The heart to heart with Mom or Dad implies that children ever get to see their parents for 3 to 4 hours per night before going to bed. And even this may be occupied by homework, sports, dinner or doctors visits. Most parent's only know their children's names because they *gave* them the name in the first place. Much less what's going on in their lives to be able to connect for this 'heart to heart'. Raising children has devolved to dropping them off at the best state daycare-in-school-disguise they can manage to live close to.
If there is at least one parent not working and staying home to be with the kids after school chances are they won't be starved for attention in the first place.
Actually it is, it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, otherwise it's just a bald assertion. For example, if he claimed unicorns exist it's not up to me to disprove the claim since it is logically impossible for me to do so..
You mean unicorns don't exist? I've been grossly misinformed.
It is not technically against the law to build your own nuclear weapons; it, however, is against several international treaties. Now I don't know if fissile material is considered a regulated substance, I suspect it might be.
Honestly though I'm fairly certain that 4chan has 'hacked' itself a number if times. Seriously, I'm not sure where they organize their little raids but there's a board (well or some boards) somewhere where IPs are posted for that hideously stupid LOIC program they use for their little DDoS attacks; since most of the people there are presumably completely ignorant script kiddies, it'd be trivial for someone who was bored or had some beef with 4chan to post the IP of 4chan there and the legions of idiots would happily input it into their version of LOIC and voila 4chan hacks itself.
The iTunes store does not offer all of its content without DRM. Videos are still DRM'ed as are Audiobooks. I've recently changed my old iPhone 3G out for a Desire HD and now suddenly all the audiobooks I bought for the iPhone need to be converted before I can use them. And since most DRM breaking schemes for iTunes DRM involve the "analog hole", that is play the files on a virtual soundcard and record the output it takes as long as the file is to break the DRM, and for Audiobooks that's upwards of 8 hours per file, it's not hard just tedious.
Um... security through obscurity? Because that always works so well.
It does not work particularly well in software because software is widely available. Many people have access to a given piece of software, so it does not make sense to implement a security though obscurity scheme in that context. Militarily it makes perfect sense, if the public (and by extension thereof, your enemies) is not aware of the secure object's existence they can make no attempt at cracking your security. Your second and third arguments make much more sense, and I concede that point to you.
And "not be[ing] readily identifiable as the originator of those attacks" is a bizarre red herring. If we're at war with China, and a Chinese fighter gets shot down by a fighter that doesn't show up on radar, do you think the Chinese are going to assume the attack came from, oh, say, Poland? Misdirection in warfare is a powerful tool, but there's a limit to how far it can be taken.
Yes the Chinese will know that the US shot down their plane, but if they are not aware of the existence of the plane that did the shooting, all they will know is that the US has some plane that does not show up on radar, which is very little. Instead, with the extreme disclosure the US seems to be practicing with its military secrets chances are that the Chinese will know just about everything about any stealth technology currently deployed by the US, which means that they can device methods to defeat said stealth, which renders the whole stealth useless.
As I understand it stealth (at least the F-117 generation of stealth) has already been cracked, one F-117 was shot down over Serbia after the Serbian air defense enabled some "innovation" on their radar system and were able to lock on to it.
What I'm most interested in is its stealth capabilities. To date no one else has been able to match the US's stealth capabilities
That should read: "To date no one else has been confirmed to be able to match the US's stealth capabilities". The whole point of having stealth aircraft is to be able to be stealthy, if you come right out and say "HAI GUISE LOOK AT THIS COOL THING WE HAVE, IT'S SEKRIT" the whole point sort of falls flat.
It always boggled my mind that the US just came right out and said they had developed all these cool stealth craft soon as they were operational. If I were a military commander in charge of a fleet of stealth capable aircraft I'd be doing my utmost to make sure people did not find out I had them, that way I could use them to attack my target and not be readily identifiable as the originator of those attacks. I can see why there would be a political need to come clean about something like that B-2, having a stealth capable long range bomber which is able to carry a large nuclear payload and not being open about it could be construed as "preparing for an attack", which could potentially end badly; but why the US just came out and told everyone about the F-117, U-2 and SR-71 I'll never understand. Although, it is entirely possible the US only came clean about them after one of them got shot down, I know of at least one U-2 and one F-117 that got shot down (Over The Soviet Union and Serbia respectively) but far as I know no SR-71 ever got shot down, or crashed. Some military history buff should feel free to correct me.
Of course no one "leaked" these photos. They were released with the consent of the Chinese gov't, maybe not the publicly acknowledged consent, but no way in hell they let them leak unintentionally.
Ordinarily I'd completely agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that my ISP - and most other Danish commercial ISPs - have decided to take a note from China and filter the hell out of the interwebs here. Luckily they're nowhere as competent as China when it comes to internet filtering - incidentally, this is to their credit as the filtering was the gov't's idea and not the ISPs- so changing DNS providers lets you scoot comfortably around the filters.
While we're at it, is there anyway to manually define which Akamai node you're using? Like setting it in the HOSTS file or something?
Slashdot Mirror
So I've been researching this OccupySF thing (I googled once, I'm not really too interested) and I have no idea what it is.
From the website I found it's about solidarity, which seems like an awfully nebulous concept to be campaigning for...
The heart to heart with Mom or Dad implies that children ever get to see their parents for 3 to 4 hours per night before going to bed. And even this may be occupied by homework, sports, dinner or doctors visits. Most parent's only know their children's names because they *gave* them the name in the first place. Much less what's going on in their lives to be able to connect for this 'heart to heart'. Raising children has devolved to dropping them off at the best state daycare-in-school-disguise they can manage to live close to.
If there is at least one parent not working and staying home to be with the kids after school chances are they won't be starved for attention in the first place.
- Dan.
Dude, you're very, very conservative.
You kinda aggro, friend.
Why not just name it? Repeating "proprietary office suite", over and over, just makes the author sound like an fool.
Can't be entirely sure, but IIRC at least one hospital I went to here used the Lotus office thing, not MS Office.
software with a specific goal in mind, why is this medical system ran by excel and nothing else?
It's not, they have a proper system for the actual medical stuff, not entirely sure what they'll need LO for.
Either way, go Danes.
Actually it is, it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, otherwise it's just a bald assertion. For example, if he claimed unicorns exist it's not up to me to disprove the claim since it is logically impossible for me to do so. .
You mean unicorns don't exist? I've been grossly misinformed.
It is not technically against the law to build your own nuclear weapons; it, however, is against several international treaties.
Now I don't know if fissile material is considered a regulated substance, I suspect it might be.
If they'll ever add support for FairPlay so I don't have to spend close to a hundred hours un-DRMing my audiobooks.
Honestly though I'm fairly certain that 4chan has 'hacked' itself a number if times. Seriously, I'm not sure where they organize their little raids but there's a board (well or some boards) somewhere where IPs are posted for that hideously stupid LOIC program they use for their little DDoS attacks; since most of the people there are presumably completely ignorant script kiddies, it'd be trivial for someone who was bored or had some beef with 4chan to post the IP of 4chan there and the legions of idiots would happily input it into their version of LOIC and voila 4chan hacks itself.
You realize you can turn instant search off, right?
I would exactly call a 500W cutting laser a 'pointer'.
The iTunes store does not offer all of its content without DRM. Videos are still DRM'ed as are Audiobooks.
I've recently changed my old iPhone 3G out for a Desire HD and now suddenly all the audiobooks I bought for the iPhone need to be converted before I can use them.
And since most DRM breaking schemes for iTunes DRM involve the "analog hole", that is play the files on a virtual soundcard and record the output it takes as long as the file is to break the DRM, and for Audiobooks that's upwards of 8 hours per file, it's not hard just tedious.
Um ... security through obscurity? Because that always works so well.
It does not work particularly well in software because software is widely available. Many people have access to a given piece of software, so it does not make sense to implement a security though obscurity scheme in that context.
Militarily it makes perfect sense, if the public (and by extension thereof, your enemies) is not aware of the secure object's existence they can make no attempt at cracking your security.
Your second and third arguments make much more sense, and I concede that point to you.
And "not be[ing] readily identifiable as the originator of those attacks" is a bizarre red herring. If we're at war with China, and a Chinese fighter gets shot down by a fighter that doesn't show up on radar, do you think the Chinese are going to assume the attack came from, oh, say, Poland? Misdirection in warfare is a powerful tool, but there's a limit to how far it can be taken.
Yes the Chinese will know that the US shot down their plane, but if they are not aware of the existence of the plane that did the shooting, all they will know is that the US has some plane that does not show up on radar, which is very little.
Instead, with the extreme disclosure the US seems to be practicing with its military secrets chances are that the Chinese will know just about everything about any stealth technology currently deployed by the US, which means that they can device methods to defeat said stealth, which renders the whole stealth useless.
As I understand it stealth (at least the F-117 generation of stealth) has already been cracked, one F-117 was shot down over Serbia after the Serbian air defense enabled some "innovation" on their radar system and were able to lock on to it.
It turns into a helicopter and crashes a lot.
What I'm most interested in is its stealth capabilities. To date no one else has been able to match the US's stealth capabilities
That should read: "To date no one else has been confirmed to be able to match the US's stealth capabilities". The whole point of having stealth aircraft is to be able to be stealthy, if you come right out and say "HAI GUISE LOOK AT THIS COOL THING WE HAVE, IT'S SEKRIT" the whole point sort of falls flat.
It always boggled my mind that the US just came right out and said they had developed all these cool stealth craft soon as they were operational. If I were a military commander in charge of a fleet of stealth capable aircraft I'd be doing my utmost to make sure people did not find out I had them, that way I could use them to attack my target and not be readily identifiable as the originator of those attacks.
I can see why there would be a political need to come clean about something like that B-2, having a stealth capable long range bomber which is able to carry a large nuclear payload and not being open about it could be construed as "preparing for an attack", which could potentially end badly; but why the US just came out and told everyone about the F-117, U-2 and SR-71 I'll never understand.
Although, it is entirely possible the US only came clean about them after one of them got shot down, I know of at least one U-2 and one F-117 that got shot down (Over The Soviet Union and Serbia respectively) but far as I know no SR-71 ever got shot down, or crashed. Some military history buff should feel free to correct me.
Of course no one "leaked" these photos. They were released with the consent of the Chinese gov't, maybe not the publicly acknowledged consent, but no way in hell they let them leak unintentionally.
Eh that's ugly, well kind of pretty, but mostly ugly.
Gimme the Sukoi Su-27 any day. Any plane that can do The Cobra manuver is a plane I want to marry.
(which incidentally, according to my own link, means I want to marry a few American planes and oddly enough, a Swedish one as well.)
wat?
I mean, I understand you're trolling; but come on at least troll relevantly.
Ordinarily I'd completely agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that my ISP - and most other Danish commercial ISPs - have decided to take a note from China and filter the hell out of the interwebs here.
Luckily they're nowhere as competent as China when it comes to internet filtering - incidentally, this is to their credit as the filtering was the gov't's idea and not the ISPs- so changing DNS providers lets you scoot comfortably around the filters.
While we're at it, is there anyway to manually define which Akamai node you're using? Like setting it in the HOSTS file or something?
You stole my point!
Oh wait..people already answered this question.
Teach me to reply first and read the thread second...
So..what?
This thing turns a relatively nontoxic gas into a highly toxic one? How exactly is this useful?
Yes it will. Just because the encryption is "quantum" does not mean it's not trivially breakable with rubber hose cryptanalysis.
Well for all I know there was no password on the damn thing, all I know is we didn't need to enter one and the username "administrator" got us in.
Either way, believe it or not; I don't really care.
It was just a stupid tale of some IT stupidity.