In this case; no comment. I don't know the man and don't know the truth of what his lawyers and the other side say.
Generally; because you sign a contract. The contract says you will stay with a network and pay for it. The amount you pay for the contract covers the cost (though maybe not the price) of the phone you get. In order to get "thousands" of phones you have to fill in the contract information fraudulently in some way or other otherwise the company wouldn't let you get so many phones.
The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published.
So the State department is actually deliberately making this worse than it needs to be.
Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet.
And this means that basically all of the foreign countries knew this stuff, so the only people being kept in the dark were the general population.
Swings and roundabouts; the USA has laws against telling people about circumvention of technical measures; allows ostracism for supporting drugs or communism; allows restriction of speech on radio (e.g. by the FCC). Also speech may be restricted by contract.
You may answer that some of these restrictions are unconstitutional and that it is just because of the politicisation of the supreme court that they are allowed to continue, however that argument would also apply to similar restrictions in several of the countries. In real life the fact that the US legal system is so expensive puts legal redress beyond the reach of normal citizens in many cases.
After that, we end up with only the practice. The idea of restricting protesters to "free speech zones" as is done in the USA would be illegal in many of these countries.
The idea of the USA as a haven of free speech is outdated.
Errr. Recently there have been far too many law graduates in the USA and too many of them are searching for work. The only way that they are going to get this is by generating more lawsuits.
Let's look at this from their point of view; provide free legal handouts; get sued; get the chance to have free practice in a real court get publicity to help with the chance of getting a job; if really lucky manage to get this under some SLAPP provisions and possibly even profit (can lawyers come under that??). Even better, the people who take their actions forward in this way will probably remember the source of the legal advice they got and come back later if the lawsuits are continued. They have no downside since they have no assets.
I think this has greatly raised the chance of such advice leaflets being available.
An article which multiplies 40k by two to get 100k. It does that by assuming that you sell just as many sales on the second day after launch as on the launch day. I can do that differently: let's assume that, given that there weren't queues for the windows phones, almost everybody who wanted one got one on launch day. The next days sales would just be those people who were busy; let's say 9k. This means that the sales for Windows phone 7 were less than half those of Android in it's launch weekend. My numbers would be just as valid (and just as stuipd) as those from Ars Technica.
It's also an article which equates Windows mobile sales with late model Android sales. This completely ignores the fact that older windows mobile devices will not be upgraded so the installed base is exactly equal to the newly sold Windows mobile base whilst the installed base of Android and iOS includes also those people who want to upgrade.
Come on. If the evidence in this article were what we had to go on then pointing fingers and snickering is exactly what everybody should be doing.
See the biggest player in smartphones: Nokia. Tiny app store, yet they're the big player in the smartphone world.
There are two things to say here. Firstly, most Symbian apps can simply be downloaded off the internet; the app store is only a small part of a much larger whole (which is great). Secondly; if you aren't using add on applications, you are really in dumb phone territory. "Dumb" phones from companies like nokia nowadays often even allow J2ME application installs; have bluetooth, including internet access and have web browsers such as Opera mini. Your success in the Smart phone business is basically defined by your success in building a platform third party developers will develop for.
This shows the failure of how hyperlinks works and how the page rank algorithm works.
In fact what this shows is the failure of the current idea that people don't need to be educated about computers. In this case, the question the person has asked is "which is the most 'interesting' link related to Lafont eyglasses". And "interesting" is defined as something like "most discussed". The person thinks they have asked "magically tell me where is the most interesting Lafont link for me".
Page rank is doing exactly what it's meant to do. Now people have to understand what that is. Once they do that, they have to work out how to get what they want (e.g. look for "Lafont shopping comparison" then track through different comparison sites).
Google can add tools which help people understand results. A direct link to shopping ratings for example, but people still need to be willing to do the work to understand what the computer is doing for them.
Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zeland, estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia, and even the United Kingdom. However, that's just by press freedom which almost completely ignores the consolidation of media interests in a few hands. The real story is in fact that many other countries should be rated higher than the states.
He had water, shelter and a fire. The average slashdotter can survive for three months on his fat reserves and even normal people typically last for more than a month. The difference between four days and ten is minor. The coast guard could just as well have come by boat at the point that he did call them. However, they wouldn't do that because picking someone up from land on a boat is much more dangerous than using a helicopter. Even calling his friend wasn't entirely stupid (though he should have called 911 directly and told them his friend's number instead); if his friend had an idea of his plans then he can keep the coast guard informed even if the guys cell phone battery ran flat.
He went rafting; He had a leak; it happens. He then tried to help himself. He wasn't in deep trouble, so he did his best. He built shelter, he started gathering food. Eventually, but before he was in deep trouble; whilst he still had a cell phone working, he decided to ask for help. He got help. This is text book survival stuff. The rescue services are not there to help you when you stub your toe. They are there for when you finally really really need their help and can do no better. The fact that you would have been in deep trouble a couple of days earlier and might not survive if you got this far is hardly a criticism of the guy who can comfortably survive for longer.
If anything, this shows why it is reasonable for him to go out rafting in these conditions whilst it might not be reasonable for the average slashdotter.
...no official figures, no official declarations, no after-holiday-season data, no actual news.
The news, and I have to admit that this got deleted/de-emphasised from the submission, is that Windows phones have switched to buy one / get one free offers. I pointed out that the previous buy one get one free offer similar to the windows 7 phone BOGO offer one was for the KIN just before it's death and others, above, have pointed out that this tactic is used by Android, but only for old phones which have already been superceeded.
Does this mean that sales are struggling? I'm really not 100% sure; I definitely thought about putting it in my article title (you may be surprised to hear I am not a Microsoft lover) and ruled it out because I didn't have clear enough evidence. However, they clearly wanted more sales than they can achieve at full price. That's pretty embarrassing in the light of Apple and Google who always have problems with too much demand in the initial stages of a launch, even though, as linked in the article, they deliver many more phones at the beginning than Microsoft seems able to.
In the end, the idea that we should only trust Microsoft figures to find out Microsoft sales is ridiculous. We have to hear both sides of the story; the number going out from MS and the number really delivered to customers; before we can discuss failed sales. Going so openly for BOGO so early means that we really really need to analyse these numbers even more carefully. I doubt severely that the person getting the second phone will care about applications, so these become much closer to symbian phones where the base phone features are more important than the applications and so are not relevant competition for Apple and Google.
It really is an interesting comment. It would be illegal bundling and/or abuse of their illegally acquired operating system monopoly, but they could probably get away with it for up to a year before they would even begin to be stopped. The bigger problem I'd see with it is that it would mean that their phones get into the hands of many "dumb-phone" users; people who aren't interested in add on applications and so will just see the phone as a short battery life, overweight normal phone.
It's sales through the online comparison site. It's also backed up by other sources on both first day sales and on ongoing sales. I guess you have been trolled into embarassing your self by not Reading the Fine Article.
Unfortunately, lost in the submission, was a link to the exact same buy one get one free offer for Microsoft's KIN phone just before the product was pulled. This seems to be Microsoft's standard tactic in case where their sales just aren't what they are supposed to be.
If you think that Apple would offer two for the price of one soon after launch; when people are typically queuing around the stores; you are deeply misguided.
First off cosmic radiation does increase cancer risk.
That's a bit of a non sequitur. I never said cosmic radiation doesn't increase cancer risk. I said that it probably does so quite a bit less, dose per dose, than a back scatter X-ray machine.
Secondly; I said that dose is non linear and I'll also mention that it seems that time spread of exposure is an important factor; if you take a large dose in a short time that is worse than the same dose spread over time.
This means that air travellers should be seen as a vulnerable group. The moment when you have to travel by air is exactly the moment you should be trying to reduce your exposure to other forms of ionizing radiation.
A survey of Icelandic commercial flyboys, conducted in 2000 by the University of Iceland's Dr. Vilhjálmur Rafnsson, found that skin cancer rates for pilots were between 10 and 25 times higher than that of the general public.
It's very interesting that you don't mention what I found after two minutes of internet searching; that this is specifically skin cancer of the forearm likely caused by exposure to the sun at high altitude through non perfect UVB filtering glass.
So why are the people you are quoting trying to bring up non relevant facts to hide real and unknown dangers which clearly need actual research? These are people who have excellent X-ray scientists available but instead choose to talk about things which a random layman could see through. Could it possibly be that they have some machines to sell and know that that those machines are dangerous?
Well, given that the searches are always same-sex, unless the TSA hires predominantly lesbians, I don't see how it matters that those who the guys all want to touch are being touched by the women (unless the guys are on dial-up and can't afford a magazine at the corner store).
The back scatter operator doesn't have to be same sex. You mark up the people you want to look at naked and then hope they choose to be scanned. With luck you get the bisexual TSA agents turned on enough to have some fun after shift. (INATSAGBIPOIMF - I'm Not a TSA Goon But I Play One In My Fantasies).
The effect of radiation is not a linear function of dose; I believe (though am not expert enough to state) that the likely reason for this is that you need multiple mutations in one cell to start cancer; one single mutation tends to be corrected out by various mechanisms in cell and the coding of it's DNA. This means that a concentrated dose on one part of your body is much more likely to cause damage than a greater dose spread out through your body volume. The X-ray scanners deliver exactly that; a dose to your skin only (worse still; to the same area as you tend to get genetic damage from the UV light from the sun). Cosmic rays are highly penetrative, and so whatever radiation dose they deliver is spread throughout your body. This means that comparing the two can only be done by experiment.
The fact that the TSA and others are providing such assurances which they have no way to know the truth of is a definite sign of bad faith.
Re:Oracle is doing everything they can to fuck up
on
Oracle To Monetize Java VM
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Alternatively just have them compile their java source to native code and integrate them into a normal environment. GCJ should be a good place to start.
Would be curious as to what you would see as a better alternative
How about: native code so it can be fast and light weight + a variety of languages so we can choose the right one for the job + some kind of application security system (SELinux?) + use of source code so that it can be portable + use of QT so you can have a portable graphics library?
Java was meant to be build once run anywhere, but it's turned out not even able to run in one place since you need multiple JVM versions for different applications. Once that promise goes what do we have? A pretty efficient byte code interpreter with a wide set of libraries. Some good security mechanisms and quite a bit of holes.
You should note, that once you are in a QT environment, I believe that even if you aren't doing Graphics programming, almost all of the self allocation is gone, which puts you pretty much in the same state as.Net. You can do it if you want to but it's not done by default.
Reading even the second part of the first sentence of that, which I shall quote, since you are obviously too lazy to do so,
to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following.....
Nothing is "compliant with all of the required parts" of any standard. This is before we get onto all the exclusions. This document reads like it comes from a company that has been so used to getting away with evil that it has forgotten even how to lie properly. Trying to quote it to show Microsoft is okay is like trying to say that Ghengis Khan "traveled to many places" to show that he was a culturally tolerant kind of guy.
The sound you can hear is the nuclear exploding joke rushing past your ears as your SCADA systems fail to spot the humor in the great grandparent because they had been disabled by a hack. Lucky you were standing behind a very solid earth and granite barrier so you didn't even notice it.
You'll notice that Moryath didn't in any way link them. You need to understand both "the real world" and "how the legal system works". Neither one nor the other is sufficient.
How many life times you need to live to achieve that is another question.
It's a bit more than that; The recipe; including the procedure; isn't copyrightable though the specific representation may be. If the text is just exactly a representation of the recipe then it won't be. If you put some artistic input in; say describing how the mix will taste at one moment; telling a story of the history in another; then that whole description will be copyrightable. Of course; details and boundaries vary from place to place.
Firesheep is only intended for illegal purposes, thus Firesheep itself may be deemed illegal in many countries, or the use of it may be justifiably restricted to certain activities (such as penetration testing).
Demonstrating security flaws to people requires easy to use examples that go the whole way. I have little (a little too much?) idea why, but they will always say "oh; but that's not a real world thing" unless you actually shove it in their faces. This has a perfectly legitimate role in security training.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally; because you sign a contract. The contract says you will stay with a network and pay for it. The amount you pay for the contract covers the cost (though maybe not the price) of the phone you get. In order to get "thousands" of phones you have to fill in the contract information fraudulently in some way or other otherwise the company wouldn't let you get so many phones.
The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published.
So the State department is actually deliberately making this worse than it needs to be.
Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet.
And this means that basically all of the foreign countries knew this stuff, so the only people being kept in the dark were the general population.
Swings and roundabouts; the USA has laws against telling people about circumvention of technical measures; allows ostracism for supporting drugs or communism; allows restriction of speech on radio (e.g. by the FCC). Also speech may be restricted by contract.
You may answer that some of these restrictions are unconstitutional and that it is just because of the politicisation of the supreme court that they are allowed to continue, however that argument would also apply to similar restrictions in several of the countries. In real life the fact that the US legal system is so expensive puts legal redress beyond the reach of normal citizens in many cases.
After that, we end up with only the practice. The idea of restricting protesters to "free speech zones" as is done in the USA would be illegal in many of these countries.
The idea of the USA as a haven of free speech is outdated.
Errr. Recently there have been far too many law graduates in the USA and too many of them are searching for work. The only way that they are going to get this is by generating more lawsuits.
Let's look at this from their point of view; provide free legal handouts; get sued; get the chance to have free practice in a real court get publicity to help with the chance of getting a job; if really lucky manage to get this under some SLAPP provisions and possibly even profit (can lawyers come under that??). Even better, the people who take their actions forward in this way will probably remember the source of the legal advice they got and come back later if the lawsuits are continued. They have no downside since they have no assets.
I think this has greatly raised the chance of such advice leaflets being available.
An article which multiplies 40k by two to get 100k. It does that by assuming that you sell just as many sales on the second day after launch as on the launch day. I can do that differently: let's assume that, given that there weren't queues for the windows phones, almost everybody who wanted one got one on launch day. The next days sales would just be those people who were busy; let's say 9k. This means that the sales for Windows phone 7 were less than half those of Android in it's launch weekend. My numbers would be just as valid (and just as stuipd) as those from Ars Technica.
It's also an article which equates Windows mobile sales with late model Android sales. This completely ignores the fact that older windows mobile devices will not be upgraded so the installed base is exactly equal to the newly sold Windows mobile base whilst the installed base of Android and iOS includes also those people who want to upgrade.
Come on. If the evidence in this article were what we had to go on then pointing fingers and snickering is exactly what everybody should be doing.
See the biggest player in smartphones: Nokia. Tiny app store, yet they're the big player in the smartphone world.
There are two things to say here. Firstly, most Symbian apps can simply be downloaded off the internet; the app store is only a small part of a much larger whole (which is great). Secondly; if you aren't using add on applications, you are really in dumb phone territory. "Dumb" phones from companies like nokia nowadays often even allow J2ME application installs; have bluetooth, including internet access and have web browsers such as Opera mini. Your success in the Smart phone business is basically defined by your success in building a platform third party developers will develop for.
This shows the failure of how hyperlinks works and how the page rank algorithm works.
In fact what this shows is the failure of the current idea that people don't need to be educated about computers. In this case, the question the person has asked is "which is the most 'interesting' link related to Lafont eyglasses". And "interesting" is defined as something like "most discussed". The person thinks they have asked "magically tell me where is the most interesting Lafont link for me".
Page rank is doing exactly what it's meant to do. Now people have to understand what that is. Once they do that, they have to work out how to get what they want (e.g. look for "Lafont shopping comparison" then track through different comparison sites).
Google can add tools which help people understand results. A direct link to shopping ratings for example, but people still need to be willing to do the work to understand what the computer is doing for them.
Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zeland, estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia, and even the United Kingdom. However, that's just by press freedom which almost completely ignores the consolidation of media interests in a few hands. The real story is in fact that many other countries should be rated higher than the states.
He had water, shelter and a fire. The average slashdotter can survive for three months on his fat reserves and even normal people typically last for more than a month. The difference between four days and ten is minor. The coast guard could just as well have come by boat at the point that he did call them. However, they wouldn't do that because picking someone up from land on a boat is much more dangerous than using a helicopter. Even calling his friend wasn't entirely stupid (though he should have called 911 directly and told them his friend's number instead); if his friend had an idea of his plans then he can keep the coast guard informed even if the guys cell phone battery ran flat.
He went rafting; He had a leak; it happens. He then tried to help himself. He wasn't in deep trouble, so he did his best. He built shelter, he started gathering food. Eventually, but before he was in deep trouble; whilst he still had a cell phone working, he decided to ask for help. He got help. This is text book survival stuff. The rescue services are not there to help you when you stub your toe. They are there for when you finally really really need their help and can do no better. The fact that you would have been in deep trouble a couple of days earlier and might not survive if you got this far is hardly a criticism of the guy who can comfortably survive for longer.
If anything, this shows why it is reasonable for him to go out rafting in these conditions whilst it might not be reasonable for the average slashdotter.
...no official figures, no official declarations, no after-holiday-season data, no actual news.
The news, and I have to admit that this got deleted/de-emphasised from the submission, is that Windows phones have switched to buy one / get one free offers. I pointed out that the previous buy one get one free offer similar to the windows 7 phone BOGO offer one was for the KIN just before it's death and others, above, have pointed out that this tactic is used by Android, but only for old phones which have already been superceeded.
Does this mean that sales are struggling? I'm really not 100% sure; I definitely thought about putting it in my article title (you may be surprised to hear I am not a Microsoft lover) and ruled it out because I didn't have clear enough evidence. However, they clearly wanted more sales than they can achieve at full price. That's pretty embarrassing in the light of Apple and Google who always have problems with too much demand in the initial stages of a launch, even though, as linked in the article, they deliver many more phones at the beginning than Microsoft seems able to.
In the end, the idea that we should only trust Microsoft figures to find out Microsoft sales is ridiculous. We have to hear both sides of the story; the number going out from MS and the number really delivered to customers; before we can discuss failed sales. Going so openly for BOGO so early means that we really really need to analyse these numbers even more carefully. I doubt severely that the person getting the second phone will care about applications, so these become much closer to symbian phones where the base phone features are more important than the applications and so are not relevant competition for Apple and Google.
It really is an interesting comment. It would be illegal bundling and/or abuse of their illegally acquired operating system monopoly, but they could probably get away with it for up to a year before they would even begin to be stopped. The bigger problem I'd see with it is that it would mean that their phones get into the hands of many "dumb-phone" users; people who aren't interested in add on applications and so will just see the phone as a short battery life, overweight normal phone.
It's sales through the online comparison site. It's also backed up by other sources on both first day sales and on ongoing sales. I guess you have been trolled into embarassing your self by not Reading the Fine Article.
Unfortunately, lost in the submission, was a link to the exact same buy one get one free offer for Microsoft's KIN phone just before the product was pulled. This seems to be Microsoft's standard tactic in case where their sales just aren't what they are supposed to be. If you think that Apple would offer two for the price of one soon after launch; when people are typically queuing around the stores; you are deeply misguided.
First off cosmic radiation does increase cancer risk.
That's a bit of a non sequitur. I never said cosmic radiation doesn't increase cancer risk. I said that it probably does so quite a bit less, dose per dose, than a back scatter X-ray machine. Secondly; I said that dose is non linear and I'll also mention that it seems that time spread of exposure is an important factor; if you take a large dose in a short time that is worse than the same dose spread over time. This means that air travellers should be seen as a vulnerable group. The moment when you have to travel by air is exactly the moment you should be trying to reduce your exposure to other forms of ionizing radiation.
A survey of Icelandic commercial flyboys, conducted in 2000 by the University of Iceland's Dr. Vilhjálmur Rafnsson, found that skin cancer rates for pilots were between 10 and 25 times higher than that of the general public.
It's very interesting that you don't mention what I found after two minutes of internet searching; that this is specifically skin cancer of the forearm likely caused by exposure to the sun at high altitude through non perfect UVB filtering glass.
So why are the people you are quoting trying to bring up non relevant facts to hide real and unknown dangers which clearly need actual research? These are people who have excellent X-ray scientists available but instead choose to talk about things which a random layman could see through. Could it possibly be that they have some machines to sell and know that that those machines are dangerous?
Well, given that the searches are always same-sex, unless the TSA hires predominantly lesbians, I don't see how it matters that those who the guys all want to touch are being touched by the women (unless the guys are on dial-up and can't afford a magazine at the corner store).
The back scatter operator doesn't have to be same sex. You mark up the people you want to look at naked and then hope they choose to be scanned. With luck you get the bisexual TSA agents turned on enough to have some fun after shift. (INATSAGBIPOIMF - I'm Not a TSA Goon But I Play One In My Fantasies).
The effect of radiation is not a linear function of dose; I believe (though am not expert enough to state) that the likely reason for this is that you need multiple mutations in one cell to start cancer; one single mutation tends to be corrected out by various mechanisms in cell and the coding of it's DNA. This means that a concentrated dose on one part of your body is much more likely to cause damage than a greater dose spread out through your body volume. The X-ray scanners deliver exactly that; a dose to your skin only (worse still; to the same area as you tend to get genetic damage from the UV light from the sun). Cosmic rays are highly penetrative, and so whatever radiation dose they deliver is spread throughout your body. This means that comparing the two can only be done by experiment.
The fact that the TSA and others are providing such assurances which they have no way to know the truth of is a definite sign of bad faith.
That's before we get to the actions of the major Microsoft shareholders e.g: Microsoft Co-Founder Launches Patent War "
And finally of course ; Microsoft's apparent involvement in many proxy actions.
Under previous management MS may not have been lawsuit happy. Nowadays they pretty clearly are.
Alternatively just have them compile their java source to native code and integrate them into a normal environment. GCJ should be a good place to start.
Would be curious as to what you would see as a better alternative
How about: native code so it can be fast and light weight + a variety of languages so we can choose the right one for the job + some kind of application security system (SELinux?) + use of source code so that it can be portable + use of QT so you can have a portable graphics library?
Java was meant to be build once run anywhere, but it's turned out not even able to run in one place since you need multiple JVM versions for different applications. Once that promise goes what do we have? A pretty efficient byte code interpreter with a wide set of libraries. Some good security mechanisms and quite a bit of holes.
You should note, that once you are in a QT environment, I believe that even if you aren't doing Graphics programming, almost all of the self allocation is gone, which puts you pretty much in the same state as .Net. You can do it if you want to but it's not done by default.
Reading even the second part of the first sentence of that, which I shall quote, since you are obviously too lazy to do so,
to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following.....
Nothing is "compliant with all of the required parts" of any standard. This is before we get onto all the exclusions. This document reads like it comes from a company that has been so used to getting away with evil that it has forgotten even how to lie properly. Trying to quote it to show Microsoft is okay is like trying to say that Ghengis Khan "traveled to many places" to show that he was a culturally tolerant kind of guy.
Rather; rumble rumble shake shake brrrrrrrrrrr.... WOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
The sound you can hear is the nuclear exploding joke rushing past your ears as your SCADA systems fail to spot the humor in the great grandparent because they had been disabled by a hack. Lucky you were standing behind a very solid earth and granite barrier so you didn't even notice it.
You'll notice that Moryath didn't in any way link them. You need to understand both "the real world" and "how the legal system works". Neither one nor the other is sufficient. How many life times you need to live to achieve that is another question.
It's a bit more than that; The recipe; including the procedure; isn't copyrightable though the specific representation may be. If the text is just exactly a representation of the recipe then it won't be. If you put some artistic input in; say describing how the mix will taste at one moment; telling a story of the history in another; then that whole description will be copyrightable. Of course; details and boundaries vary from place to place.
Firesheep is only intended for illegal purposes, thus Firesheep itself may be deemed illegal in many countries, or the use of it may be justifiably restricted to certain activities (such as penetration testing).
Demonstrating security flaws to people requires easy to use examples that go the whole way. I have little (a little too much?) idea why, but they will always say "oh; but that's not a real world thing" unless you actually shove it in their faces. This has a perfectly legitimate role in security training.