I think they intended to block some of Google, not all. Google can work as a basic proxy (using translator), an IM client (through GMail), and probably tons of other things people might not want their kids doing. I'm assuming Microsoft intended to block just those features, and through either a mistake or laziness ended up blocking the entirity of Google. It's definitely reasonable to assume, though, that Google is one of the first tests of anything you do on the internet. How a mistake like this could slip by makes for easy game to conspiracy theorists, even if it was just gross incompetence.
But that would require accepting the possibility of new scientific discoveries! That frightens and confuses me!
Besides, I thought this kind of stuff was all caused by demons.
The question is what their other evidence is. Obviously, using command line is not "probable cause" for doing anything. I honestly don't think this was their primary concern.
They say he's being charged with unauthorized access to a computer or network. Assuming that the college has very strict rules on how you can connect to their network (only from one machine, only from your own user name, etc), using linux could circumvent their system. Intentionally or otherwise, I think that this is the real tragedy: that him using a number of devices was enough to bring a charge of unauthorized access to a computer and confiscation of his devices.
All of this assuming that he wasn't doing anything illegal after all, of course...
Just ask "why"
>> why
She knew it was a good idea.
>> why
Because the system manager told me to.
>> why
Barney suggested it.
>> why
To please a very terrified and smart and tall engineer.
>> why
How should I know?
Don't forget about the extreme static charges built up in a drier. Even though most USB devices have mechanisms to prevent static damage, a drier could overwhelm these protections.
Regardless, usually a SSD failure should usually be due to the failure of the suport electronics, not the storage itself.
Yeah, I guess it's not quite as difficult as I thought. My additional guess would be that size and distance considerations makes it difficult enough that nobody has put quite enough effort into it. If the region of asteroids is large, it might be difficult to balance looking at a large enough area while still being able to see small objects. If STEREO does see something, it'll likely be small.
Since the L4 and L5 points don't move relative to our perspective, any objects we would see there would move very little compared to the background of stars. Movement across a series of telescope images is the usual method for detecting small objects in our solar system, and it can't be used for these locations.
To detect objects here, you would need to look at images taken over a series of months and centered on the points to find objects that didn't move with the rest of our perspective. This would probably need to be done by a space telescope, since by the time a ground based telescope could see the points, the sun is already rising or still setting. Even then, the objects are only half lit by the sun, due to our angle of viewing, so they would be especially dim. In addition, sending a spacecraft to the area would allow the sattelites to determine the composition of the asteroids to see if they came from an Earth collision or are leftover from the solar system's birth.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Boudreaux is just like his cousin, he just speaks in an indecipherable accent and every hybrid is half-aligator.
I think they intended to block some of Google, not all. Google can work as a basic proxy (using translator), an IM client (through GMail), and probably tons of other things people might not want their kids doing. I'm assuming Microsoft intended to block just those features, and through either a mistake or laziness ended up blocking the entirity of Google. It's definitely reasonable to assume, though, that Google is one of the first tests of anything you do on the internet. How a mistake like this could slip by makes for easy game to conspiracy theorists, even if it was just gross incompetence.
But that would require accepting the possibility of new scientific discoveries! That frightens and confuses me! Besides, I thought this kind of stuff was all caused by demons.
The question is what their other evidence is. Obviously, using command line is not "probable cause" for doing anything. I honestly don't think this was their primary concern. They say he's being charged with unauthorized access to a computer or network. Assuming that the college has very strict rules on how you can connect to their network (only from one machine, only from your own user name, etc), using linux could circumvent their system. Intentionally or otherwise, I think that this is the real tragedy: that him using a number of devices was enough to bring a charge of unauthorized access to a computer and confiscation of his devices. All of this assuming that he wasn't doing anything illegal after all, of course...
Just ask "why"
>> why
She knew it was a good idea.
>> why
Because the system manager told me to.
>> why
Barney suggested it.
>> why
To please a very terrified and smart and tall engineer.
>> why
How should I know?
Don't forget about the extreme static charges built up in a drier. Even though most USB devices have mechanisms to prevent static damage, a drier could overwhelm these protections. Regardless, usually a SSD failure should usually be due to the failure of the suport electronics, not the storage itself.
Yeah, I guess it's not quite as difficult as I thought. My additional guess would be that size and distance considerations makes it difficult enough that nobody has put quite enough effort into it. If the region of asteroids is large, it might be difficult to balance looking at a large enough area while still being able to see small objects. If STEREO does see something, it'll likely be small.
That's a lunar L4 and L5. These satellites are headed to the solar L4 and L5.
Since the L4 and L5 points don't move relative to our perspective, any objects we would see there would move very little compared to the background of stars. Movement across a series of telescope images is the usual method for detecting small objects in our solar system, and it can't be used for these locations.
To detect objects here, you would need to look at images taken over a series of months and centered on the points to find objects that didn't move with the rest of our perspective. This would probably need to be done by a space telescope, since by the time a ground based telescope could see the points, the sun is already rising or still setting. Even then, the objects are only half lit by the sun, due to our angle of viewing, so they would be especially dim. In addition, sending a spacecraft to the area would allow the sattelites to determine the composition of the asteroids to see if they came from an Earth collision or are leftover from the solar system's birth.