Yeah, that part of the summary didn't gel right with me. Everyone hates Windows 7? My experience has been the opposite - everyone I know who's switched to Windows 7 loves it, and are physically ill when they see an XP desktop (ok, not literally). Conclusions like this sound a lot like confirmation bias.
To be fair, they said a billion and a half years, not 50 billion years. Although the chance of us being around in a billion years is non-existant. Certainly not in our current form. We'll have either evolved by then (look how far we've come in the last 100,000 years alone) or run ourselves into extinction.
I'd say we have quite a bit longer than 'a few thousand years', though. We've been around as mature homo sapiens for more than a few thousand years already. Oh sure, we may manage to wipe out "most" of us through war or pestilence, but some folks will manage to hang on.
However, if we manage to overcome, then in a billion years there's no expectation we'd still be stuck here on Earth. Also, by then Mars would be right smack-dab in the middle of the habitable zone.
I'm very happy for people to get justice. I'll try to help them get justice. I just don't believe that mis-representation of racist notions is a means of achieving anything except more hate.
For example, you say "black people were killed if they tried to vote, up to the late 1960s", to make it sound like it was a widespread, common practice up until the late 1960s. To be clear, such incidences were very few and very far between. And "the late 1960s" were now over half a century ago. On the other hand, there are still white kids being killed today simply for passing through gang neighborhoods and "being white". There have been several cases very recently (well, two that I know of off the top of my head) where even white _babies_ have been murdered by black youths in front of their parents. In both cases, the targets in question would not have been approached if they'd been black.
My point is, racism goes both ways. There's no such thing as "reverse racism". Whichever way it's directed is just racism. If a white is walking down the street and gets harassed because of their race or about their race, they're not a "majority", they're an individual on the receiving end of racism. I can't even begin to COUNT the number of times that I'm been told I'm racist *BECAUSE* I'm white, without the accuser having any further knowledge of my thoughts on anything. Calling someone "racist" on the basis of their race is so incredibly hypocritical it's amazing they don't realize what they're saying.
I'm simply saying, the fix to white on black racism isn't in tacit support of black on white racism. That just keeps breeding the issue.
>I said, "People are executed in Florida for killing white people, but not for killing black people." Nothing in your sources says otherwise.
Except, what you said is quite simply wrong. The first, Richard Heynard was executed in Florida for the murder of two black girls. Perhaps what you mean to say is "*whites* aren't executed for killing black people", but thats not what you said.
Furthermore, of the inmates on death row convicted of killing black people, all except two are black. Almost white death row inmates _victims_ are white or hispanic. However, over half of the black inamtes victims are white. Thus, simply on the basis of "who is on death row", the number of blacks who get executed for killing whites is going to be statistically far higher than the number of whites who get executed for killing blacks.
>"Deal with it" seems to be a code word on the right wing blogs. We'll deal with it in our own way.
Far from it - "deal with it" has been common parlance throughout all areas of society for the best part of a quarter of a century. Again, you're focusing and misdirecting prejudice. As for your advocation of violence, this just speaks, again, to your racism - as you clearly believe the issue isn't "corrupt judicial system", but rather "the white people whom we'll victimize." If you want to stop racism, somewhere in that process you have to stop being racist. Will that be after you hurt people, or before?
I hope you realise, that simply believing "crazy racist stuff you heard somewhere" (likely, from racists) doesn't make it true. There are (far) more whites than blacks on death row in Florida. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/deathrowroster.asp
The ironic thing here is, simply blinding believing that other people are being racist due to a set of circumstances which aren't actually occuring, is highly suggestive of you, in fact, being racist. You're already set in a prejudiced view and don't care about the facts. BTW, George Zimmerman is innocent. Deal with it.
Half-way through the first paragraph, I recognised your writing and eagerly started scanning for references to "sheeple". Three counts. You didn't disappoint.
I'm not American - hell, I'm actually banned from the country (a technical issue with visas). I'm not interested in anyone "winning". I'm simply pointing out, since you seem to have missed it again, that reporting news isn't "hypocrisy". It's only hypocritical if the media, while reporting the news, actually made statements to the effect that it would never happen in the West. That isn't happening. You're seeing hypocrisy where there is none. Call it partisan. Call it overblown. But you can't call it hypocritical.
>and you guys are even worse; you hack and monitor even your staunch allies.
And you don't? Sorry, that's not really a question. We know you do.
You spout a lot about hypocrisy, but it appears you misunderstand the word, or perhaps the context. It would be hypocritical to say "Chinese Hackers Launch Zero-Day.. AND THAT'S A BAD THING WE'D NEVER DO", and then go ahead and do exactly the same. It's not in the slightest way hypocritical to say "Chinese Hackers Launch Zero Day" if they did. It's just reporting news. Just as the Chinese government media report anything bad they can possibly find to say about the west. Simply reporting news is NOT, in any way, hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if it was to be reported, and then claimed that we don't do the same.
The irony here is, that by saying "you guys are even worse; you hack and monitor even your staunch allies" when you do exactly the same, you're the only person being hypocritical. You're saying the US is "worse" because it "monitors its allies", yet China does exactly the same. Cue, hypocrisy.
Two were concrete-filled dummy bombs, the other two had explosives but no detonator. But, this doesn't equate to "the US bombing the hell out of Australian natural resources". It's a joint military practice exercise where some inactive munitions were dumped in the greater area of the national park known as the "Great Barrier Reef". They're also likely to be recovered - the ones with explosives in, at the very least. Also, OP appears to be mostly crazy.
Yeah, there's a lot of technical errors in the article. All we know for sure, is that he can photoshop rainbows onto photographs. I'd take anything else stated there with a grain of salt.. Most of the "technical" information about wifi in the article is incorrect.
Disney are definitely worse than EA. EA, for example, lets a lot of "fan projects" in old IP slide, and even released DRM free stuff on GOG from time to time. They may be money-grubbing, but Disney is just evil.
Absolutely - I'm not arguing the merits of the article, I was just relaying the "news" it presented, to OP. There's plenty of contention on this issue. We all agree the stuff came "from stars", but there's still plenty of debate as to which kind, which stage, and which elements for each of the above.:) I really should put in a "I am not an astrophysicist and this is not necessarily my opinion" disclaimer in there.
They're estimating "10 moon masses" worth just for the gold and other heavy elements. There'd still be tens-of-thousands of "moon-masses" worth of more common elements produced as well.
That seems extremely unlikely. While two stars colliding in such an event may well produce "10 moon masses" worth of heavy elements, it would also produce tens of thousands of moon-masses worth of other more common elements, like carbon. Unless you've got someone out there artificially separating the gold from everything else, you're going to end up with the same ratios of commonality in elements everywhere that we'd observed.
Note: This does, however, lend itself to planets made largely out of DIAMONDS.;)
I should clarify, as c0lo has pointed out - this information isn't the "discovery" as such, but that this is what the article is largely about. The actual discovery regarding a particular detonation in question is only covered briefly in one paragraph. That is, they have discovered evidence of a gamma burst which supports the theory previously discussed.
The difference between this and the common knowledge is that the gold wasn't produced inside a single exploding star. As Neil deGrasse Tyson would eloquently phrase it - almost all the matter in our bodies and indeed on our planet is produced by a star going supernova and "spewing it's enriched guts throughout the cosmos".
For gold and some other heavy elements, the fusion of a star, even one going supernova, still can't produce these elements. These need a much bigger bang - that produced by TWO stars colliding together for a truly spectacular energetic detonation. The finding of these researchers isn't to suggest that this is just where gold on earth came from, but they're stating that all the heavy elements in the universe can only come about in similar cataclysmic events - rather than merely from a single star dying.
Ya, same thought crossed my mind. Chain gangs work like a well-oiled machine too, once you've broken their spirits. I'm not sure why breaking people's spirit is considered "awesome". Submitter must be in management? Probably sounds awesome to them, since "workers" aren't really people after all..
Right you are - and I commented in a few other replies that really for this to be exploited there needs to be another security flaw already in play. To me (at least) it seems somewhat pedantic to blame the website (whether it be Microsoft, which seemed to be largely singled out in the summary and accompanying article despite the other huge names mentioned - really, the vast majority of sites in the world have this "issue") when it's almost solely a secondary security issue. It's like leaving your garage door open and then blaming the manufacturer of your key-less car for the fact that their 'security' didn't prevent the thief stealing your car - who already had to exploit another security issue they weren't at fault for in order to get to it. [/tenuous car analogy]
When browsers were a little more vulnerable to XSS attacks than they are now, I'd be more upset about this. But it seems like for *almost* all uses cases, this is the intended behavior on the server-side. It's how they've actually developed it. In order for this to be a flaw, generally, there has to be another pre-existing exploitable security issue. Although, your scenario is one of the best raised so far, as it doesn't require malware, MITM, or any other conventional "compromise" vector to exploit - just an unsecured wireless network.
Actually, I think you understood the issue, but might have worded one sentence badly. Where you said "then the cookies that have been used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else" I presume you meant "then the cookies that ARE BEING used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else". The 'attack' has to happen while the session is in-use. Then you can log out and they can still continue using the session with the stolen cookie.
However, as mentioned, the machine already has to be compromised in another way for this to be exploited, making cookie theft a low priority compared to log-in details and credit card numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that part of the summary didn't gel right with me. Everyone hates Windows 7? My experience has been the opposite - everyone I know who's switched to Windows 7 loves it, and are physically ill when they see an XP desktop (ok, not literally). Conclusions like this sound a lot like confirmation bias.
To be fair, they said a billion and a half years, not 50 billion years. Although the chance of us being around in a billion years is non-existant. Certainly not in our current form. We'll have either evolved by then (look how far we've come in the last 100,000 years alone) or run ourselves into extinction.
I'd say we have quite a bit longer than 'a few thousand years', though. We've been around as mature homo sapiens for more than a few thousand years already. Oh sure, we may manage to wipe out "most" of us through war or pestilence, but some folks will manage to hang on.
However, if we manage to overcome, then in a billion years there's no expectation we'd still be stuck here on Earth. Also, by then Mars would be right smack-dab in the middle of the habitable zone.
While I too read "planets" at first glance after the context of "colonize", this is about plants, not planets.
>That's what you say. I wonder what really happened.
Again - the fix to white on black racism isn't in tacit support of black on white racism.
You've got to break the cycle sometime. If you want to stop race being an issue, don't make everything about race.
I'm very happy for people to get justice. I'll try to help them get justice. I just don't believe that mis-representation of racist notions is a means of achieving anything except more hate.
For example, you say "black people were killed if they tried to vote, up to the late 1960s", to make it sound like it was a widespread, common practice up until the late 1960s. To be clear, such incidences were very few and very far between. And "the late 1960s" were now over half a century ago. On the other hand, there are still white kids being killed today simply for passing through gang neighborhoods and "being white". There have been several cases very recently (well, two that I know of off the top of my head) where even white _babies_ have been murdered by black youths in front of their parents. In both cases, the targets in question would not have been approached if they'd been black.
My point is, racism goes both ways. There's no such thing as "reverse racism". Whichever way it's directed is just racism. If a white is walking down the street and gets harassed because of their race or about their race, they're not a "majority", they're an individual on the receiving end of racism. I can't even begin to COUNT the number of times that I'm been told I'm racist *BECAUSE* I'm white, without the accuser having any further knowledge of my thoughts on anything. Calling someone "racist" on the basis of their race is so incredibly hypocritical it's amazing they don't realize what they're saying.
I'm simply saying, the fix to white on black racism isn't in tacit support of black on white racism. That just keeps breeding the issue.
>I said, "People are executed in Florida for killing white people, but not for killing black people." Nothing in your sources says otherwise.
Except, what you said is quite simply wrong. The first, Richard Heynard was executed in Florida for the murder of two black girls. Perhaps what you mean to say is "*whites* aren't executed for killing black people", but thats not what you said.
Furthermore, of the inmates on death row convicted of killing black people, all except two are black. Almost white death row inmates _victims_ are white or hispanic. However, over half of the black inamtes victims are white. Thus, simply on the basis of "who is on death row", the number of blacks who get executed for killing whites is going to be statistically far higher than the number of whites who get executed for killing blacks.
>"Deal with it" seems to be a code word on the right wing blogs. We'll deal with it in our own way.
Far from it - "deal with it" has been common parlance throughout all areas of society for the best part of a quarter of a century. Again, you're focusing and misdirecting prejudice. As for your advocation of violence, this just speaks, again, to your racism - as you clearly believe the issue isn't "corrupt judicial system", but rather "the white people whom we'll victimize." If you want to stop racism, somewhere in that process you have to stop being racist. Will that be after you hurt people, or before?
I hope you realise, that simply believing "crazy racist stuff you heard somewhere" (likely, from racists) doesn't make it true. There are (far) more whites than blacks on death row in Florida. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/deathrowroster.asp
Most people executed in Florida have been white. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/execlist.html
There have been plenty of people executed in Florida for killing blacks and other non-whites:
Richard Henyard
Mark Schwab
David Alan Gore
Manuel Pardo
And many more.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Florida
The ironic thing here is, simply blinding believing that other people are being racist due to a set of circumstances which aren't actually occuring, is highly suggestive of you, in fact, being racist. You're already set in a prejudiced view and don't care about the facts. BTW, George Zimmerman is innocent. Deal with it.
"Its not difficult to research"
This much was correct. The rest wasn't. You can learn more through your aforementioned research.
Half-way through the first paragraph, I recognised your writing and eagerly started scanning for references to "sheeple". Three counts. You didn't disappoint.
I'm not American - hell, I'm actually banned from the country (a technical issue with visas). I'm not interested in anyone "winning". I'm simply pointing out, since you seem to have missed it again, that reporting news isn't "hypocrisy". It's only hypocritical if the media, while reporting the news, actually made statements to the effect that it would never happen in the West. That isn't happening. You're seeing hypocrisy where there is none. Call it partisan. Call it overblown. But you can't call it hypocritical.
>and you guys are even worse; you hack and monitor even your staunch allies.
And you don't? Sorry, that's not really a question. We know you do.
You spout a lot about hypocrisy, but it appears you misunderstand the word, or perhaps the context. It would be hypocritical to say "Chinese Hackers Launch Zero-Day.. AND THAT'S A BAD THING WE'D NEVER DO", and then go ahead and do exactly the same. It's not in the slightest way hypocritical to say "Chinese Hackers Launch Zero Day" if they did. It's just reporting news. Just as the Chinese government media report anything bad they can possibly find to say about the west. Simply reporting news is NOT, in any way, hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if it was to be reported, and then claimed that we don't do the same.
The irony here is, that by saying "you guys are even worse; you hack and monitor even your staunch allies" when you do exactly the same, you're the only person being hypocritical. You're saying the US is "worse" because it "monitors its allies", yet China does exactly the same. Cue, hypocrisy.
Two were concrete-filled dummy bombs, the other two had explosives but no detonator. But, this doesn't equate to "the US bombing the hell out of Australian natural resources". It's a joint military practice exercise where some inactive munitions were dumped in the greater area of the national park known as the "Great Barrier Reef". They're also likely to be recovered - the ones with explosives in, at the very least. Also, OP appears to be mostly crazy.
Yeah, there's a lot of technical errors in the article. All we know for sure, is that he can photoshop rainbows onto photographs. I'd take anything else stated there with a grain of salt.. Most of the "technical" information about wifi in the article is incorrect.
>The crests of waves is translated to a 1 by a computer, and the the troughs equal a 0.
So, every Wifi signal is "10101010101010101010101010101010..."?
Disney are definitely worse than EA. EA, for example, lets a lot of "fan projects" in old IP slide, and even released DRM free stuff on GOG from time to time. They may be money-grubbing, but Disney is just evil.
Huh? I was explaining what the article said, not making any claims about it's accuracy. Chill-pills. Take two with water and call me in the morning.
Absolutely - I'm not arguing the merits of the article, I was just relaying the "news" it presented, to OP. There's plenty of contention on this issue. We all agree the stuff came "from stars", but there's still plenty of debate as to which kind, which stage, and which elements for each of the above. :) I really should put in a "I am not an astrophysicist and this is not necessarily my opinion" disclaimer in there.
They're estimating "10 moon masses" worth just for the gold and other heavy elements. There'd still be tens-of-thousands of "moon-masses" worth of more common elements produced as well.
That seems extremely unlikely. While two stars colliding in such an event may well produce "10 moon masses" worth of heavy elements, it would also produce tens of thousands of moon-masses worth of other more common elements, like carbon. Unless you've got someone out there artificially separating the gold from everything else, you're going to end up with the same ratios of commonality in elements everywhere that we'd observed.
;)
Note: This does, however, lend itself to planets made largely out of DIAMONDS.
I should clarify, as c0lo has pointed out - this information isn't the "discovery" as such, but that this is what the article is largely about. The actual discovery regarding a particular detonation in question is only covered briefly in one paragraph. That is, they have discovered evidence of a gamma burst which supports the theory previously discussed.
The difference between this and the common knowledge is that the gold wasn't produced inside a single exploding star. As Neil deGrasse Tyson would eloquently phrase it - almost all the matter in our bodies and indeed on our planet is produced by a star going supernova and "spewing it's enriched guts throughout the cosmos".
For gold and some other heavy elements, the fusion of a star, even one going supernova, still can't produce these elements. These need a much bigger bang - that produced by TWO stars colliding together for a truly spectacular energetic detonation. The finding of these researchers isn't to suggest that this is just where gold on earth came from, but they're stating that all the heavy elements in the universe can only come about in similar cataclysmic events - rather than merely from a single star dying.
>If you RTFA
Heresy!
Ya, same thought crossed my mind. Chain gangs work like a well-oiled machine too, once you've broken their spirits. I'm not sure why breaking people's spirit is considered "awesome". Submitter must be in management? Probably sounds awesome to them, since "workers" aren't really people after all..
Right you are - and I commented in a few other replies that really for this to be exploited there needs to be another security flaw already in play. To me (at least) it seems somewhat pedantic to blame the website (whether it be Microsoft, which seemed to be largely singled out in the summary and accompanying article despite the other huge names mentioned - really, the vast majority of sites in the world have this "issue") when it's almost solely a secondary security issue. It's like leaving your garage door open and then blaming the manufacturer of your key-less car for the fact that their 'security' didn't prevent the thief stealing your car - who already had to exploit another security issue they weren't at fault for in order to get to it. [/tenuous car analogy]
When browsers were a little more vulnerable to XSS attacks than they are now, I'd be more upset about this. But it seems like for *almost* all uses cases, this is the intended behavior on the server-side. It's how they've actually developed it. In order for this to be a flaw, generally, there has to be another pre-existing exploitable security issue. Although, your scenario is one of the best raised so far, as it doesn't require malware, MITM, or any other conventional "compromise" vector to exploit - just an unsecured wireless network.
Actually, I think you understood the issue, but might have worded one sentence badly. Where you said "then the cookies that have been used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else" I presume you meant "then the cookies that ARE BEING used in that PC could have been copied to somewhere else". The 'attack' has to happen while the session is in-use. Then you can log out and they can still continue using the session with the stolen cookie.
However, as mentioned, the machine already has to be compromised in another way for this to be exploited, making cookie theft a low priority compared to log-in details and credit card numbers.