From what I've heard that's mostly true. There are a number of 3 letter agencies that have been known to be so egotistical as to believe they are above the air gap requirements and actually run machines that cross that gap.
Besides which an air gap is not as full proof as one might think. Just look at what stuxnet managed to do to the Iranians nuclear program. And it would only take a single compromised person on whatever air gapped network to gather the datadumps and send them back to whatever party they work for. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one publisized account of malware being found on an airgapped system that seemingly couldn't be removed.
Whatever your technical measures and implementations, your security is always limited by the personnel using it. What percentage of people with clearances and access are turnable? It's impossible that it'd be zero, and even at a tenth of a percent it'd mean hundreds or thousands of compromised people and consequentially the networks they have access to.
All this ignores that classified information is often derivable from other non-classified sources.
No kidding! I actually watched the entire landing sequence because I kept expecting something to happen. But nope, just a slowly descending model of a space ship with dramatic background music. It was like one of those things you are supposed to stare at and then be startled when a screaming face flashes on the screen, but without the screaming face. And that scene stretched on for more than 5 minutes I think. If I had been watching it in the theatre I probably would have walked out.
I read and enjoyed the book but the movie was horrible.
Technically, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were never actually Ninjas. As we should all know from biology class, turtles are not mammals. And one of the few established facts about ninjas is that they are mammals.
Like the OP said this is much like the Xprize series of challenges and rewards. Most of the teams and companies competing for those prizes are spending considerably more than the prize money to try and win. The prize is just a PR trophy and a bit of funding aid.
I wouldn't advocate for a system like that being the sole source of federal dollars for fusion research. But there isn't any good reason to not consider adding it to what is already out there.
And as others have said there are a number of Material Science problems with Fusion that we need to work out before it becomes a viable power source. Setting goals/milestones and prizes for achieving those goals would only help the entire project along. At least so long as they don't kill the budgetting for the big research projects.
You might as well ask "How's that going to power my Aircraft Carrier?"
An the answer is the same. The turbine drives a generator which provides electricity. You then use the electricity to do any number of things including power your starship.
Listen here! You can't just go around using silly measurements like "mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza" This is/. and around here we use Libraries of Congress as the standard measure!
I actually kind of wish the DoJ would go after the porn industry. That way they'd be too busy to support the RIAA/MPAA and still get laughed out of court.
I've never heard of that, do you have any repuatable sources for that?
I can see where for drug sniffing dogs it'd be in the Police's interest to have a dog behave in such a way. But for bomb sniffing it'd be very counterproductive and even dangerous. And seeing as how it's just training the dog to different smells it is hard to imagine that drug dogs would be simply theatre.
The Cops don't usually get a kickback from the prison system. But they often do get to keep all of the confiscated property that they can get their hands on. Which is one of the reasons you'll see truckers get hassled more frequently, a trucker with a load of legal stuff and a couple ounces of drugs can net them hundreds of thousands of dollars in confiscated property.
That's not entirely true.
The phone records from his own cell phone account are fine, although the cops might have to request a copy themselves to be sure of their validity. And the person doing the detective work can testify about the things they found. Those things might not be able to be presented as evidence items themselves but they can still be testified about.
Not all hunting is about sitting in a blind or tree stand until a prey animal approaches. This device could be used as an aid in training stalking techniques, which is where the hunter goes out and tracks down the prey on foot. If you've studied up on sniper training you'd likely note that stalking a target is often the most difficult skill to learn and implement properly.
I think you missed the entire point of the article/summary. The Kill Shot camera is not about actually taking photos of animals you are going to actually kill. It's a camera disguised as a rifle used to take pictures of an animal you stalked well enough that you could have killed. It's basically a modern take on "counting coup". I imagine that it could cause stress in the animal being stalked if it were aware of the "hunter" but this can't get much further from pleasure killings/sport hunting.
My primary issue(s) with speeding and stoplight cameras is that they don't stop the dangerous activity when it is happening. In fact the negative reinforcement won't come until weeks later, provided it's even sent to the correct person. Because it generates no points on the license the only incentive not to break this law is a financial one. This can effectively make wealthy individuals immune to traffic laws enforced by camera.
Because these are counted as civil fines the standard for finding an offender guilty is much much lower. In a regular speeding case the ticket can be thrown out if the radar gun was not checked for calibration recently. And if there is any other kind of error in the process you won't even have a chance to address it until weeks or months after the fact. If there were some kind of mitigating factor at the time you'd better hope you can remember what it was and have documented proof weeks or months later.
Last year there was a story on the nightly news about people in some northern city getting tickets for running red lights. They were turning right on red from the wrong lane because the right turn lane was buried four feet deep in packed snow. The Cities solution was for each "offender" to contest the ticket in court, which made it painfully obvious that they didn't have an officer even reviewing the tickets before sending them out.
Which brings up that all too often these things are just a money grab by the local government. If they were really about safety then cities wouldn't be shutting them down when they aren't profitable anymore. The fines wouldn't be primarily made up of fees for this and that, paying off cronies. And they would be placed more frequently in areas that need enforcement for safety reasons instead of areas that are most profitable.
Changing the speed limits and light timings have been shown to actually be more effective safety measures both in terms of less accidents and cost to implement.
The realistic hazards of speeding are infinitely debatable. But those moral arguements are not really relevant to the parents post.
S/He is simply saying we should remove traffic fines as an incentive to the enforcing organization, which should be a pretty obvious ethics issue. By pushing those funds back to the regular tax paying citizens society benefits from strict enforcement both fiscally and through safer driving conditions.
My supporting anecdote being a small town near where I grew up. They wanted their own police department but couldn't afford it under ordinary budgetting constraints. So they set it up anyways and funded it entirely on traffic fines. This meant their officers were out there hiding behind the speed limit signs 24/7 to make sure their paycheck didn't bounce. This only worked because the speed limit was set lower than was warranted, 25 instead of 35 in a rural area. The whole scheme fell apart a years later when they ticketed the wrong guy, a lawyer familiar with traffic laws, he took them to the cleaners because they had actually lowered the speed limit on a state highway below it's legal lower bound without just cause. The town then bankrupted because it had to pay back every speeding fine it had collected I think for the last decade.
The funny thing is that this is what happened in LA. They shut down their red light camera system because it wasn't generating enough revenue, which is funny because they are usually promoted as a safety issue not revenue.
I think that's the one I watched a few years ago. I went into it just expecting a 90 - 120 minute movie. The next thing I knew it was well past midnight on a weeknight! It was generally good and had details that I had completely forgotten. But it did drag on a bit.
I find it more effective to just butt in on their conversations than to try and ask them to turn down the volume. I suppose if they really irritated me I could just break into some loud horrible rendition of a song. After all if someone has the right to shout on a cell phone in public the rest of us have the right to sing loudly for sure.
If he had sent it directly to an actual enemy of the state then there would be a good arguement for it being Aiding the Enemy. As it is he caused it to be released to the public at large, where the enemy could then get at it, although not explicitly for that purpose. There are seperate charges for releasing classified information which are applicable. Aiding the Enemy is going over the top and just trying to grand stand. Which could prove to be a bad move if a jury member hangs up on it and they can't reach a verdict.
As for resigning from the military, that's effectively impossible for an enlisted person. Once every four to six years you can decide if you'd like to stay in. Periodically they offer early outs but those are always restricted to a specific set of jobs and such. In the meantime you are subject to being let go or forced into a completely different job at the governments whim. I did it for six years because it was the best option at the time. But such strongly one sided contracts are obvious traps, I gambled and won, but not everyone comes out ahead.
I think one of the major problems with the math that people are doing on this is that they are assuming that the only positive is the lives possibly saved.
What are the numbers like concerning rear view cameras and non-fatal collisions? How much money and production might be saved by reducing all those other accidents and their attending costs such as repairs, medical, law enforcement and legal expenses?
Besides more and more cars are coming with large LCD displays standard these days. And that single component is the lions share of the rear view camera option for most vehicles.
The cost would also come down as it would no longer be an "option". Manufacturing things with more possible physical configurations makes them more complex by nature which leads to higher costs. If all models of a vehicle come with the same instrument cluster/display system where they previously had two or more the cost will come down because there is just one set of parts to worry about.
Not exactly a smart car, but I used to drive a 944 and had a pretty good gut. Getting out involved doing a bit of a jig to slide out from behind and under the steering wheel. While I miss the car terribly I like the ease of exiting my Corolla.
Actually running your car until it's completely out of gasoline can damage and or destroy the fuel pump, so don't do it unless it's an emergency. Granted a new fuel pump is less expensive than the 40k battery pack.
That's not necessarily true. Shareholders do have the voting power to make sure the company stays on a profitable path. But the employees are motivated to keep it going also. They would probably rather not lose their jobs.
www.CAS.org is a good example of a Non-Profit that I know from personal experience sometimes has to work pretty hard at not being profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've heard that's mostly true. There are a number of 3 letter agencies that have been known to be so egotistical as to believe they are above the air gap requirements and actually run machines that cross that gap.
Besides which an air gap is not as full proof as one might think. Just look at what stuxnet managed to do to the Iranians nuclear program. And it would only take a single compromised person on whatever air gapped network to gather the datadumps and send them back to whatever party they work for. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one publisized account of malware being found on an airgapped system that seemingly couldn't be removed.
Whatever your technical measures and implementations, your security is always limited by the personnel using it. What percentage of people with clearances and access are turnable? It's impossible that it'd be zero, and even at a tenth of a percent it'd mean hundreds or thousands of compromised people and consequentially the networks they have access to.
All this ignores that classified information is often derivable from other non-classified sources.
No kidding! I actually watched the entire landing sequence because I kept expecting something to happen. But nope, just a slowly descending model of a space ship with dramatic background music. It was like one of those things you are supposed to stare at and then be startled when a screaming face flashes on the screen, but without the screaming face. And that scene stretched on for more than 5 minutes I think. If I had been watching it in the theatre I probably would have walked out.
I read and enjoyed the book but the movie was horrible.
Technically, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were never actually Ninjas. As we should all know from biology class, turtles are not mammals. And one of the few established facts about ninjas is that they are mammals.
Source: www.realultimatepower.net
I didn't take it that way.
Like the OP said this is much like the Xprize series of challenges and rewards. Most of the teams and companies competing for those prizes are spending considerably more than the prize money to try and win. The prize is just a PR trophy and a bit of funding aid.
I wouldn't advocate for a system like that being the sole source of federal dollars for fusion research. But there isn't any good reason to not consider adding it to what is already out there.
And as others have said there are a number of Material Science problems with Fusion that we need to work out before it becomes a viable power source. Setting goals/milestones and prizes for achieving those goals would only help the entire project along. At least so long as they don't kill the budgetting for the big research projects.
You might as well ask "How's that going to power my Aircraft Carrier?"
An the answer is the same. The turbine drives a generator which provides electricity. You then use the electricity to do any number of things including power your starship.
Listen here! You can't just go around using silly measurements like "mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza" This is /. and around here we use Libraries of Congress as the standard measure!
I actually kind of wish the DoJ would go after the porn industry. That way they'd be too busy to support the RIAA/MPAA and still get laughed out of court.
I've never heard of that, do you have any repuatable sources for that?
I can see where for drug sniffing dogs it'd be in the Police's interest to have a dog behave in such a way. But for bomb sniffing it'd be very counterproductive and even dangerous. And seeing as how it's just training the dog to different smells it is hard to imagine that drug dogs would be simply theatre.
The Cops don't usually get a kickback from the prison system. But they often do get to keep all of the confiscated property that they can get their hands on. Which is one of the reasons you'll see truckers get hassled more frequently, a trucker with a load of legal stuff and a couple ounces of drugs can net them hundreds of thousands of dollars in confiscated property.
That's not entirely true. The phone records from his own cell phone account are fine, although the cops might have to request a copy themselves to be sure of their validity. And the person doing the detective work can testify about the things they found. Those things might not be able to be presented as evidence items themselves but they can still be testified about.
Excellent, concise post.
Not all hunting is about sitting in a blind or tree stand until a prey animal approaches. This device could be used as an aid in training stalking techniques, which is where the hunter goes out and tracks down the prey on foot. If you've studied up on sniper training you'd likely note that stalking a target is often the most difficult skill to learn and implement properly.
I think you missed the entire point of the article/summary. The Kill Shot camera is not about actually taking photos of animals you are going to actually kill. It's a camera disguised as a rifle used to take pictures of an animal you stalked well enough that you could have killed. It's basically a modern take on "counting coup". I imagine that it could cause stress in the animal being stalked if it were aware of the "hunter" but this can't get much further from pleasure killings/sport hunting.
True, but with such a huge chunk of the worlds population in India I wonder if they still won't more than make up for it.
My primary issue(s) with speeding and stoplight cameras is that they don't stop the dangerous activity when it is happening. In fact the negative reinforcement won't come until weeks later, provided it's even sent to the correct person. Because it generates no points on the license the only incentive not to break this law is a financial one. This can effectively make wealthy individuals immune to traffic laws enforced by camera.
Because these are counted as civil fines the standard for finding an offender guilty is much much lower. In a regular speeding case the ticket can be thrown out if the radar gun was not checked for calibration recently. And if there is any other kind of error in the process you won't even have a chance to address it until weeks or months after the fact. If there were some kind of mitigating factor at the time you'd better hope you can remember what it was and have documented proof weeks or months later.
Last year there was a story on the nightly news about people in some northern city getting tickets for running red lights. They were turning right on red from the wrong lane because the right turn lane was buried four feet deep in packed snow. The Cities solution was for each "offender" to contest the ticket in court, which made it painfully obvious that they didn't have an officer even reviewing the tickets before sending them out.
Which brings up that all too often these things are just a money grab by the local government. If they were really about safety then cities wouldn't be shutting them down when they aren't profitable anymore. The fines wouldn't be primarily made up of fees for this and that, paying off cronies. And they would be placed more frequently in areas that need enforcement for safety reasons instead of areas that are most profitable.
Changing the speed limits and light timings have been shown to actually be more effective safety measures both in terms of less accidents and cost to implement.
The realistic hazards of speeding are infinitely debatable. But those moral arguements are not really relevant to the parents post.
S/He is simply saying we should remove traffic fines as an incentive to the enforcing organization, which should be a pretty obvious ethics issue. By pushing those funds back to the regular tax paying citizens society benefits from strict enforcement both fiscally and through safer driving conditions.
My supporting anecdote being a small town near where I grew up. They wanted their own police department but couldn't afford it under ordinary budgetting constraints. So they set it up anyways and funded it entirely on traffic fines. This meant their officers were out there hiding behind the speed limit signs 24/7 to make sure their paycheck didn't bounce. This only worked because the speed limit was set lower than was warranted, 25 instead of 35 in a rural area. The whole scheme fell apart a years later when they ticketed the wrong guy, a lawyer familiar with traffic laws, he took them to the cleaners because they had actually lowered the speed limit on a state highway below it's legal lower bound without just cause. The town then bankrupted because it had to pay back every speeding fine it had collected I think for the last decade.
The funny thing is that this is what happened in LA. They shut down their red light camera system because it wasn't generating enough revenue, which is funny because they are usually promoted as a safety issue not revenue.
I doubt it, my singing is pretty bad.
I think that's the one I watched a few years ago. I went into it just expecting a 90 - 120 minute movie. The next thing I knew it was well past midnight on a weeknight! It was generally good and had details that I had completely forgotten. But it did drag on a bit.
I find it more effective to just butt in on their conversations than to try and ask them to turn down the volume. I suppose if they really irritated me I could just break into some loud horrible rendition of a song. After all if someone has the right to shout on a cell phone in public the rest of us have the right to sing loudly for sure.
If he had sent it directly to an actual enemy of the state then there would be a good arguement for it being Aiding the Enemy. As it is he caused it to be released to the public at large, where the enemy could then get at it, although not explicitly for that purpose. There are seperate charges for releasing classified information which are applicable. Aiding the Enemy is going over the top and just trying to grand stand. Which could prove to be a bad move if a jury member hangs up on it and they can't reach a verdict.
As for resigning from the military, that's effectively impossible for an enlisted person. Once every four to six years you can decide if you'd like to stay in. Periodically they offer early outs but those are always restricted to a specific set of jobs and such. In the meantime you are subject to being let go or forced into a completely different job at the governments whim. I did it for six years because it was the best option at the time. But such strongly one sided contracts are obvious traps, I gambled and won, but not everyone comes out ahead.
I think one of the major problems with the math that people are doing on this is that they are assuming that the only positive is the lives possibly saved.
What are the numbers like concerning rear view cameras and non-fatal collisions? How much money and production might be saved by reducing all those other accidents and their attending costs such as repairs, medical, law enforcement and legal expenses?
Besides more and more cars are coming with large LCD displays standard these days. And that single component is the lions share of the rear view camera option for most vehicles.
The cost would also come down as it would no longer be an "option". Manufacturing things with more possible physical configurations makes them more complex by nature which leads to higher costs. If all models of a vehicle come with the same instrument cluster/display system where they previously had two or more the cost will come down because there is just one set of parts to worry about.
Not exactly a smart car, but I used to drive a 944 and had a pretty good gut. Getting out involved doing a bit of a jig to slide out from behind and under the steering wheel. While I miss the car terribly I like the ease of exiting my Corolla.
Actually running your car until it's completely out of gasoline can damage and or destroy the fuel pump, so don't do it unless it's an emergency. Granted a new fuel pump is less expensive than the 40k battery pack.
That's not necessarily true. Shareholders do have the voting power to make sure the company stays on a profitable path. But the employees are motivated to keep it going also. They would probably rather not lose their jobs.
www.CAS.org is a good example of a Non-Profit that I know from personal experience sometimes has to work pretty hard at not being profitable.