"I believe that the people in that flight had heard that other planes had been hijacked, and that's why they finally rose up. But it was too late"
They had even more knowledge than that. They knew that the other flights had been deliberately crashed. They had nothing to lose by rushing the cockpit. They were too late to save themselves because the takeover only lasted a few seconds.
What if it had been a Cuban flight and there was reason to believe that the plane would land safely? In that situation, a "vigilant" passenger might get everyone killed.
"It may be that their defense was effective"
They may have saved people on the ground, but not themselves. Even if they managed to disable the hijackers, they would have had to land the plane. When the passengers rushed the cockpit, the hijackers could have just shut off the engines making recovery tricky even for an experienced pilot. With the new doors, a hijacker who managed to get in could easily baracade himself in.
"The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker."
Rubbish. There were vigilant passengers on the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Although they muddled the hijackers' plans, it was hardly an effective defense.
Since the late 1960's, El Al has known the best methods of defending an aircraft against hijacking. Rule #1, lock the cockpit.
The stuff about "lameness filter" wasn't directed at you. I just pasted it in there as filler after the filter blocked my post. I agree that your message was worth shouting.
"So if your ears can just hear the 22 kHz sine, they hear the complex waveform that repeats at 22 kHz as exactly the same thing. Do they not?"
That's the $64,000 question. Is 44.1 kHz adequate?
Some say it's not, especially when using 16 bit linear quantization. A listener may not be able to consciously hear the distortion, but that's not to say that it doesn't have an effect. Frequencies well outside the normally accepted range of hearing have been shown to cause changes in EEGs.
You may have misunderstood my point. Sampling and harmonic analysis cannot yield a perfect representation of the original waveform unless there is a priori knowledge of the function used to generate that waveform. For general audio recording, that isn't the case.
The Nyquist theorem assumes that the signal is generated by a known function.
At 44.1 kHz sampling rate, there only 2 samples/cycle at the top of the spectrum. If all soundwaves were pure sine waves, then you would be correct. But 2 samples are not sufficient to accurately describe a more complicated waveform.
There was a memory fab in Japan that used mobile factory robots. The robots were called "Rainbow", which when pronounced by the Japanese employees sounds like "Rambo". The name fit, because the robots had a tendency to shake, rattle, and sometimes break wafers as they did their deliveries.
One time, my boss was seated at a desk with tables to each side of him when Rambo brushed into the back of his chair. It just stopped and locked its wheels. He was trapped until an operator saw the alert.
That's the point. The gateway is part of the Internet, but the clients may not be. I should have capitalized Internet in my previous post, because that's the distinction I'm so pedantically trying to point out.
"Remember: The Internet was supposed to be a network of networks NOT _THE NETWORK_."
You're misusing terms here. "Network of networks" means "routable ip networks". From an IP point of view, boxes behind a NAT are irrelevant. Nobody ever claimed that every machine should be connected to the Internet, but hosts on the Internet *were* intended to be routable.
The management and security benefits you alluded to are separate issues and can be achieved with less drastic measures than NAT.
Where's the logic in that? What other types of catastrophic failures wouldn't you count?
Besides, it wasn't a "poorly sealed gas tank" until the big roman candle burned a hole in it. The SRBs provide about 85% of the thrust and the design failed.
They always have been full of shit, and they probably always will be. Anyone who uses their software is just a fucking moron in denial of the facts. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Some of us are ancient enough to remember life before MS. We understand that they have not advanced the field, but retarded it by at least a decade.
"If the line item was introduced as its own atomic bill, it could be vetoed. Why should the fact that its not an actual separate bill matter?"
Because it's not what congress intended. The items are parts of a whole and need to be kept that way.
If you wrote a contract, would you allow the other party to alter it *after* you had signed it? Of course not. You work out the details beforehand. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where the president could veto critical items and sign just the bad parts.
I don't disagree with what you said, but you seem to have missed my point. If you can pick and choose which parts of a bill to accept, then you have the power to effectively rewrite it. That power is reserved for the congress. The potential for abuse is immense.
Slashdot Mirror
"I believe that the people in that flight had heard that other planes had been hijacked, and that's why they finally rose up. But it was too late"
They had even more knowledge than that. They knew that the other flights had been deliberately crashed. They had nothing to lose by rushing the cockpit. They were too late to save themselves because the takeover only lasted a few seconds.
What if it had been a Cuban flight and there was reason to believe that the plane would land safely? In that situation, a "vigilant" passenger might get everyone killed.
"It may be that their defense was effective"
They may have saved people on the ground, but not themselves. Even if they managed to disable the hijackers, they would have had to land the plane. When the passengers rushed the cockpit, the hijackers could have just shut off the engines making recovery tricky even for an experienced pilot. With the new doors, a hijacker who managed to get in could easily baracade himself in.
"The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker."
Rubbish. There were vigilant passengers on the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Although they muddled the hijackers' plans, it was hardly an effective defense.
Since the late 1960's, El Al has known the best methods of defending an aircraft against hijacking. Rule #1, lock the cockpit.
"Please take off your tin foil hats, guys!
Please take your head out of the sand.
"One might say that Microsoft is primarily responsible for the entire spyware issue..."
No, thousands of knowledgeable people *do* say it.
"I suspect Firefox's track record would be worse, albeit better than IE, if it were as popular"
That's a moot point.
"MS AntiSpyware is a fine piece of software..."
Penicillin is a fine medicine, but its makers don't go around spreading syphilis.
cc: attorney general
cc: better business bureau
I'm not paying your fraudulent bill. Stop harassing me.
"It will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this."
My guess is that they'll connect this to Iran via Zarqawi. This time Tony leads.
The stuff about "lameness filter" wasn't directed at you. I just pasted it in there as filler after the filter blocked my post. I agree that your message was worth shouting.
"DON'T BOOT INTO WINXP"
Enough said!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
"So if your ears can just hear the 22 kHz sine, they hear the complex waveform that repeats at 22 kHz as exactly the same thing. Do they not?"
That's the $64,000 question. Is 44.1 kHz adequate?
Some say it's not, especially when using 16 bit linear quantization. A listener may not be able to consciously hear the distortion, but that's not to say that it doesn't have an effect. Frequencies well outside the normally accepted range of hearing have been shown to cause changes in EEGs.
Bah! Everyone loves a Pops concert!
You may have misunderstood my point. Sampling and harmonic analysis cannot yield a perfect representation of the original waveform unless there is a priori knowledge of the function used to generate that waveform. For general audio recording, that isn't the case.
l
http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubneq.htm
The Nyquist theorem assumes that the signal is generated by a known function.
At 44.1 kHz sampling rate, there only 2 samples/cycle at the top of the spectrum. If all soundwaves were pure sine waves, then you would be correct. But 2 samples are not sufficient to accurately describe a more complicated waveform.
There was a memory fab in Japan that used mobile factory robots. The robots were called "Rainbow", which when pronounced by the Japanese employees sounds like "Rambo". The name fit, because the robots had a tendency to shake, rattle, and sometimes break wafers as they did their deliveries.
One time, my boss was seated at a desk with tables to each side of him when Rambo brushed into the back of his chair. It just stopped and locked its wheels. He was trapped until an operator saw the alert.
"by means of a gateway host"
That's the point. The gateway is part of the Internet, but the clients may not be. I should have capitalized Internet in my previous post, because that's the distinction I'm so pedantically trying to point out.
"Remember: The Internet was supposed to be a network of networks NOT _THE NETWORK_."
You're misusing terms here. "Network of networks" means "routable ip networks". From an IP point of view, boxes behind a NAT are irrelevant. Nobody ever claimed that every machine should be connected to the Internet, but hosts on the Internet *were* intended to be routable.
The management and security benefits you alluded to are separate issues and can be achieved with less drastic measures than NAT.
I'd make the argument that the benefit of taking Souter's house is that it may serve to protect the "inalienable" rights of all the town's citizens.
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
G.I. Joe has a bigger chance of dying in a Humvee in Iraq than Buck Rogers has of dying in the shuttle.
Maybe the public would be more accepting of the risk if we let George Bush land the thing on an aircraft carrier.
old: Where do you want to go today?
new: We know where you've been!
"seems gauranteed"
Famous last words.
if a patent is first rejected and then reinstated it is seen as "stronger."
An application is probably subject to more intense scrutiny upon reinstatement than upon initial acceptance.
Where's the logic in that? What other types of catastrophic failures wouldn't you count?
Besides, it wasn't a "poorly sealed gas tank" until the big roman candle burned a hole in it. The SRBs provide about 85% of the thrust and the design failed.
Verbal diarrhea.
In other words, M$ is full of shit.
They always have been full of shit, and they probably always will be. Anyone who uses their software is just a fucking moron in denial of the facts. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Some of us are ancient enough to remember life before MS. We understand that they have not advanced the field, but retarded it by at least a decade.
"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils."
"If the line item was introduced as its own atomic bill, it could be vetoed. Why should the fact that its not an actual separate bill matter?"
Because it's not what congress intended. The items are parts of a whole and need to be kept that way.
If you wrote a contract, would you allow the other party to alter it *after* you had signed it? Of course not. You work out the details beforehand. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where the president could veto critical items and sign just the bad parts.
I don't disagree with what you said, but you seem to have missed my point. If you can pick and choose which parts of a bill to accept, then you have the power to effectively rewrite it. That power is reserved for the congress. The potential for abuse is immense.