So why are you worried about someone being able to read your swap file, which for some unfathomable reason is in ram, but not your decryption keys, which are also in ram?
The commonality amongst the early fascists could be seen in the name itself. A symbol of sticks bound together to product something strong, also the symbol of authority used by Roman Caesars. Thus a focus on a strong-man style central government, strong nationalism with a militaristic leaning.
Yup, just look at any US 10 cent coin struck between 1916 and 1945.
News from two centuries ago - "Yorktown captured by French Terrorists". Looks stupid doesn't it? That's what you get when you oversimplify these things and assume that the backers are equivalent to the perpetrators. The backers in this case may be just as unpleasant as Napolean.
Assuming you mean Napoleon, what the hell does he have to do with Yorktown?
Are you talking about the siege of Yorktown in 1781?
If they had actually identified the trajectory of the missile from a satellite, they would also easily know which side of the Russia/Ukraine border it originated on... which they do not.
A Buk has a range of about 20 miles.
The crash site is about 23 miles from the closest Russian border.
the BUK system is equipped with a civilian transponder safety lock which has to be manually disabled before a missile can be fired at an aircraft showing a civilian IFF.
And you would know this how, exactly?
References or GTFO.
Does this help . Look for IFF (Identification Friend or Foe).
IFF is active - it tells you who is a friend (and civilain != friend).
However ihtoit claims to have been trained to use the Buk, so maybe he's right.
[ the 1983 improvement for the Buk ] Additionally a non-cooperative threat classification system was installed, relying on analysis of returned radar signals to purportedly identify and clearly distinguish civilian aircraft from potential military targets in the absence of IFF.
It's not clear whether an isolated Buk TELAR vehicle has this, or whether its part of the target acquisition or fire control vehicles, and it seems the rebels were using isolated TELAR vehicles rather than full batteries.
Ah but you see the US has redefined terrorism so it doesn't apply to them:
the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
So when the USAF drop a bomb on a Japanese city, even if its "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets" its still not terrorism because its not done by "subnational groups or clandestine agents". Nothing clandestine about a fucking B29.
I find it strange that both the Netherlands and Malaysia are both very hesitant about making accusations against Russia. I realize both countries are important trading partners with Russia/China, but this is absurd. Russia doesn't care for you.
Maybe they (and especially Malaysia after the MH370 cockups) are just waiting for evidence?
The Netherlands seems to have no reluctance in criticizing Russia for it's cack-handed handling of the situation on the ground, but going from there to saying "Die Putin, you fiend" needs a little more proof.
Putin has effectively already admitted that the rebels did it:
The state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.
-- Vladimir Putin.
Note that he doesn't say "Ukraine did it", he says "It's Ukraine's fault", i.e. that it would never have happened if Ukraine hadn't made such a fuss about having its territory annexed.
Classic victim blaming. "You made me do it, it's your fault".
Yes, thermometers were invented around that time. But to record GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, you need two thing: 1) an accurate thermometer. Yes, they existed prior to 1980. But you also need 2) global measurements. Prior to satellite measurements, there were very large parts of this globe that didn't have any measurements at all. There were accurate thermometers, they just weren't located all over the place.
And, surprise, the satellites, when they are correctly calibrated, confirm the thermometer data.
In a qualitative sense, not getting the small area over the poles is MUCH different than not getting the vast majority of the planet at all.
ignoring the little problem that the poles may be warming faster than the rest of the planet.
You have two religious factions bickering. No amount of evidence for either Global Warming or the opposite will ever convince anyone. So here's my suggestion:
If you think Global Warming is real, move inland and arm yourself to shoot those that try to follow once the waters rise.
Well, I live about 100 metres above sea level, around 157 km from the sea. We don't do that "shoot the refugees" thing here, we're communists.
It is kind of weird, though. With all the extra CO2 that we've measurably added to the atmosphere in the last decade, you'd expect there to be SOME warming.
The language was also probably translated from Japanese. So the author looked at the Japanese, considered the corresponding adjectives available (global vs. regional), and picked the one that would attract the most attention while still maintaining some credibility.
And as I said elsewhere: I guarantee you the Japanese Meteorological Agency does not have global records (in Antarctica, Argentina, the Sudan, Sweden, etc.) back to 1891. So in the proper context, the adjective "global" here can only mean comprehensive to their Agency's records for Japan.
You are a clown who does not know how to follow a link.
From the Slate article:
The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June globally since at least 1891, when its dataset begins.
If you follow it you find a nice page written in English which explains where the data comes from:
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.'s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST
Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere.
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearsâ¦we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
So why are you worried about someone being able to read your swap file, which for some unfathomable reason is in ram, but not your decryption keys, which are also in ram?
But they're in RAM.
If someone can read your RAM they can read your decryption key.
especially if you're one of those experimental types that likes to put a SWAP file in RAM and encrypt it.
Why would you put the swap file in RAM?
Why would you bother encrypting something that's in RAM?
The commonality amongst the early fascists could be seen in the name itself. A symbol of sticks bound together to product something strong, also the symbol of authority used by Roman Caesars. Thus a focus on a strong-man style central government, strong nationalism with a militaristic leaning.
Yup, just look at any US 10 cent coin struck between 1916 and 1945.
http://www.thecoinspot.com/10_cent_winged_liberty.php
News from two centuries ago - "Yorktown captured by French Terrorists".
Looks stupid doesn't it? That's what you get when you oversimplify these things and assume that the backers are equivalent to the perpetrators. The backers in this case may be just as unpleasant as Napolean.
Assuming you mean Napoleon, what the hell does he have to do with Yorktown?
Are you talking about the siege of Yorktown in 1781?
And Napoleon who took power in 1799?
If they had actually identified the trajectory of the missile from a satellite, they would also easily know which side of the Russia/Ukraine border it originated on... which they do not.
A Buk has a range of about 20 miles.
The crash site is about 23 miles from the closest Russian border.
Rebels had shoot down an Ukrainian transport at much lower attitude, during landing.
The AN-26 they shot down on the 14th July was reportedly at 6500 metres (21,000 feet).
http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/14/2014-07-14-ukraine-air-force-antonov-an-26-shot-down-in-eastern-ukraine/
later called "Bundesnachrichtendienst"
Ooooh, scary German name.
"Federal Information Office".
Oh, a little less scary.
the BUK system is equipped with a civilian transponder safety lock which has to be manually disabled before a missile can be fired at an aircraft showing a civilian IFF.
And you would know this how, exactly?
References or GTFO.
Does this help . Look for IFF (Identification Friend or Foe).
IFF is active - it tells you who is a friend (and civilain != friend).
However ihtoit claims to have been trained to use the Buk, so maybe he's right.
[ the 1983 improvement for the Buk ] Additionally a non-cooperative threat classification system was installed, relying on analysis of returned radar signals to purportedly identify and clearly distinguish civilian aircraft from potential military targets in the absence of IFF.
It's not clear whether an isolated Buk TELAR vehicle has this, or whether its part of the target acquisition or fire control vehicles, and it seems the rebels were using isolated TELAR vehicles rather than full batteries.
FYI: the target acquisition radar systems on the Gadfly BUK missile systems are all equipped with built-in IFF decoders.
But it appears the rebels didn't have the target acquisition radar systems, just the TELAR vehicles.
they probably expected civilian aircraft to avoid their airspace (a reasonable airliner would have avoided overflying them)
Hundreds of planes fly over the Ukraine every day.
Ah but you see the US has redefined terrorism so it doesn't apply to them:
the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
So when the USAF drop a bomb on a Japanese city, even if its "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets" its still not terrorism because its not done by "subnational groups or clandestine agents". Nothing clandestine about a fucking B29.
There. Fuck. "There", not "their". Shit.
It seems that US (who is behind Kiev) is trying to pull Russia into this conflict just as they did in Afghanistan 35 years ago.
Might like to brush up on your history their, comrade.
The US only got involved in Afghanistan after the USSR was fighting on the ground.
I find it strange that both the Netherlands and Malaysia are both very hesitant about making accusations against Russia. I realize both countries are important trading partners with Russia/China, but this is absurd. Russia doesn't care for you.
Maybe they (and especially Malaysia after the MH370 cockups) are just waiting for evidence?
The Netherlands seems to have no reluctance in criticizing Russia for it's cack-handed handling of the situation on the ground, but going from there to saying "Die Putin, you fiend" needs a little more proof.
Putin has effectively already admitted that the rebels did it:
The state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.
-- Vladimir Putin.
Note that he doesn't say "Ukraine did it", he says "It's Ukraine's fault", i.e. that it would never have happened if Ukraine hadn't made such a fuss about having its territory annexed.
Classic victim blaming. "You made me do it, it's your fault".
Yes, thermometers were invented around that time. But to record GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, you need two thing: 1) an accurate thermometer. Yes, they existed prior to 1980. But you also need 2) global measurements. Prior to satellite measurements, there were very large parts of this globe that didn't have any measurements at all. There were accurate thermometers, they just weren't located all over the place.
And, surprise, the satellites, when they are correctly calibrated, confirm the thermometer data.
In a qualitative sense, not getting the small area over the poles is MUCH different than not getting the vast majority of the planet at all.
ignoring the little problem that the poles may be warming faster than the rest of the planet.
Congratulations. You've just proven me right.
For interpretations of "right" that include "wrong".
You have two religious factions bickering. No amount of evidence for either Global Warming or the opposite will ever convince anyone. So here's my suggestion:
If you think Global Warming is real, move inland and arm yourself to shoot those that try to follow once the waters rise.
Well, I live about 100 metres above sea level, around 157 km from the sea. We don't do that "shoot the refugees" thing here, we're communists.
There aren't that many "coldest on record" events happening. Besides, deniers are going to deny.
Really? My home state (Michigan) just had the coldest and snowiest winter on record. I would think that qualifies.
Michigan. Surface area 250,493 km2
The world. Surface area 510,072,000 km2
Sorry?
There aren't that many "coldest on record" events happening.
Really? We broke record lows just this morning. And our last month has been well below average.
Yes, I realize my above was BS, but so is the "it's hot so it's GW" statements.
When was the most recent global cold record?
Yesterday was the coldest day since the day before that?
It is kind of weird, though. With all the extra CO2 that we've measurably added to the atmosphere in the last decade, you'd expect there to be SOME warming.
Yeah, you would, wouldn't you.
It was warming from 1976 to 1998
HADCRUT4 1976-1998 Trend: 0.163 +/-0.083 C/decade (2sigma)
Why did it suddenly stop?
Oh, it didn't
HADCRUT4 1976-2014 Trend: 0.164 +/-0.037 C/decade (2sigma)
Given that global temperature data wasn't available before there were satellites to measure it
What fucking drugs are you on?
Before satellites we had these things called thermometers. They were invented around 1638.
You do know that satellites can't measure global temperature - they can't see above +85 or below -85 degrees.
The language was also probably translated from Japanese. So the author looked at the Japanese, considered the corresponding adjectives available (global vs. regional), and picked the one that would attract the most attention while still maintaining some credibility.
And as I said elsewhere: I guarantee you the Japanese Meteorological Agency does not have global records (in Antarctica, Argentina, the Sudan, Sweden, etc.) back to 1891. So in the proper context, the adjective "global" here can only mean comprehensive to their Agency's records for Japan.
You are a clown who does not know how to follow a link.
From the Slate article:
The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June globally since at least 1891, when its dataset begins.
The words "June 2014" are a link: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html
If you follow it you find a nice page written in English which explains where the data comes from:
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.'s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST
Idiot.
Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere.
Dr Roy Spencer doesn't agree that RSS is the best.
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearsâ¦we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.