The towers were able to withstand the impact of the jets just fine, as they were designed to. It was the burning of the fuel that softened the support columns that ran vertically through the building. When those support columns became too soft, they fold. The sheer weight of the building above the soft spot caused the collapse.
I know, that's why I said "It might not have burned hot enough to cause the tower collapses":)...
This might prevent some of what happened on the 11th, but you still have the kinetic energy of a 200-ton plane with 60,000 lbs of thrust hitting the target at 500 mph.
It wasn't the jet fuel that rammed the plane all the way THROUGH tower two on live TV. It might not have burned hot enough to cause the tower collapses, but having hydrogen fuel wouldn't have made the planes bounce off the towers, either...
So what happens when one of these things hits apache
Nimda on unix would have to attack Apache, Samba, the system password file, the email client, the email server, the firewall software, and the kernel itself.
Just taking over the web server would not be half as effective as the MS viruses have been -- they spread by email, by web, by network shares, etc.
Our organization didn't do squat because we spent five minutes researching commonly accepted practices for securing IIS and NT boxes before we ever put our first box on the net.
Unfortunately Nimda spreads itself over shares, too -- so our server was well-maintained, but every shared directory on there was filled with the.dll and.eml files from Nimda that users had been infected on their desktops.
All it took was a single person on our network who had disabled their antivirus to spread it all over ever network drive in the place.
Another example: in high school, we had to ASK befor we could go to the bathroom. Why? Because they didn't want you disappearing.
In college you just get up and go without disturbing anyone. If you want to disappear for the rest of class, feel free -- and if you fail, its your fault.
OTOH, if you can make straight As by reading the book and never going to class except to take the final, that's no problem, either.
Its the difference between being an adult and being a child. If someone wants to surf when they should be learning, as long as they aren't disturbing those around them, knock yourself out...
Just for interest: the plural of "attorney general" is "attorneys general", not "attorney generals". The latter would be, I suppose, multiple military commanders with law degrees...
Actually, use on a laptop had always been allowed before (as it was a "secondary" machine), same with Office.
That's part of why people are bitching about it -- not only did they increase the price, they removed all the allowances for secondary machines, meaning corps will have to buy twice as many licenses for people who work on the road...
One of the guys in my office (actually the HEAD of one of our tech groups!) is still using Win95 original. Can't even use USB devices (which is what will force him to upgrade eventually).
He's very utilitarian, and the system works for him, so why change it? Of course we kid him relentlessly every time it crashes...
I remember a few years back when it came out (after years of denial by MS of course) that NT server and workstation were the EXACT same except for one file (registry setting?), something very trivial like that.
It's cheaper to develop that way -- like all floppy disks manufactured are double-sided, they just sell some for less labelled "single-sided" and leave out the hole...
With all due respect to the l33t hacking community on slashdot, this isn't an IIS server you're talking about.
The Predators are probably controlled by 25 simultaneous spread-spectrum encrypted channels with failsafes and backups. There's probably not a web page with a "launch" button available to anyone with the ROT-13 password. At best, you could take control of the craft but have no control of the weapons, or get the video feed but not the craft, or get the targetting laser but not the launch control.
heck, the military GPS satellites have been TRANSMITTING their encrypted broadcasts all over the planet for more than a decade and no one has managed to decode it. How long is the control signal available to snoop on with a Predator? 40 hours at a time? How long are the launch signals available? 100 nanoseconds?
The robots will be in the $100k range (currently much more) within years, and a plane ticket to Europe at the last minute would cost $2-3k at a minimum. factor in the time, and the possibly critical state of the patient, and you can cover the expenses with a dozen patients...
. In my post I prodcue a working definition for "censorship," while you merely say that it "has to do with the act of censoring." First, what you said is vacuous because it's circular: something is X because it deals with X.
Well, gosh i wouldn't want you to go to all the trouble of typing in the word censor at dictionary.com. here, let me cut and paste for you:
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
I assumed people were familiar with the physical and mental act -- the process of actually sorting and deleting or prohibiting. All I was pointing out is that the ACTOR (the Censor) has no requirement to be a government agent.
For example, last week FoxNews decided not to air videotape they had of the WTC buildings actually falling on people. This benevolent self-censorship is in my opinion
So you insist that a company cannot be a censor, and then provide an example of a company censoring itself. Clearly you understand the use of the word censorship, you're just focused on the notion of "bad" and "good" and want to thus foster all the "bad" connotations off on government.
When most people think of censorship, they envision Sovietesque repression.
When most people think of the word "propoganda" they think German WW II propoganda. That doesn't make it any more representative of the meaning of the word propoganda.
Please keep in mind -- i didn't start this conversation because I thought someone was using a word incorrectly and felt like being the grammar police. I am defending the original posters against self-styled "censorship" police who have been insisting the first posters were incorrect in using that word. The first posters were not incorrect.
I just prefer not to see people vehemently asserting their limited understanding of a word as the only "acceptable" definition.
censorship is not the issue since they are not operating in an "official" (read governmental) capacity
Why read governmental? If the definition was "governmental" wouldn't they have used that word?
Does the owner of Clear Channel not have an official status to dictate what may or may not be broadcast at subsidiary stations? Does being official make him part of the government?
censor (snsr) "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
Nowhere does it say government. The word "authorized" would apply to the company that owns the radio stations. They are authorized to censor their own stations, that doesn't make it any less an act of censorship.
Censorship has nothing to do with freedom of speech, the first amendment or the government.
If I say someeone is very discriminating in what they buy, "most people" would completely understand what i'm saying.
I'm not even complaining about the pejorative connotations of the word censorship, i'm complaining about the VERY limited view of censorship that people here seem to have, making it synonymous with the first amendment. If it doesn't violate the first amendment it isn't censorship!
Censorship was around long before the constitution. I think Libertarian reeducation camp has really done a job on folks at slashdot, though.
So now using a word correctly is boneheaded and pedantic?
Censorship is censorship. If the negative connotations of that word make you feel uncomfortable about it, then feel free to call it "tasteful restraint", but don't say it's NOT censorship.
I'm simply trying to reign in the folks who somehow have it stuck in their head that "censorship == first amendment violation".
Remember kids, reading comprehension is part of the SAT, so start studying now:
Censorship has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the act of censoring.
censor (snsr) "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
Nowhere does it say government. The word "authorized" would apply to the company that owns the radio stations. They are authorized to censor their own stations, that doesn't make it any less an act of censorship.
To those of you who can't tell the difference between censorship and taste-
Are these mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to censor based on taste?
This is censorship. It may also be taste. If so, its pretty poor taste. I don't know of many people working the WTC who would beat you up for playing Neil Diamond's "America" (well, maybe for playing Neil Diamond)...
Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?
I don't disagree -- but no one is negotiating. No one has identified themselves, no one is taking credit and it's hard to have a conversation with only yourself. It seems they're not really looking for anything except what they got -- a lot of death.
If they call tomorrow and ask for a million dollars and a bus ticket to China, I'm all ears...
No, GPS doesn't work without line-of-sight to the satellites (and you have to have 3-4 satellites at a minimum, which is tricky even outdoors in a place like Manhattan).
But having the cell triangulation that is (i think) being mandated for general emergency services use would be useful in this situation. it proovides effectively the same results but only works in a cellular-enabled area...
Slashdot Mirror
The towers were able to withstand the impact of the jets just fine, as they were designed to. It was the burning of the fuel that softened the support columns that ran vertically through the building. When those support columns became too soft, they fold. The sheer weight of the building above the soft spot caused the collapse.
:)...
I know, that's why I said "It might not have burned hot enough to cause the tower collapses"
This might prevent some of what happened on the 11th, but you still have the kinetic energy of a 200-ton plane with 60,000 lbs of thrust hitting the target at 500 mph.
It wasn't the jet fuel that rammed the plane all the way THROUGH tower two on live TV. It might not have burned hot enough to cause the tower collapses, but having hydrogen fuel wouldn't have made the planes bounce off the towers, either...
curious -- how did you pull this info out? Got a DB running on your MP3 machine?
So what happens when one of these things hits apache
Nimda on unix would have to attack Apache, Samba, the system password file, the email client, the email server, the firewall software, and the kernel itself.
Just taking over the web server would not be half as effective as the MS viruses have been -- they spread by email, by web, by network shares, etc.
Our organization didn't do squat because we spent five minutes researching commonly accepted practices for securing IIS and NT boxes before we ever put our first box on the net.
.dll and .eml files from Nimda that users had been infected on their desktops.
Unfortunately Nimda spreads itself over shares, too -- so our server was well-maintained, but every shared directory on there was filled with the
All it took was a single person on our network who had disabled their antivirus to spread it all over ever network drive in the place.
This is absolutely right.
Another example: in high school, we had to ASK befor we could go to the bathroom. Why? Because they didn't want you disappearing.
In college you just get up and go without disturbing anyone. If you want to disappear for the rest of class, feel free -- and if you fail, its your fault.
OTOH, if you can make straight As by reading the book and never going to class except to take the final, that's no problem, either.
Its the difference between being an adult and being a child. If someone wants to surf when they should be learning, as long as they aren't disturbing those around them, knock yourself out...
Just for interest: the plural of "attorney general" is "attorneys general", not "attorney generals". The latter would be, I suppose, multiple military commanders with law degrees...
Actually, use on a laptop had always been allowed before (as it was a "secondary" machine), same with Office.
That's part of why people are bitching about it -- not only did they increase the price, they removed all the allowances for secondary machines, meaning corps will have to buy twice as many licenses for people who work on the road...
One of the guys in my office (actually the HEAD of one of our tech groups!) is still using Win95 original. Can't even use USB devices (which is what will force him to upgrade eventually).
He's very utilitarian, and the system works for him, so why change it? Of course we kid him relentlessly every time it crashes...
They're probablya all the same, so no forking.
I remember a few years back when it came out (after years of denial by MS of course) that NT server and workstation were the EXACT same except for one file (registry setting?), something very trivial like that.
It's cheaper to develop that way -- like all floppy disks manufactured are double-sided, they just sell some for less labelled "single-sided" and leave out the hole...
With all due respect to the l33t hacking community on slashdot, this isn't an IIS server you're talking about.
The Predators are probably controlled by 25 simultaneous spread-spectrum encrypted channels with failsafes and backups. There's probably not a web page with a "launch" button available to anyone with the ROT-13 password. At best, you could take control of the craft but have no control of the weapons, or get the video feed but not the craft, or get the targetting laser but not the launch control.
heck, the military GPS satellites have been TRANSMITTING their encrypted broadcasts all over the planet for more than a decade and no one has managed to decode it. How long is the control signal available to snoop on with a Predator? 40 hours at a time? How long are the launch signals available? 100 nanoseconds?
The robots will be in the $100k range (currently much more) within years, and a plane ticket to Europe at the last minute would cost $2-3k at a minimum. factor in the time, and the possibly critical state of the patient, and you can cover the expenses with a dozen patients...
. In my post I prodcue a working definition for "censorship," while you merely say that it "has to do with the act of censoring." First, what you said is vacuous because it's circular: something is X because it deals with X.
Well, gosh i wouldn't want you to go to all the trouble of typing in the word censor at dictionary.com. here, let me cut and paste for you:
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
I assumed people were familiar with the physical and mental act -- the process of actually sorting and deleting or prohibiting. All I was pointing out is that the ACTOR (the Censor) has no requirement to be a government agent.
For example, last week FoxNews decided not to air videotape they had of the WTC buildings actually falling on people. This benevolent self-censorship is in my opinion
So you insist that a company cannot be a censor, and then provide an example of a company censoring itself. Clearly you understand the use of the word censorship, you're just focused on the notion of "bad" and "good" and want to thus foster all the "bad" connotations off on government.
When most people think of censorship, they envision Sovietesque repression.
When most people think of the word "propoganda" they think German WW II propoganda. That doesn't make it any more representative of the meaning of the word propoganda.
Please keep in mind -- i didn't start this conversation because I thought someone was using a word incorrectly and felt like being the grammar police. I am defending the original posters against self-styled "censorship" police who have been insisting the first posters were incorrect in using that word. The first posters were not incorrect.
I just prefer not to see people vehemently asserting their limited understanding of a word as the only "acceptable" definition.
censorship is not the issue since they are not operating in an "official" (read governmental) capacity
Why read governmental? If the definition was "governmental" wouldn't they have used that word?
Does the owner of Clear Channel not have an official status to dictate what may or may not be broadcast at subsidiary stations? Does being official make him part of the government?
censor (snsr) "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
Nowhere does it say government. The word "authorized" would apply to the company that owns the radio stations. They are authorized to censor their own stations, that doesn't make it any less an act of censorship.
Censorship has nothing to do with freedom of speech, the first amendment or the government.
A random person on the bus does not have the authority to censor me. Censorship is an act of authority.
My mother had censorship authority over me as a child, Clear Channel headquarters has censorship authority over their member stations.
If I say someeone is very discriminating in what they buy, "most people" would completely understand what i'm saying.
I'm not even complaining about the pejorative connotations of the word censorship, i'm complaining about the VERY limited view of censorship that people here seem to have, making it synonymous with the first amendment. If it doesn't violate the first amendment it isn't censorship!
Censorship was around long before the constitution. I think Libertarian reeducation camp has really done a job on folks at slashdot, though.
My mother didn't want me watching woody woodpecker cartoons as a child because they were excessively violent. Therefore, she censored my TV watching.
She wasn't breaking the law, she had every right to do it as my mother. But she was stil censoring what i saw.
boneheaded pedantic dictionary definitions aside
So now using a word correctly is boneheaded and pedantic?
Censorship is censorship. If the negative connotations of that word make you feel uncomfortable about it, then feel free to call it "tasteful restraint", but don't say it's NOT censorship.
I'm simply trying to reign in the folks who somehow have it stuck in their head that "censorship == first amendment violation".
Remember kids, reading comprehension is part of the SAT, so start studying now:
Censorship has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the act of censoring.
censor (snsr) "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
censored, censoring, censors
"To examine and expurgate."
Nowhere does it say government. The word "authorized" would apply to the company that owns the radio stations. They are authorized to censor their own stations, that doesn't make it any less an act of censorship.
To those of you who can't tell the difference between censorship and taste-
Are these mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to censor based on taste?
This is censorship. It may also be taste. If so, its pretty poor taste. I don't know of many people working the WTC who would beat you up for playing Neil Diamond's "America" (well, maybe for playing Neil Diamond)...
Censorship is the act of government limiting the speech of its citizens by use of force.
No its not.
Censorship has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the act of censoring.
I'm going to keep saying this until people get it, or pick up a dictionary.
It's their choice, but its still censorchip.
Censorship has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the act of censoring.
PLEASE mod the parent down, someone -- he's ruining the ending of the entire series for someone who hasn't seen it!
Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?
I don't disagree -- but no one is negotiating. No one has identified themselves, no one is taking credit and it's hard to have a conversation with only yourself. It seems they're not really looking for anything except what they got -- a lot of death.
If they call tomorrow and ask for a million dollars and a bus ticket to China, I'm all ears...
No, GPS doesn't work without line-of-sight to the satellites (and you have to have 3-4 satellites at a minimum, which is tricky even outdoors in a place like Manhattan).
But having the cell triangulation that is (i think) being mandated for general emergency services use would be useful in this situation. it proovides effectively the same results but only works in a cellular-enabled area...