compare your OWN clicks on a CRT with your OWN clicks on an LCD. I'm assuming you have access to one, of course, but it shouldn't be hard to get access to one anyway.
I'm betting there is less than a 5ms difference in your 10 click averages.
Still takes up a friggin desk all on its own, too.
Man those things sucked, you had to make sure your desk was at least 5 feet deep, and that was just so you could have a little room to rest your wrists in front of the keyboard!!
Or you could put it to the side, but you don't want to know how bad that is for ergonomics.
OTOH, I do know of a case where someone put a 24" LCD in a very cramped area (short desk, and no room to move back). They had to swap it with a smaller one, because there faces were about a foot away from the screen and couldn't use it.
First they fly a 747 over NYC with F-16's, then they post a 9/11 coloring book on the FEMA website? Who the hell looks for coloring books on the FEMA website???
You've got it backwards, they posted the book 6 years ago, THEN were frickin retards and buzzed the tops of buildings in Manhattan with a 747 and some fighter jets.
It doesn't matter, I have often spent hours arguing point by point various social science issues.
I dunno, maybe if you informed yourself about the issues you were arguing you might have better luck? I'm just saying...
And google, as most IT professionals will tell you, is so useful for finding accurate information* it's almost obscene. There are a number of professional resources online, many free to the public, from which one can gleen useful, and trustworthy, information.
*Caveat: you have to know how to recognize a reliable source, and unless you are certain about the source - like getting info about microsoft products from microsoft.com - you should always use multiple references. Oddly enough, that's exactly the same principle as normal research. Funny that.
I am aware of Art Therapy. I was referring more specifically to the FEMA colouring book though.
Wouldn't the coloring book be Art Therapy? I'm not sure I follow you on that one.
I am not aware that children who have lived in New York during 9/11 are the only people who have access to this coloring book.
They've got this new invention, it's only been around about 100 years now. It's called a TeeVee, TV for short. Through the magic of the TV and news media, millions of kids saw the 9/11 attacks. I myself, thousands of miles away, watched them fall.
I would easilly wager hundreds of thousands, if not a million or two, children saw the planes hit those towers and watched them fall. Do you think none of them were traumatized? Furthermore, the book was not about 9/11, it was about "Bad Things". You may have noted the title: "Bad Things Happen". It gives it away. 9/11 was mentioned, but it was by no means a book targeted at children who had been traumatized by 9/11 specifically. It was for kids who had been through, or were affected by, a major tragedy. Most ANY major tragedy, pretty much all the natural disasters were covered too.
Beliefs are fine and dandy, but evidence and proof is necessary for people who don't live on Faith alone.
All of science is based on a belief, or hypothesis of some kind. As it developes, it becomes a theory, or framework which explains reality. The theory holds until it is proven wrong, or a more accurate theory is developed. Since there are no perfect theories, they are all proven wrong eventually, or at least inadequate. Even Newtonian calculus, which held for a couple hundred years and is adequate for most applications today, has been proven incorrect. So don't attempt to invalidate a modern therapudic technique because it's "just a theory". You are revealing your ignorance when you do.
Lastly:
Though I think the book has been published many years too late for it to be of any benefit.
The book was published six years ago, the 9/11/2001 was less than eight years ago. So, 4-7 year olds at the time of the attack were too young to have been traumatized by the event, and perhaps receive some benefit from the coloring book? I'd like to see some of your precious evidence that shows four year olds can't be traumatized!!
You are ignorant on the subject, and you clearly do not wish to educate yourself. If you did, you might have to alter your opinion, so that obviously won't happen.
FEMA shouldn't be directly responding to public opinion at ALL, especially if there is evidence this helps children who have been through a traumatic event. I'd probably be of the opposite if it were something that offended me, but it should go both ways in that case.
And that's who it was for, not mentally healthy children, but kids who went through trauma. Specifically large "mass" traumas like a houses or apartment buildings burning down, a hurricane, a tornado, or a terrorist attack that destroyed 2 buildings and 3 thousand people. I don't even think they mentioned terrorists, they just called it a "bad thing that happened", and a kid who was affected by the event would recognize it.
BTW I do statistical and probabilistic analysis in a hedge fund...
Oh, so according to Nassim Taleb, you're one of the guys we should be blaming for the housing crash? You know, for improperly applying financial algorithms in a situation that has inherent (and significant) statistical uncertainty?
because it looked like a 2 year old drew it? I dunno, I read through it, and it was pretty shitty. I can't exactly "draw" per se, but I feel confident that I could re-do that coloring book in about 10 minutes at a much much higher quality.
That said, 9/11 and the Twin Towers could hardly be considered a primary concern of the book. It focused more on burning houses, to be honest. The terrorist attack was simply a "bad thing" among many of the "bad things" that happen. It certainly didn't take them more than 5-10 minutes to produce, and apparently it has been up for a while. Maybe they just figured they'd, you know, include those thousands of kids who lost family members in the WTC terrist attack, plus you know, the millions of kids who saw it over and over again on TV that day.
It wasn't "teaching about terrorists" or any BS like that, it was for helping kids who had been traumetized deal with it. The appropriate response for someone who doesn't feel that is appropriate for their child is to not give it to their child, not get it pulled from the website. At that point you're being childish, and might need to use the coloring book yourself to work through your trauma.
It's a 20 some odd page coloring book with 2 or 3 pages related to 9/11. The rest were related to houses burning, floods, hurricanes, tornados, etc. I don't know if you remember or not, but some guys flew into a coulple buildings a few years ago and tens of thousands were impacted (friends and relatives of the 3,000 who died). That makes the subject worth talking about in my mind.
Furthermore, this was a coloring book to help kids deal with traumatic experiences.
A kid who has not had any traumatic experiences would get nothing out of it.
Why the hell you would give it to a kid who had no traumatic experiences is beyond me.
Plus the drawing was terrible, I mean, I could do better in about 20 mins, and I can't draw.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, it's kinda funny but not really.
Don't need to, they're all Techno. ;)
It's a genre of music, like "Rock 'n Roll", "Easy Listening", "Alternative", "Country", "Rap", etc. What you listed off were sub-catagories or sub-genres in the genre of Techno. All of these genres have hundreds of sub-genres, but they all have a similar basic style. For example, you're not likely at all to hear "electronic sounds" in Easy Listening music. There is some blending going on creating new sub-genres or cross-genres that mix Techno sounds with other genres like Country or Rap, but the primary sound is still that of the original genre.
BTW, when I think of techno, personally, I think of mixed music (i.e. not performed live) with a fast or heavy beat and digital sounds or otherwise electronicly altered sound. There is probably some Techno that would hit me way out of left field with that definition, but you can usually place it when you hear it. Same with all other genres of music. :)
Does that help? We just like to organize things more conveniently, that's all.
You can't build on it either, without accounting for the fact that your structures will sink during summer thaw (even deep pilings may not suffice).
That's bull, we can build massive million+ ton floating drill rigs with only limited attachments that are stable enough to suck oil through a straight pipe for thousands of feet out in the middle of the ocean. If we can do that, a stable domicile on a mushy bog is absurdly simple.
Piling tech is even fine, build the pilings long enough to hit bedrock and you won't sink. Ever. Unless you weren't paying attention and built on a fault line, then it could sink if the earth decided to swallow it up.
Don't confuse impracticality/laziness with impossibility. It doesn't even take an engineer to work out how to build a decent structure in a bog. People do it all the time in other places.
Logical error, your conclusion is not valid. It does not follow that Slashdot editors are people just because they are stupid.
A valid conclusion could be made with the following statement: People are stupid > Slashdot editors are people > Slashdot editors are stupid.
The reverse of that (which was not stated and so cannot be assumed) would be: Those who are stupid are people > Slashdot editors are stupid > Slashdot editors are people.
You cannot conclude anything from People are stupid > Slashdot editors are stupid. There is not enough information to make a valid conclusion about Slashdot editors beyond that they are stupid. It is nothing more than a correlation.
You could "fix" the problem by adding the word "only" to the premis, as follows: Only people are stupid > Slashdot editors are stupid > Slashdot editors are people.
That would be valid, but it also requires you to change the premis slightly to make it so.
Cheers!
BTW, can I call myself a Logic Nazi?
I've got ya'll beat, I live in Anchorage Alaska, pop density 63/km2.
We have bus transit that isn't useless, but getting it to work for you will take some strategery. No metro or light rail, the railroad here is useless for everything but tourism and cargo (both of which are excellent, btw).
It's better than nothing, but Anchorage is over 1900sq miles and the bus system only covers about half.
Buses have these cool things on them called bike racks.
See, you can take a bicycle, strap it to the front of the bus, and then get on and ride! It's amazing!
Then, you can get off the bus, and grab your bike!
Pretty cool eh?
I tried biking to work once, the ride itself was great, a lot more pleasant than I expected, and even marginally faster than driving. However, my bike sucked, so the mechanics of riding were annoying at best, and I did not continue.
Now I commute 857 miles to work, so riding or driving are not an option.
Though I do know a few guys who commute several thousand miles to work.
Holy Crap! Are you telling me you can bike 50 miles in 20 minutes?
That's gotta be busting the world record wide open, that's what, 150 miles an hour?
You're amazing dude!!
What's that? Your commute bears no relation to the parent's 50 mile (1 way) commute? Oh really?
Pay attention man, even doing 25mph that's an hour bike ride, one way. While it might get him to work faster than his car, and about the same as his train, that's a pretty brutal daily ride for most people.
Plus, you'll destroy your bike in no time flat riding 500 miles a week. That's a lot for a bike to handle.
Luckily the Parent can take the train, and it probably costs less per month than bike riding gear/maintenance and certainly less than driving costs. Unfortunately for some people neither option is tenable.
Er, it did?
I'm not sure I follow where you're headed here...
And this was no idiot - she was a well trained, college/university graduated professional!
Just pointing out that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
Cheers!
You've missed the point. And while you apparently read part of the article, you didn't read all of it obviously.
That or you have no idea what Data is worth. Why do you think these guys are in this business?
The data on your machine is worth anywhere from about as much as the hardware, up to 1000+ times as much as the hardware, depending on how much cash you have in your bank account.
What this trojan did was "nuke" the OS. If it did its job well enough the fix won't be as easy as popping in a recovery disk (if you've still got it) to fix it, though a recovery partition aught to get you back to square one at least.
Depending on who got hit, getting their PC up and running could take anywhere from a few hours (unlikely, since that person probably runs AV software and is careful about where they visit), to a few days, to weeks depending on how often they use the machine.
If the whole point in tanking the OS was buy time to use stolen credit card and account info, it would be pretty effective, no?
Frankly, if all they did was somehow manage to short out the hardware without stealing any data, then it's not really much of a loss at all. Losing $50k out of your bank account, now that's a serious loss.
I prefer live theater, but it tends to be more expensive unless you go see the lower quality plays.
Most (and by most, I mean the vast majority) wireless networks don't use WPA2, which has yet to be broken (beyond brute force, which can be mitigated). Even worse than that, the last statistic I heard was that most networks that are secured are secured with WEP key encryption (couldn't find a recent stat, but most networks I see are WEP or WPA/TKIP). WEP is so breakable, it's about as bad as taking the front door of your house down and then putting up a sign that says "Un-authorized access prohibited" in place of it. It's rediculously insecure.
WEP has been insecure for years, and WPA PSK and WPA/WPA2 TKIP have both been broken, how long will WPA2's AES encryption hold out? It's already breakable with brute force, it just takes a while, and the only real defense is a long, complex key. How long until that is untenable? Or some flaw in the implementation itself is found?
In the building I work in, you wouldn't get past #3.
Most companies worth stealing data from also have security professionals, not receptionists, in front of the elevators. Furthermore, many companies use encrypted badging access systems (my company does this). No badge, no access.
For example, with my company, if you have legitimate business then an employee with the sufficient credentials can vouch for you and you can recieve a temporary badge. For this badge you get specific access rights (i.e. only the floor you need to be on) for a temporary period of time. Usually not more than 8 hours, though with further verification you can be given up to a monthly badge. Not just anybody can vouch, and in fact most users have the same restrictions a visitor would have, i.e. access to only one floor. You get more if you require it and have managerial approval (the managers can't approve everything though).
You must use your badge to access the main elevators (which are the only access to any of the floors beyond the lobby), plus once you are on a floor it is walled off and you need your badge access to get in.
The people distributing the badges are well trained in social engineering techniques and would be tough to fool. They also don't break protocol, which means weasling is not an option. If they DO break protocol, they tend to get fired, so they really don't want to break protocol.
While it's not impossible to fool them and weasle in, it would be incredibly difficult. You'd basically have to get a job there first, and then you could get in. Did I mention they run thorough background checks for everybody? Yeah... good luck man.
All that said, your #3 is a hell of a lot harder than sitting in the parking lot with breaking encryption. Granted, if the company's devices are all up to date such that they have the option to use the latest encryption (some devices still can't use WPA), then for now you are safe. But as soon as that is broken (and it will be broken eventually, they haven't come up with a hack-proof scheme yet) you have gone from secure, to incredibly insecure.
With a wired network, it's fairly trivial to make it almost impossible to physicaly access the network with an unapproved device, without even enabling any encryption. Things like locked wiring cabinets and disabling unused ports (both standard practice), keeping separate areas on separate vlans, etc. Simple things that make it difficult to just "plug something in" and sniff the network. Turn on any kind of connection authentication, and you've suddenly got all the problems with breaking into a wireless network to deal with, in addition to the physical access problems of a non-encrypted network.
Wired networks are inherantly more secure than wireless, it is not possible for the most secure wired network to be less secure than the most secure wireless network. Sure, a wireless can be "above average", but I guarantee most wireless networks only use WEP or breakable WPA encryption, which automatically puts them in the "less secure than wired" category.
Basically, any network that you can weasle into with a nice suit and a smile, and then find an unguarded network drop, probably doesn't have incredibly sensitive information on its network anyway. That or you've found a cherry ripe for the picking: a company that doesn't value its data as it should.
I would say well implemented wireless networks are more secure than the average wired network.
So wireless only wins when you compare a well implimented network to a moderate to poorly implimented wired network? If we compare a well secured wired network - with encryption, strong authentication, no default settings, and all unused ports physically disabled, even the most secure wireless network doesn't come close to the security of the wired network. Even with high security it barely manages to match the security of a wired network, for the simple limitation of physical access. The weakest link for wireless is the physical access. Most wired networks don't have encryption and strong authentication because they don't NEED encryption and strong authentication because it is already sufficiently difficult to access. For those that require a step up, strong authentication is generally what is chosen, and is sufficient in 90% of cases. Wireless, however, requires very very strong encryption for even the most simple tasks because it is simply insecure by its very nature.
Every scheme is breakable, given enough time, effort, and cleverness. There are techniques which require no valid authentication at all, and attack physical limitations (like memory) of the hardware itself. Cheap equipment is especially vulnerable, but expensive equipment won't save you necessarily either.
That is why one of the primary principles of network security is to restrict physical access to the network. For wireless, all you can do is obfusticate the signal as much as possible with encryption techniques and authentication methodologies. That level of security isn't even required on 99% of networks, because they can be secured physically. It would be rather simple to impliment strong encryption and handshakes on a wired network if necessary though, and some very secure networks do.
Plus, the simple fact remains that vampire clamps and the like don't work on much more than co-ax, and the time it takes to splice Cat-5 or better should send alarm bells all throughout the system. Unused ports on switches and routers can be completely disabled, making hacking such a device impossible without re-setting it. If you've configured your device correctly it simply will not be able to access the network on a default configuration. So you've killed a network segment, and now alarm bells are going out all over the place...
It's absurd to say wireless could ever be as secure as wired, because every technology that can be used to secure a wireless signal is easily adapted to a wired signal, with all of the inherant wired advantages on top of that.
For an example, take two numbers: 100 and 0. Add 100 to each number 10 times and see which one is higher. The number that gets to start with 100 will always be higher than the one that starts at 0, no matter how much you add to it. Wired security gets to start at 100, where wireless is stuck at 0, and all the advances in wireless are easily added to wired.
See why wireless can never be secured more than wired can be?
Since the fastest runners in the world have reaction times in the 170-190ms range, and unofficially at least the fastest "clicks" are all above 100ms (I averaged 232ms myself, just below average), I'd doubt you could notice, let alone be affected by, a 10-50ms disparity.
And I'm not sure how you can say 2ms response time leads to a 50ms disparity anyway, that doesn't make sense. Hell, there was a 70ms difference between my slowest and fastest clicks, and I couldn't notice the difference. The tech to get the response times so low does tend to jack colors and produce some odd artifacts, but none of those relate to how quickly it displays the data on the screen, not as far as I've ever heard anyway. Since the color/artifacting issues are relevant, and since 15ms vs 2ms is not noticeable, it's better to pick a 15ms LCD anyway.
Plus, a frame will generally be displayed at least 10 times, if it is displaying at 15ms, before you can actually react to it. Again, the response time argument for not going LCD is tired and nearly worthless.
The problem is probably just that you've been reading weird crap about LCDs, and haven't used them much yourself. Most likely to keep from justifying an upgrade.
Actually, if you really want to prove me wrong (and find out for yourself if the LCD response time is really the issue), go to Humanbenchmark.com and compare your OWN clicks on a CRT with your OWN clicks on an LCD. I'm assuming you have access to one, of course, but it shouldn't be hard to get access to one anyway.
I'm betting there is less than a 5ms difference in your 10 click averages.
Still takes up a friggin desk all on its own, too.
Man those things sucked, you had to make sure your desk was at least 5 feet deep, and that was just so you could have a little room to rest your wrists in front of the keyboard!!
Or you could put it to the side, but you don't want to know how bad that is for ergonomics.
OTOH, I do know of a case where someone put a 24" LCD in a very cramped area (short desk, and no room to move back). They had to swap it with a smaller one, because there faces were about a foot away from the screen and couldn't use it.
First they fly a 747 over NYC with F-16's, then they post a 9/11 coloring book on the FEMA website? Who the hell looks for coloring books on the FEMA website???
You've got it backwards, they posted the book 6 years ago, THEN were frickin retards and buzzed the tops of buildings in Manhattan with a 747 and some fighter jets.
I want to hear what Richard Stallman has to say about this.
I can tell you, he'd say "It doesn't use GPL, it doesn't give the source, it isn't FREE!! Burn the bitch I say! Ban it!"
Ok, I might have ad-libbed a little there...
It doesn't matter, I have often spent hours arguing point by point various social science issues.
I dunno, maybe if you informed yourself about the issues you were arguing you might have better luck? I'm just saying...
And google, as most IT professionals will tell you, is so useful for finding accurate information* it's almost obscene. There are a number of professional resources online, many free to the public, from which one can gleen useful, and trustworthy, information.
*Caveat: you have to know how to recognize a reliable source, and unless you are certain about the source - like getting info about microsoft products from microsoft.com - you should always use multiple references. Oddly enough, that's exactly the same principle as normal research. Funny that.
I am aware of Art Therapy. I was referring more specifically to the FEMA colouring book though.
Wouldn't the coloring book be Art Therapy? I'm not sure I follow you on that one.
I am not aware that children who have lived in New York during 9/11 are the only people who have access to this coloring book.
They've got this new invention, it's only been around about 100 years now. It's called a TeeVee, TV for short. Through the magic of the TV and news media, millions of kids saw the 9/11 attacks. I myself, thousands of miles away, watched them fall.
I would easilly wager hundreds of thousands, if not a million or two, children saw the planes hit those towers and watched them fall. Do you think none of them were traumatized? Furthermore, the book was not about 9/11, it was about "Bad Things". You may have noted the title: "Bad Things Happen". It gives it away. 9/11 was mentioned, but it was by no means a book targeted at children who had been traumatized by 9/11 specifically. It was for kids who had been through, or were affected by, a major tragedy. Most ANY major tragedy, pretty much all the natural disasters were covered too.
Beliefs are fine and dandy, but evidence and proof is necessary for people who don't live on Faith alone.
All of science is based on a belief, or hypothesis of some kind. As it developes, it becomes a theory, or framework which explains reality. The theory holds until it is proven wrong, or a more accurate theory is developed. Since there are no perfect theories, they are all proven wrong eventually, or at least inadequate. Even Newtonian calculus, which held for a couple hundred years and is adequate for most applications today, has been proven incorrect. So don't attempt to invalidate a modern therapudic technique because it's "just a theory". You are revealing your ignorance when you do.
Lastly:
Though I think the book has been published many years too late for it to be of any benefit.
The book was published six years ago, the 9/11/2001 was less than eight years ago. So, 4-7 year olds at the time of the attack were too young to have been traumatized by the event, and perhaps receive some benefit from the coloring book? I'd like to see some of your precious evidence that shows four year olds can't be traumatized!!
You are ignorant on the subject, and you clearly do not wish to educate yourself. If you did, you might have to alter your opinion, so that obviously won't happen.
FEMA shouldn't be directly responding to public opinion at ALL, especially if there is evidence this helps children who have been through a traumatic event. I'd probably be of the opposite if it were something that offended me, but it should go both ways in that case.
And that's who it was for, not mentally healthy children, but kids who went through trauma. Specifically large "mass" traumas like a houses or apartment buildings burning down, a hurricane, a tornado, or a terrorist attack that destroyed 2 buildings and 3 thousand people. I don't even think they mentioned terrorists, they just called it a "bad thing that happened", and a kid who was affected by the event would recognize it.
Yeah, I know, for real. That would be madness!
It's much better that they cut big businesses a check for Billions of dollars instead.
I'm WAY more comfortable with that.
Seriously...
BTW I do statistical and probabilistic analysis in a hedge fund...
Oh, so according to Nassim Taleb, you're one of the guys we should be blaming for the housing crash? You know, for improperly applying financial algorithms in a situation that has inherent (and significant) statistical uncertainty?
Ok, good to know.
because it looked like a 2 year old drew it? I dunno, I read through it, and it was pretty shitty. I can't exactly "draw" per se, but I feel confident that I could re-do that coloring book in about 10 minutes at a much much higher quality.
That said, 9/11 and the Twin Towers could hardly be considered a primary concern of the book. It focused more on burning houses, to be honest. The terrorist attack was simply a "bad thing" among many of the "bad things" that happen. It certainly didn't take them more than 5-10 minutes to produce, and apparently it has been up for a while. Maybe they just figured they'd, you know, include those thousands of kids who lost family members in the WTC terrist attack, plus you know, the millions of kids who saw it over and over again on TV that day.
It wasn't "teaching about terrorists" or any BS like that, it was for helping kids who had been traumetized deal with it. The appropriate response for someone who doesn't feel that is appropriate for their child is to not give it to their child, not get it pulled from the website. At that point you're being childish, and might need to use the coloring book yourself to work through your trauma.
Just a thought.
It's a 20 some odd page coloring book with 2 or 3 pages related to 9/11. The rest were related to houses burning, floods, hurricanes, tornados, etc. I don't know if you remember or not, but some guys flew into a coulple buildings a few years ago and tens of thousands were impacted (friends and relatives of the 3,000 who died). That makes the subject worth talking about in my mind.
Furthermore, this was a coloring book to help kids deal with traumatic experiences.
A kid who has not had any traumatic experiences would get nothing out of it.
Why the hell you would give it to a kid who had no traumatic experiences is beyond me.
Plus the drawing was terrible, I mean, I could do better in about 20 mins, and I can't draw.