Huh. So since my debit card looks just like a credit card... and most merchants... oh, yeah, they want to run it as a PIN-debit transaction and avoid chargebacks. I sense lawsuits on the way.
Sam's Club offers 1.8% merchant accounts. Any merchant that isn't doing that or better, is an idiot. Not that I haven't met plenty in the latter category.
Sounds like a reasonable point:). I don't know enough about detection mechanisms to say anything more about lead containers (need to Google & read); perhaps one gets really suspicious of large blocks of lead.
Oh yeah. NK certainly receives much more financial support from (and thus is dependent upon) China, than the US. Even if they do traditionally hate each other, and even if every player in the region is on edge about China's rise.
Your metaphor is a bit mixed in application. One task is stopping a tidal wave from hitting an entire coast, the other finding a large needle in a haystack. How you do one, doesn't say much above how you do the other.
If you could deliver a nuke into the US-- why would you wait, given the chance of it's detection before you could use it? Risk analysis says you would use immediately.
That's fine. Except that the people I talk to in IR and State, clearly take seriously the possibility that NK will continue to develop in capacity, and learn how to turn their fissile material into those kinds of warheads, using that to cement a position as a regional player. And while actually threatening the US.
It's find to point out they are posturing, it's not useful to posture in a way that doesn't take their posture seriously, in return.
Japan? Russia? China? Just whom do you think they'd want to attack?
The isotopes are traceable, so within a day or two the response is the same. Launch capacity is a far more effective nuclear posture than "we'll ship it to you."
Ggggguidance accuracy has always been a known problem, which is why I said "within 30 miles." Exploding on the platform doesn't seem to be a problem, as they are using modifications to known Russian designs etc.
>If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere.
Since you can't have a colonoscopy and cross a bridge in the US without getting pulled over by DHS, I'm *sure* the above is going to work. You'd much rather have one of your give nukes delivered in 2.5 months, over a route filled with inspections and radiation detectors, than have it delivered in 12 minutes via missle.
> Maybe before you talk a bunch of shit about lobbing a nuke at the US, you should worry about China giving that leash a big yank.
Uh, hate to break it to you, but when North Korea yanks China's chain, the US major media don't typically care to report it. Korea and China are traditional enemies. Read the Chinese and Korean press, to see how often North Korea plays with China. Stop being a head-in-the-sand, reactionary US-American.
And you can bluster all you want, nuke tests don't have to use the same amount of fissile material for different yields. Five multi-megaton warheads capable of hitting the US West Coast is serious. Treating this like a high school shouting contest, is not.
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range."
And Portland and Seatle are closer than San Francisco. And all in the continental US, last I checked. And I know-- warhead + rocket, but last I checked, belief was unclear on their ability to pair a warhead various rockets, but they could likely come within 30 miles of Portland. Or Portlandia.
My reaction to part one would have been "Fuck you, I'm calling the police." (Second, as someone pointed out, such a contract would be invalid, and perhaps a felony crime in itself).
You're over-reacting. Finding a lawyer and filing suit is not that hard, especially today, with plenty of lawyers jobless. University admins are usually not very sophisticated, and make all kinds of stupid mistakes in situations such as these. Plus their attempts at intimidation tend to be pretty pathetic in the end.
See my comment above in this thread. The pie-in-the-sky argument that they'd have been immune as part of Justice is ridiculous and misleading and part of the FUD: again, the article here tries to claim that Holder & Ortiz had access that AS didn't, when in fact, as a Stanford alum, he had exactly the same privileges and responsibilities that they did. This is deceptive; this is misprepresentation; this is the essence of FUD.
My point is that the post claims that Swartz did not have the same access as Holder and Ortiz, when in fact, as a Stanford alum and a visiting scholar at Harvard, he had pretty much the same access. I did not endorse Justice's action. I am pointing out that the article is based on a factual misrepresentation, which is evidently intentional, given that Stanford has been removed from its list of JSTOR institutions.
FWIW, I tried the same thing Aaron did while at Berkeley, and had the sense to stop when I realized there were limits in place.
If what you're saying is that they would have been shielded by their positions at Justice, that's another argument. The post argues that as alums of JSTOR institutions, they would not have faced consequences. Guess what? Aaron was an alum of Stanford and a visiting scholar at Harvard, both JSTOR institutions-- a face conveniently erased in the linked documents. He went over to MIT because his "unlimited access" at Stanford and Harvard was restricted enough to prevent this kind of exploit at either institution.
The above is not to endorse what Justice did, in any way. It is to point out the gaping inconsistency with the facts, in this/. post.
Moreover, if either Holder or Ortiz had hacked systems and exceeded their authorized access as Swatz did, playing a cat&mouse game with sysadmins at their home institutions and JSTOR, they'd have likely faced the same consequences as Aaron. The article is FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. So since my debit card looks just like a credit card... and most merchants... oh, yeah, they want to run it as a PIN-debit transaction and avoid chargebacks. I sense lawsuits on the way.
4%? Are you friggin' kidding me?
Sam's Club offers 1.8% merchant accounts. Any merchant that isn't doing that or better, is an idiot. Not that I haven't met plenty in the latter category.
Yeah, I read that one. Then I read the WikiPedia article. Randomly quoting random crap off the internet, does not yield truth.
Sounds like a reasonable point :). I don't know enough about detection mechanisms to say anything more about lead containers (need to Google & read); perhaps one gets really suspicious of large blocks of lead.
Oh yeah. NK certainly receives much more financial support from (and thus is dependent upon) China, than the US. Even if they do traditionally hate each other, and even if every player in the region is on edge about China's rise.
Your metaphor is a bit mixed in application. One task is stopping a tidal wave from hitting an entire coast, the other finding a large needle in a haystack. How you do one, doesn't say much above how you do the other.
If you could deliver a nuke into the US-- why would you wait, given the chance of it's detection before you could use it? Risk analysis says you would use immediately.
No, but I did make it through Quantum.
Try https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+bomb+detection+ports&oq=nuclear+bomb+detection+ports
.
I would assume efforts would be to scan *before* it reaches an actual port, but this is DHS we're talking about. :P
That's fine. Except that the people I talk to in IR and State, clearly take seriously the possibility that NK will continue to develop in capacity, and learn how to turn their fissile material into those kinds of warheads, using that to cement a position as a regional player. And while actually threatening the US.
It's find to point out they are posturing, it's not useful to posture in a way that doesn't take their posture seriously, in return.
Did you google this first? No you didn't.
https://www.google.com/search?q=radiation+detection+at+us+ports+and+borders&aq=0&oq=us+ports+radiation+detection
Japan? Russia? China? Just whom do you think they'd want to attack?
The isotopes are traceable, so within a day or two the response is the same. Launch capacity is a far more effective nuclear posture than "we'll ship it to you."
Having your nuke confiscated by the Coast Guard and traced back to you, doesn't do much to scare people.
At this point, they might miss Seattle by 30 miles. An air burst would still spread the radiation of a 100 Chernobyls.
Ggggguidance accuracy has always been a known problem, which is why I said "within 30 miles." Exploding on the platform doesn't seem to be a problem, as they are using modifications to known Russian designs etc.
>If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere.
Since you can't have a colonoscopy and cross a bridge in the US without getting pulled over by DHS, I'm *sure* the above is going to work. You'd much rather have one of your give nukes delivered in 2.5 months, over a route filled with inspections and radiation detectors, than have it delivered in 12 minutes via missle.
> Maybe before you talk a bunch of shit about lobbing a nuke at the US, you should worry about China giving that leash a big yank.
Uh, hate to break it to you, but when North Korea yanks China's chain, the US major media don't typically care to report it. Korea and China are traditional enemies. Read the Chinese and Korean press, to see how often North Korea plays with China. Stop being a head-in-the-sand, reactionary US-American.
And you can bluster all you want, nuke tests don't have to use the same amount of fissile material for different yields. Five multi-megaton warheads capable of hitting the US West Coast is serious. Treating this like a high school shouting contest, is not.
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range."
And Portland and Seatle are closer than San Francisco. And all in the continental US, last I checked. And I know-- warhead + rocket, but last I checked, belief was unclear on their ability to pair a warhead various rockets, but they could likely come within 30 miles of Portland. Or Portlandia.
My reaction to part one would have been "Fuck you, I'm calling the police." (Second, as someone pointed out, such a contract would be invalid, and perhaps a felony crime in itself).
You're over-reacting. Finding a lawyer and filing suit is not that hard, especially today, with plenty of lawyers jobless. University admins are usually not very sophisticated, and make all kinds of stupid mistakes in situations such as these. Plus their attempts at intimidation tend to be pretty pathetic in the end.
Fair enough point. Volokh doesn't address. Thanks for pointing it out.
See my comment above in this thread. The pie-in-the-sky argument that they'd have been immune as part of Justice is ridiculous and misleading and part of the FUD: again, the article here tries to claim that Holder & Ortiz had access that AS didn't, when in fact, as a Stanford alum, he had exactly the same privileges and responsibilities that they did. This is deceptive; this is misprepresentation; this is the essence of FUD.
My point is that the post claims that Swartz did not have the same access as Holder and Ortiz, when in fact, as a Stanford alum and a visiting scholar at Harvard, he had pretty much the same access. I did not endorse Justice's action. I am pointing out that the article is based on a factual misrepresentation, which is evidently intentional, given that Stanford has been removed from its list of JSTOR institutions.
FWIW, I tried the same thing Aaron did while at Berkeley, and had the sense to stop when I realized there were limits in place.
If what you're saying is that they would have been shielded by their positions at Justice, that's another argument. The post argues that as alums of JSTOR institutions, they would not have faced consequences. Guess what? Aaron was an alum of Stanford and a visiting scholar at Harvard, both JSTOR institutions-- a face conveniently erased in the linked documents. He went over to MIT because his "unlimited access" at Stanford and Harvard was restricted enough to prevent this kind of exploit at either institution.
The above is not to endorse what Justice did, in any way. It is to point out the gaping inconsistency with the facts, in this /. post.
Moreover, if either Holder or Ortiz had hacked systems and exceeded their authorized access as Swatz did, playing a cat&mouse game with sysadmins at their home institutions and JSTOR, they'd have likely faced the same consequences as Aaron. The article is FUD.
Volokh analysis of what Swatz actually did, with detailed history:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
I assure you, an MIT enrollee or grad would have gotten the same treatment.
Mod parent up; // already posted in thread, so I can't.
We'd already be mining the moons of Saturn if atomic drives hadn't been scuttled.
Goddard wanted to build spinning engines which used the rotary pressure to increase thrust-to-fuel ratio; visible in his posthumous patents.
Some basic info at (follow the links):
http://www.halfwaytoanywhere.com/