All they did was cancel an order for an additional 12 that were budgetted last year
And they were unbelievably reluctant to do so.
They were ordering MORE than the secretary of defense said was needed, over his firm objections. They could offer NO justifications for doing so, OTHER than funding companies in their home states.
It took a threat from Obama to finally get this flagrant defense industry pork project to die.
The system (sometimes) works.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
A good way to solve this would be to stop being the world police and pissing everyone off.
Isolationism has been tried. Appeasement has been tried.
The current system is the best one we can come up with, built upon the failures of the past. Pixie dust won't magically solve the problem, but it's easy to believe so when you are flagrantly ignorant of the real issues involved.
In fact the behavior you're roundly criticizing, is perhaps the most positive aspect of the US, versus every other nation in the world. Getting deeply involved in conflicts on a purely moral basis, over and over, with no direct benefit to be seen... That, sadly, is unique in the world, today.
For all the bluster of the E.U., they sit idly by and watch genocide from the sidelines. Of course they're only too happy to spout off on what a horrible thing it is, and how they must NEVER let it happen again... right up until it's actually happening, then they spout off on how terrible it is, and why they can't get involved this time around. It happened in Rwanda, it happened in Dharfur, it will happen again.
That's right... the USA has been acting like the world police for the better part of a century now. The most politically and financially stable century anyone has ever seen. Thank god the US is doing it, because no other nations have shown themselves willing to do so.
The staunchest allies in recent US wars are those who were saved by past US wars.
Yes, Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but that's an outlier, an there's absolutely no question about the balance of the US' effect on the world.
Godaddy is absolutely the most inept company I have ever dealt with;
You've never dealt with Verizon or AT&T (SBC).
It's a dammed miracle anyone is ever able to get anything resembling service setup from either of them. I've heard stories from their own technicians recommending various ways of threatening them to get the most basic tasks accomplished.
I used-to make 2 CDs of every ISO, until I figured out how best to utilize PAR2.
PAR2 calculates parity information on a set of files, and writes out a file which can be used in the event that any of the files is damaged. This is quite similar to RAID-5, but PAR2 is more robust, and works on any files, not just equally sized hard drives.
Though it's no help on DVDs, CDs work GREAT with PAR2, because of their two different methods of recording. Mode 1, as all regular files are stored, reduces the amount of space available by about 12.5%, using that space for additional error correction data. Audio CDs, and Video CDs, where a single bit error isn't nearly as critical, are recorded in Mode 2, with substantially reduced error correction, but about 100MBs more usable space available.
PAR2 is similarly resilient to errors, so it can safely be used with Mode 2. This allows much more space for the parity information, and the opportunity to be safe against, and correct, respectively more damage to a disk.
Specifically, I recomend a 4-disk parity set. You fill 3 CDs full of data, and tell PAR2 to calculate 37% recovery data on those files. The first 33.334% allows you to RECOVER THE DATA FROM ONE COMPLETELY LOST CD, no matter which of the 3 it is. That still leaves you with a margin of 3.667%, so those two CDs you DO have, can have a few bad sectors as well, and all the data from the lost CD, as well as undamaged versions of the files on the two lightly damaged CDs can be recovered. Alternatively, if you DON'T lose an entire CD, all three (4 actually) CDs can have numerous bad sectors, in any distribution, up to a total of 37% of all the discs, and pristine data can still be recovered.
The method to do all this is quite simple. Just run the par2create command, telling it to create 37% recovery information. Then take the resulting BASENAME.Par2+??????? file, and create a CUE file, describing a CD with a single track across the whole CD, with the PAR2 file as the supposed audio data. eg.:
FILE "par2.bin" BINARY
TRACK 01 MODE2/2352
FLAGS DCP
INDEX 01 00:00:00
TRACK 02 MODE2/2352
FLAGS DCP
INDEX 00 00:04:00
INDEX 01 00:06:00
Now, any CD recording software that understands CUE files will happily record this to disc. On Unix systems, you can choose cdrecord, or cdrdao.
Now, like regular audio CDs and Video CDs, you can't just use or copy this data off the disc like a normal file on a CD. There are programs for converting VCDs into regular files, something like dat2mpeg, but I prefer a more generalized tool that can do the job:
mplayer vcd://2 -dumpstream -dumpfile par2.bin
You'll note that checksums of the file and the data on disk don't quite match... This is because, in mode2, data MUST be padded to the block size. PAR2 files are fine with it, and the padding is silently discarded.
Something like DD_RESCUE to copy the (normal) files off the other CDs, in the event of damage, is probably necessary as well. Then, once you've got 3CDs worth of data (eg. 700MB CDs x 3 = 2100MBytes) you can run par2recover and all with be repaired, like magic.
The only footnote being that calculating the parity information isn't fast, so this method is probably slower than just recording 2 copies of every CD. Also, if you lose more than 37% of the data across all the discs, the error-free originals can't be recovered. However, I consider it more reliable than duplicate discs, if only because the odds of an error on the same sector of two discs (or one disc lost, and the backup with a few errors), seems more likely than 37% of the discs being damaged beyond hope. And as an added bonus, you save 1/3rd on your CD-R purchases.
This just shows the general incompetence of government, and how the larger a government is the more likely it is to attract incompetents to it's rolls.
Yeah, nothing but top-rate individuals working for the governments of Somalia, Kenya, etc.
Surely there's NEVER been any small-city government officials that were incompetent or corrupt... NEVER!
Yes, but this statement relates to my original reply in what way?
You dismissed password restrictions by stating: "most systems these days prevent a brute-force attack (e.g. they lock you out". ie. You are ignoring a whole class of attacks, in order to write-off password security.
Only if you know that you can limit your search space that way.
No. You simply arrange the brute force attack so that it tries the most common character sets, and variations FIRST. Obviously you don't CONTINUE brute-forcing a password with every possible character, AFTER you've found a match of 4 alphanumeric characters...
(8-bit is nonsense, most of them are non-printable):
There's no good reason to have a printable password. Not to mention that there's a lot of different languages out there...
Adding a special character or number brings the complexity up to only 1^9. But allowing for two words instead of one brings the complexity to 1^12, and is equally easy to remember.
I'll just assume that slashcode ate some characters, and you're not an idiot...
In any case, you're quite artificially limited it to ONE non-word character attached to a dictionary word. In fact innumerable combination of pre-pending, appending, inserting, and substituting characters in a word is possible, providing for FAR MORE possible combination than you appear to be accounting for.
I certainly don't recomend unreasonable limits on maximum password length, but two dictionary words is still a HORRENDOUSLY weak password, and no substitute for reasonable complexity. And no, it's not more difficult to remember a complex password than two or three random words... Random, pronounceable passwords have been around for a very long time now.
If your system doesn't use shadow passwords, the admin is a fucking idiot.:-)
Gaining root on one box shouldn't give you easy access to all others.
Only against dictionary attacks, not against brute force attacks. In brute force attack, length of your password counts, not complexity.
Trying a modified dictionary attack before brute force is obvious and standard practice.
And brute force IS affected by complexity, in that a lower-case alphabetic password only requires 26 possible combination, while a password using characters from the entire 8-bit set, requires 256 possible combination. That's the base, so brute-force time goes exponential from there depending on range of characters used.
that's because after a certain age, their mothers push them away from themselves. with humans, that doesnt happen.
Making sweeping generalizations from the few things you think you know, about a subject of which you are extremely ignorant, is NOT logic... it's call stupidity.
ie. Cavities are caused by not brushing your teeth. Therefore, brushing twice as much must make cavities go away. It's plain and simple logic... It's also factually incorrect, and moronic on the face of it.
As for your assertion that the US navy has more quiet submarines, since the US Navy are actively looking into some of the techniques used in the Swedish and German subs for potential licensing, it's quite laughable.
The US military looks into every bit of technology, everywhere. They may well find some fringe purposes for the technology in silencing smaller craft, or just adapt some of the mechanical techniques into entirely different. They're not going to build sterling subs, come hell or high water.
In short, your baseless assumptions and flagrant ignorance is not my problem...
Sweden was also the first to use a Stirling engine, so it can recharge the batteries without having to go to snorkle depth.
Oh, yes, the magical Sterling engine, which lets you burn fuel without oxygen, right?
MANY countries experimented with subs used containerized oxygen to fuel their (conventional--diesel) engines from the very beginning.
Sweden uses a Sterling engine only because it runs very smooth and quietly. Other sub designs that use hydrogen fuel cells are even quieter, however, and batteries are quieter still, if you can get enough of them.
And in truth, all of that doesn't matter once bit. If you've got a large sub, some extra soundproofing is simple. So despite all this, US Nuclear subs are the quietest things in the water.
I read some years ago about self-contained nuclear batteries that could be set up in communities without direct connections to the broader electrical grid.
RTGs, as used by NASA, are horribly inefficient. The amount of material and physical size is prohibitive compared to a normal reactor.
NASA is developing SRGs, which would be much more efficient, but again, a conventional reactor is better in many ways.
It's not at all unusual for something that is "maintenance-free" to be grossly inferior to the alternative that needs occasional maitenance.
Cats are very unusual in evolutionary terms. For solitary animals, they have remarkably well developed social skills
Lions.
They are intelligent enough to manipulate us quite successfully and yet, despite being fully aware of what is happening we accept and even enjoy it.
That's a stretch. Dogs manipulate humans in exactly the same way. Cats are simply more independent, and less pack-oriented, so their priority is getting what they want, and angering their owner is a rather low priority.
It is rarely an actual brute-force attack, because most systems these days prevent a brute-force attack (e.g. they lock you out or reset your password to a random one that they send you per mail if you try it more than X times).
Threat model #1: Script kiddie breaks into system #1, copies hashed password file to local system. No more brute-force attack restrictions, and when he gets the plain text, he most likely now has easy access to systems #2, #3, #4, etc. Of course, you could be using a randomized password (ie. not just adding 1,2,3,4 on the end) on each different system, but that's not realistic with regular users, and would be more difficult to enforce.
Threat model #2: Hashed passwords being sent over the network, ala SMB... A very commonly used protocol. Nothing to stop you from brute-forcing those network captures, and then using it to access the system in question.
Having a more complex password substantially increases the difficulty of recovering the plain text.
it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do.
Of course it's possible, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. From the very beginning, this was a US move to subsidize Russian rocket scientists.
NASA gets to decide what happens with ISS, because the US is the one spending the majority of the money. If they stop paying, it's over. You vastly overestimate Russia and Europe's willingness to invest HEAVILY in leading-edge space exploration. Sure, MIR was good, but it was peanuts by comparison, and that was mostly sunk cost before the end of the cold war, which was steadily decaying, even with the Americans shoveling out money for a ride in prep for developing ISS.
Actually, it CLEARLY is a plot. It should be pretty obvious to everyone...
It was designed to attack less important government websites, while keeping collateral damage to a minimum... No attempts on the power grid, FAA, etc., and no private companies affected.
Joe Lieberman went up before a room full of press and cameras and said, (roughly) "If this was someone sending us a message, we got it loud and clear."
Plus, it launched on July 4th, not a particularly significant day for North Koreans... And while anybody could look it up, who here can say they know the dates of big Chinese holidays? Really?
And now, it's doing exactly what good worms NEVER do... Killing their hosts, and themselves, suddenly, flagrantly, and unnecessarily. Exactly what any of us would wish to do with zombie PCs.
So, it seems pretty damn likely it was in fact anti-malicious. Some misguided white-hat who thinks drawing attention and cause a small bit of undeniable pain is the only way to make things get better. Frankly, it sounds like the ideal NSA fund raiser...
For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old),
All of computing history is only "a few years old".
this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.
Slight, but I'd be happy to deal with some small performance reduction if it means I can open multiple tabs in the background without the UI freezing up and being unresponsive for a few seconds.
Really, what good is progressive page-load when you can't scroll, switch tabs, stop, etc.?
Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?
"Mozilla strongly opposes this approach because it would heighten the risk of fragmentation. Allowing content providers to use any codec that is available on the user's computer might undermine the advantages of the HTML 5 media element because there would be no consistency guarantee and content would not be able to work everywhere."
There have been many attempts to make a go of an alternative UI. Sugar, The Simputer, and so on.
Just because all attempts have failed doesn't mean the desire isn't there.
But the traditional school desk has been around at least since the 1890s
Computers don't work like a desk, and trying to make the fit stretches the metaphor to the point of ridiculousness, and adds tons of unnecessary overhead and tedious human-computer chores that need not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
And they were unbelievably reluctant to do so.
They were ordering MORE than the secretary of defense said was needed, over his firm objections. They could offer NO justifications for doing so, OTHER than funding companies in their home states.
It took a threat from Obama to finally get this flagrant defense industry pork project to die.
The system (sometimes) works.
Isolationism has been tried.
Appeasement has been tried.
The current system is the best one we can come up with, built upon the failures of the past. Pixie dust won't magically solve the problem, but it's easy to believe so when you are flagrantly ignorant of the real issues involved.
In fact the behavior you're roundly criticizing, is perhaps the most positive aspect of the US, versus every other nation in the world. Getting deeply involved in conflicts on a purely moral basis, over and over, with no direct benefit to be seen... That, sadly, is unique in the world, today.
For all the bluster of the E.U., they sit idly by and watch genocide from the sidelines. Of course they're only too happy to spout off on what a horrible thing it is, and how they must NEVER let it happen again... right up until it's actually happening, then they spout off on how terrible it is, and why they can't get involved this time around. It happened in Rwanda, it happened in Dharfur, it will happen again.
That's right... the USA has been acting like the world police for the better part of a century now. The most politically and financially stable century anyone has ever seen. Thank god the US is doing it, because no other nations have shown themselves willing to do so.
The staunchest allies in recent US wars are those who were saved by past US wars.
Yes, Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but that's an outlier, an there's absolutely no question about the balance of the US' effect on the world.
I can hardly wait until you need the services of a neurosurgeon...
You've never dealt with Verizon or AT&T (SBC).
It's a dammed miracle anyone is ever able to get anything resembling service setup from either of them. I've heard stories from their own technicians recommending various ways of threatening them to get the most basic tasks accomplished.
You've completely missed the point of everything I've said. Try again.
I suggest you read my post a few times, until you get the point. Specifically, the "RECOVER THE DATA FROM ONE COMPLETELY LOST CD" part.
No.
DVD drives are notorious for having difficulty reading certain types of CD media. So you may still only have one bad CD drive on your hands.
I've seen it numerous times... CDs that are showing as being borderline readable on a DVD-ROM, read PERFECTLY on an old CD-ROM.
I used-to make 2 CDs of every ISO, until I figured out how best to utilize PAR2.
PAR2 calculates parity information on a set of files, and writes out a file which can be used in the event that any of the files is damaged. This is quite similar to RAID-5, but PAR2 is more robust, and works on any files, not just equally sized hard drives.
Though it's no help on DVDs, CDs work GREAT with PAR2, because of their two different methods of recording. Mode 1, as all regular files are stored, reduces the amount of space available by about 12.5%, using that space for additional error correction data. Audio CDs, and Video CDs, where a single bit error isn't nearly as critical, are recorded in Mode 2, with substantially reduced error correction, but about 100MBs more usable space available.
PAR2 is similarly resilient to errors, so it can safely be used with Mode 2. This allows much more space for the parity information, and the opportunity to be safe against, and correct, respectively more damage to a disk.
Specifically, I recomend a 4-disk parity set. You fill 3 CDs full of data, and tell PAR2 to calculate 37% recovery data on those files. The first 33.334% allows you to RECOVER THE DATA FROM ONE COMPLETELY LOST CD, no matter which of the 3 it is. That still leaves you with a margin of 3.667%, so those two CDs you DO have, can have a few bad sectors as well, and all the data from the lost CD, as well as undamaged versions of the files on the two lightly damaged CDs can be recovered. Alternatively, if you DON'T lose an entire CD, all three (4 actually) CDs can have numerous bad sectors, in any distribution, up to a total of 37% of all the discs, and pristine data can still be recovered.
The method to do all this is quite simple. Just run the par2create command, telling it to create 37% recovery information. Then take the resulting BASENAME.Par2+??????? file, and create a CUE file, describing a CD with a single track across the whole CD, with the PAR2 file as the supposed audio data. eg.:
Now, any CD recording software that understands CUE files will happily record this to disc. On Unix systems, you can choose cdrecord, or cdrdao.
Now, like regular audio CDs and Video CDs, you can't just use or copy this data off the disc like a normal file on a CD. There are programs for converting VCDs into regular files, something like dat2mpeg, but I prefer a more generalized tool that can do the job:
mplayer vcd://2 -dumpstream -dumpfile par2.bin
You'll note that checksums of the file and the data on disk don't quite match... This is because, in mode2, data MUST be padded to the block size. PAR2 files are fine with it, and the padding is silently discarded.
Something like DD_RESCUE to copy the (normal) files off the other CDs, in the event of damage, is probably necessary as well. Then, once you've got 3CDs worth of data (eg. 700MB CDs x 3 = 2100MBytes) you can run par2recover and all with be repaired, like magic.
The only footnote being that calculating the parity information isn't fast, so this method is probably slower than just recording 2 copies of every CD. Also, if you lose more than 37% of the data across all the discs, the error-free originals can't be recovered. However, I consider it more reliable than duplicate discs, if only because the odds of an error on the same sector of two discs (or one disc lost, and the backup with a few errors), seems more likely than 37% of the discs being damaged beyond hope. And as an added bonus, you save 1/3rd on your CD-R purchases.
Yeah, nothing but top-rate individuals working for the governments of Somalia, Kenya, etc.
Surely there's NEVER been any small-city government officials that were incompetent or corrupt... NEVER!
Well, gee, you're only completely wrong...
In fact the heritability is quite high:
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/R125
In fact I've seen numerous cases of schizophrenia passed down through several generations of offspring.
You dismissed password restrictions by stating: "most systems these days prevent a brute-force attack (e.g. they lock you out". ie. You are ignoring a whole class of attacks, in order to write-off password security.
No. You simply arrange the brute force attack so that it tries the most common character sets, and variations FIRST. Obviously you don't CONTINUE brute-forcing a password with every possible character, AFTER you've found a match of 4 alphanumeric characters...
There's no good reason to have a printable password. Not to mention that there's a lot of different languages out there...
I'll just assume that slashcode ate some characters, and you're not an idiot...
In any case, you're quite artificially limited it to ONE non-word character attached to a dictionary word. In fact innumerable combination of pre-pending, appending, inserting, and substituting characters in a word is possible, providing for FAR MORE possible combination than you appear to be accounting for.
I certainly don't recomend unreasonable limits on maximum password length, but two dictionary words is still a HORRENDOUSLY weak password, and no substitute for reasonable complexity. And no, it's not more difficult to remember a complex password than two or three random words... Random, pronounceable passwords have been around for a very long time now.
Expect for the fact that you're utterly and totally wrong...
"The naked human eye is weakly sensitive to polarization, [...] with practice one can learn to detect polarized light with the naked eye." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized#Unpolarized_light
Gaining root on one box shouldn't give you easy access to all others.
Trying a modified dictionary attack before brute force is obvious and standard practice.
And brute force IS affected by complexity, in that a lower-case alphabetic password only requires 26 possible combination, while a password using characters from the entire 8-bit set, requires 256 possible combination. That's the base, so brute-force time goes exponential from there depending on range of characters used.
Making sweeping generalizations from the few things you think you know, about a subject of which you are extremely ignorant, is NOT logic... it's call stupidity.
ie. Cavities are caused by not brushing your teeth. Therefore, brushing twice as much must make cavities go away. It's plain and simple logic... It's also factually incorrect, and moronic on the face of it.
The US military looks into every bit of technology, everywhere. They may well find some fringe purposes for the technology in silencing smaller craft, or just adapt some of the mechanical techniques into entirely different. They're not going to build sterling subs, come hell or high water.
In short, your baseless assumptions and flagrant ignorance is not my problem...
Oh, yes, the magical Sterling engine, which lets you burn fuel without oxygen, right?
MANY countries experimented with subs used containerized oxygen to fuel their (conventional--diesel) engines from the very beginning.
Sweden uses a Sterling engine only because it runs very smooth and quietly. Other sub designs that use hydrogen fuel cells are even quieter, however, and batteries are quieter still, if you can get enough of them.
And in truth, all of that doesn't matter once bit. If you've got a large sub, some extra soundproofing is simple. So despite all this, US Nuclear subs are the quietest things in the water.
RTGs, as used by NASA, are horribly inefficient. The amount of material and physical size is prohibitive compared to a normal reactor.
NASA is developing SRGs, which would be much more efficient, but again, a conventional reactor is better in many ways.
It's not at all unusual for something that is "maintenance-free" to be grossly inferior to the alternative that needs occasional maitenance.
Lions.
That's a stretch. Dogs manipulate humans in exactly the same way. Cats are simply more independent, and less pack-oriented, so their priority is getting what they want, and angering their owner is a rather low priority.
Non-domesticated adult cats don't make ANY vocalizations, whether their mothers are around, or not.
You don't have to observe someone else. You can work out on your own how to get a desired result through trial and error.
Cats are tapping into humans' nature every time they vocalize (meow). That's purely a learned behavior, as this one may be.
Threat model #1:
Script kiddie breaks into system #1, copies hashed password file to local system. No more brute-force attack restrictions, and when he gets the plain text, he most likely now has easy access to systems #2, #3, #4, etc. Of course, you could be using a randomized password (ie. not just adding 1,2,3,4 on the end) on each different system, but that's not realistic with regular users, and would be more difficult to enforce.
Threat model #2:
Hashed passwords being sent over the network, ala SMB... A very commonly used protocol. Nothing to stop you from brute-forcing those network captures, and then using it to access the system in question.
Having a more complex password substantially increases the difficulty of recovering the plain text.
Of course it's possible, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. From the very beginning, this was a US move to subsidize Russian rocket scientists.
NASA gets to decide what happens with ISS, because the US is the one spending the majority of the money. If they stop paying, it's over. You vastly overestimate Russia and Europe's willingness to invest HEAVILY in leading-edge space exploration. Sure, MIR was good, but it was peanuts by comparison, and that was mostly sunk cost before the end of the cold war, which was steadily decaying, even with the Americans shoveling out money for a ride in prep for developing ISS.
Actually, it CLEARLY is a plot. It should be pretty obvious to everyone...
It was designed to attack less important government websites, while keeping collateral damage to a minimum... No attempts on the power grid, FAA, etc., and no private companies affected.
Joe Lieberman went up before a room full of press and cameras and said, (roughly) "If this was someone sending us a message, we got it loud and clear."
Plus, it launched on July 4th, not a particularly significant day for North Koreans... And while anybody could look it up, who here can say they know the dates of big Chinese holidays? Really?
And now, it's doing exactly what good worms NEVER do... Killing their hosts, and themselves, suddenly, flagrantly, and unnecessarily. Exactly what any of us would wish to do with zombie PCs.
So, it seems pretty damn likely it was in fact anti-malicious. Some misguided white-hat who thinks drawing attention and cause a small bit of undeniable pain is the only way to make things get better. Frankly, it sounds like the ideal NSA fund raiser...
All of computing history is only "a few years old".
Slight, but I'd be happy to deal with some small performance reduction if it means I can open multiple tabs in the background without the UI freezing up and being unresponsive for a few seconds.
Really, what good is progressive page-load when you can't scroll, switch tabs, stop, etc.?
"Mozilla strongly opposes this approach because it would heighten the risk of fragmentation. Allowing content providers to use any codec that is available on the user's computer might undermine the advantages of the HTML 5 media element because there would be no consistency guarantee and content would not be able to work everywhere."
You'll NEVER GUESS where that quote came from...
Just because all attempts have failed doesn't mean the desire isn't there.
Computers don't work like a desk, and trying to make the fit stretches the metaphor to the point of ridiculousness, and adds tons of unnecessary overhead and tedious human-computer chores that need not exist.