I am simply saying that if these people got off their lazy a$$e$ and worked, our economy/life would be better without these corner preachers.
It might be better right now, but it will be so much worse when Lord Xenu's starship comes out from behind Jupiter, and he finds his church has been subverted, messengers silenced, and his wrath rains down upon us....:)
But, seriously.....what is "work"? Essentially, in this context, it's doing something that someone finds valuable enough to pay you for. There's not even a question of legality, here. Not that it would matter, anyway. After all, if the mob's hitman gets paid to take someone out, is that still work? I'd argue that it is.
But, we have freedom of religion in Canada and the US, so if this church wants to send members out to preach on street corners, then it's seen as valuable work by somebody. If they're being paid, anyway. And if they're not being paid, and it's volunteer work, it doesn't make much difference, anyway. That means the person doing the work thinks it's valuable enough to be done without being paid externally. They're essentially paying themselves. So it's still work.
These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.
Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
"BadAnalogyGuy". Yeah...no kidding.
Nobody at Wikipedia is forcing CoS members to go against their principles and fellow members and kill them, or even speak poorly of them. They aren't being persecuted for their beliefs. They're being told to leave Wikipedia's private property alone, not even because of their beliefs, but because of their track record of propaganda edits. Which is both completely different, and also legal. Considering the CoS's history of making promotional propaganda edits to Wikipedia articles about them, I'd say it's also a very good idea.
The only way your analogy would work is if certain CoS members were forced to make derogatory edits to Wikipedia, rather than do nothing at all. And they're not even being forced to do nothing; only to do nothing from their own offices. Members can still make edits from home, libraries, Internet cafes, Starbucks' hotspots, and dozens if not hundreds of other places.
I suppose another way to make your analogy work is if the Jews in Germany/Austria were banned from having loudspeakers in the public square making public service announcements about how Judaism is the salvation to all people and things, and how they're much better than all other religions, and won't sue you for leaving the church, and don't force you to buy ridiculous electronics to practise the religion, and don't keep their most holy books locked up under copyright where nobody can even read them, and loads of other crap. (None of which is true about Judaism, BTW....this is just an example)
But the Jews didn't try to do this stuff, and they didn't get banned from it. So your analogy doesn't work.
It doesn't come with it, but I'm willing to bet all the libraries and functionality needed for it are there, just disabled by flipping a bit in the registry.
Well, if it was false positives saying a cookie was malicious when it's not, it's one thing. It could be an accident, or an incorrectly referenced domain or something.
But saying that a bunch of cookies are malicious when they're not even on your machine is something else entirely. That means it wasn't an accident. It was an intentional and malicious false positive.
As you probably guessed, I did those videos. I didn't bother verifying anything else that was detected, because after verifying the cookies weren't there, I have completely written off Symantec, and consider them to be rogue.
Trying to keep her Windows computers functioning is a bit of a PITA, but overall, she's worth it. Not even a question, there:)
Well, of course. According to standard/. logic, you and I must be the only two/. posters with wives. It's worth just about anything to stay in that exclusive club.:)
I guess that means I really don't have anything to complain about after all... However, in light of this thread, I couldn't help but notice your/. sig!
Well, about time somebody noticed it. I've had that there for a year or more, and nobody's mentioned it before that I've noticed, and I've never got a call from it, either. Considering how everybody bitches on about having to fix their mother's computer who lives halfway across the country, and their entire Christmas vacation is taken up by virus cleanups, software updates, and other assorted crap, I'm surprised I didn't get a flood.....
It's fairly common knowledge that Windows slows down over time, regardless of what maintenance you give it.
A three year old install of XP is going to get smoked by a new install of XP on the same hardware. So it doesn't surprise me that an older XP install is beat by a fresh 7 install.....
Then there's also the fact that it's running from a different drive. How do the cache sizes, internal transfer rates, and interface rates compare between the two drives? It's possible you've got a SATA1 driver for XP, and a SATA2 drive for Vista. Without more information, I'd have to say this comparison is totally meaningless.
And how does spoofing your neighbour's MAC address, claiming that he "tapped your WiFi when you had it open after a firmware update" sound plausible, if you spoof that MAC address into your router?
It doesn't. Because the wireless MAC of your neighbour will never, ever, under any circumstances, ever be seen by an ISP.
I know you can change MAC addresses in home routers. I'm not an idiot.
I can also think enough to know that "it musta been sumbudy else" isn't going to cut it as an alibi.
I'll one-up that with the people who have expired AV products that they don't care about, then feed their credit cards to Antivirus 2009 because of how annoying it is with its doom-and-gloom.
Funny that Symantec and co. could take a lesson from the criminals, eh?
If you get a notice of a safety recall for your Ford's brakes, and you choose to ignore it and not get it fixed, then months later your brakes go out and you hit a tree......guess who's responsible?
This will only work if you're on cable, and don't use a router. And even then, I'd question it's reliability. After all...law enforcement isn't really known for being technologically savvy. Some of them are, certainly, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
On DSL, on the other hand, you've got to send a username/password to connect. Doesn't matter a hoot if you change your MAC address or not...the password still says who you are.
And you obviously don't know much about low level networking. If you have a WiFi router, then the only MAC address the ISP sees is the one of your router. They don't see anything on your local network. So your neighbour can tap in all they want, and your router MAC address is still the one going to the ISP. MAC addresses stay on the local network segment.
Now, if you designed the system with electrically variable cavities, you'd be able to adjust it on the fly. The first few waves of a ping would bounce back, then you would disappear...
Unless the sound frequency was random for each chirp...... That's along the lines of what I was thinking.
But file copy performance is pretty much a pure kernel and IO subsystem function. I don't give a damn how fast my pretty menus redraw, if it takes 4 days to delete a ton of small files on a USB drive, rather than 4 minutes with XP.
I seriously think that's why Microsoft improved the cache so much on Vista. Drive performance has gone so far to the dogs that everything needs to be in memory for any reasonable performance. That was the only way to get the UI to seem responsive to the end user, while doing whatever bloated crap it's doing when you tell it to delete mike's_old_cell_number.txt
Via time in transit - if it has to wrap the sound around there will be a ever so slight delay - meaning you will see the shape of the sub as a depression in the image from the sea floor reflection,
I can see this, although the time difference is going to be minuscule. I could see something like that being noticed with a fairly smooth seabed, and with the detecting ship riding on smooth water. But once you throw a few waves into the mix, and a moderately craggy sea bottom, I'd think the signal:noise ratio would be impossible to work with.
Of course, I could be wrong, as I have no idea how accurate sonar is. I'm just approaching this from a security guy's perspective, trying to figure out ways around the system, and I'm just giving my first impressions.....
And I even Googled a bit to figure out what the heck you were talking about. But apparently not for the right stuff. Which isn't surprising, considering I haven't seen the movie....
Guess I should have Googled all terms together. Then, your/. comment is first (Damn! Google is fast!) and the movie review on answers.com is second.
i would think it would work on a wide range of frequencies (some better than others) but all should be better than nothing.
True, but "ultrasound waves" essentially covers any sound from 20kHz up. There's no way it can work on that kind of a range effectively enough to hide something as big as a sub from someone who really wants to find it.
Comparing it to the soundproofing in recording studios doesn't really work, as audible sound only covers, at most, 20Hz to 20kHz. For most people, it's more like 35Hz to 18kHz. As well as that, studio sound baffling absorbs sound indiscriminately.
I get the impression from this that it's not absorbing it so much as redirecting it around the cloaked object. TFA (which I've read now) compares it to similar cloaks which have been worked on for visible light. These light cloaks redirect light around the object, so you see what's behind it. A sonar cloak would have to do the same thing to be effective, otherwise the viewing vessel would see:
seabedseabedseabed.........seabedseabed
Any gap in the seabed would indicate a cloaked sub between you and the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
I am simply saying that if these people got off their lazy a$$e$ and worked, our economy/life would be better without these corner preachers.
It might be better right now, but it will be so much worse when Lord Xenu's starship comes out from behind Jupiter, and he finds his church has been subverted, messengers silenced, and his wrath rains down upon us.... :)
But, seriously.....what is "work"?
Essentially, in this context, it's doing something that someone finds valuable enough to pay you for. There's not even a question of legality, here. Not that it would matter, anyway. After all, if the mob's hitman gets paid to take someone out, is that still work? I'd argue that it is.
But, we have freedom of religion in Canada and the US, so if this church wants to send members out to preach on street corners, then it's seen as valuable work by somebody. If they're being paid, anyway.
And if they're not being paid, and it's volunteer work, it doesn't make much difference, anyway. That means the person doing the work thinks it's valuable enough to be done without being paid externally. They're essentially paying themselves. So it's still work.
Honestly, it's the first time I've ever seen a conversation Godwin itself from the original argument.
Well, if nothing else, you've got to admire his efficiency....
These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.
Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
"BadAnalogyGuy". Yeah...no kidding.
Nobody at Wikipedia is forcing CoS members to go against their principles and fellow members and kill them, or even speak poorly of them. They aren't being persecuted for their beliefs. They're being told to leave Wikipedia's private property alone, not even because of their beliefs, but because of their track record of propaganda edits. Which is both completely different, and also legal.
Considering the CoS's history of making promotional propaganda edits to Wikipedia articles about them, I'd say it's also a very good idea.
The only way your analogy would work is if certain CoS members were forced to make derogatory edits to Wikipedia, rather than do nothing at all. And they're not even being forced to do nothing; only to do nothing from their own offices. Members can still make edits from home, libraries, Internet cafes, Starbucks' hotspots, and dozens if not hundreds of other places.
I suppose another way to make your analogy work is if the Jews in Germany/Austria were banned from having loudspeakers in the public square making public service announcements about how Judaism is the salvation to all people and things, and how they're much better than all other religions, and won't sue you for leaving the church, and don't force you to buy ridiculous electronics to practise the religion, and don't keep their most holy books locked up under copyright where nobody can even read them, and loads of other crap. (None of which is true about Judaism, BTW....this is just an example)
But the Jews didn't try to do this stuff, and they didn't get banned from it. So your analogy doesn't work.
You living on Earth, not in Nutziland.
Huh?
I thought the two terms were interchangeable....
It doesn't come with it, but I'm willing to bet all the libraries and functionality needed for it are there, just disabled by flipping a bit in the registry.
what else do you have to offer me?
Aero.
Millions and millions of bubbly little nothings, surrounded by chocolate.
All those nothings take up a heck of a lot of room....
Well, if it was false positives saying a cookie was malicious when it's not, it's one thing. It could be an accident, or an incorrectly referenced domain or something.
But saying that a bunch of cookies are malicious when they're not even on your machine is something else entirely. That means it wasn't an accident. It was an intentional and malicious false positive.
As you probably guessed, I did those videos. I didn't bother verifying anything else that was detected, because after verifying the cookies weren't there, I have completely written off Symantec, and consider them to be rogue.
Trying to keep her Windows computers functioning is a bit of a PITA, but overall, she's worth it. Not even a question, there :)
Well, of course. According to standard /. logic, you and I must be the only two /. posters with wives. It's worth just about anything to stay in that exclusive club. :)
I guess that means I really don't have anything to complain about after all... However, in light of this thread, I couldn't help but notice your /. sig!
Well, about time somebody noticed it. I've had that there for a year or more, and nobody's mentioned it before that I've noticed, and I've never got a call from it, either.
Considering how everybody bitches on about having to fix their mother's computer who lives halfway across the country, and their entire Christmas vacation is taken up by virus cleanups, software updates, and other assorted crap, I'm surprised I didn't get a flood.....
How old is your XP install?
It's fairly common knowledge that Windows slows down over time, regardless of what maintenance you give it.
A three year old install of XP is going to get smoked by a new install of XP on the same hardware. So it doesn't surprise me that an older XP install is beat by a fresh 7 install.....
Then there's also the fact that it's running from a different drive. How do the cache sizes, internal transfer rates, and interface rates compare between the two drives? It's possible you've got a SATA1 driver for XP, and a SATA2 drive for Vista. Without more information, I'd have to say this comparison is totally meaningless.
Same here. Only I also ran 2K with no A/V. I haven't used it since around 2002.
No problems.
And how does spoofing your neighbour's MAC address, claiming that he "tapped your WiFi when you had it open after a firmware update" sound plausible, if you spoof that MAC address into your router?
It doesn't. Because the wireless MAC of your neighbour will never, ever, under any circumstances, ever be seen by an ISP.
I know you can change MAC addresses in home routers. I'm not an idiot.
I can also think enough to know that "it musta been sumbudy else" isn't going to cut it as an alibi.
it's your spouse you are talking about (so the work is pro bono, and you *can't* just say no when they ask for help),
Why not? Might solve two problems in one. :)
Happened years ago. Didn't make a peep of difference.
I'll one-up that with the people who have expired AV products that they don't care about, then feed their credit cards to Antivirus 2009 because of how annoying it is with its doom-and-gloom.
Funny that Symantec and co. could take a lesson from the criminals, eh?
Symantec has done this.
Don't know about the other "legit" vendors....
If you get a notice of a safety recall for your Ford's brakes, and you choose to ignore it and not get it fixed, then months later your brakes go out and you hit a tree......guess who's responsible?
I'll give you a hint. It's not Ford.
This will only work if you're on cable, and don't use a router. And even then, I'd question it's reliability. After all...law enforcement isn't really known for being technologically savvy. Some of them are, certainly, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
On DSL, on the other hand, you've got to send a username/password to connect.
Doesn't matter a hoot if you change your MAC address or not...the password still says who you are.
And you obviously don't know much about low level networking. If you have a WiFi router, then the only MAC address the ISP sees is the one of your router. They don't see anything on your local network. So your neighbour can tap in all they want, and your router MAC address is still the one going to the ISP.
MAC addresses stay on the local network segment.
Now, if you designed the system with electrically variable cavities, you'd be able to adjust it on the fly. The first few waves of a ping would bounce back, then you would disappear...
Unless the sound frequency was random for each chirp......
That's along the lines of what I was thinking.
But file copy performance is pretty much a pure kernel and IO subsystem function. I don't give a damn how fast my pretty menus redraw, if it takes 4 days to delete a ton of small files on a USB drive, rather than 4 minutes with XP.
I seriously think that's why Microsoft improved the cache so much on Vista. Drive performance has gone so far to the dogs that everything needs to be in memory for any reasonable performance. That was the only way to get the UI to seem responsive to the end user, while doing whatever bloated crap it's doing when you tell it to delete mike's_old_cell_number.txt
Via time in transit - if it has to wrap the sound around there will be a ever so slight delay - meaning you will see the shape of the sub as a depression in the image from the sea floor reflection,
I can see this, although the time difference is going to be minuscule. I could see something like that being noticed with a fairly smooth seabed, and with the detecting ship riding on smooth water. But once you throw a few waves into the mix, and a moderately craggy sea bottom, I'd think the signal:noise ratio would be impossible to work with.
Of course, I could be wrong, as I have no idea how accurate sonar is. I'm just approaching this from a security guy's perspective, trying to figure out ways around the system, and I'm just giving my first impressions.....
Nope, I haven't.
And I even Googled a bit to figure out what the heck you were talking about. But apparently not for the right stuff. Which isn't surprising, considering I haven't seen the movie....
Guess I should have Googled all terms together. Then, your /. comment is first (Damn! Google is fast!) and the movie review on answers.com is second.
You don't know what an SEP is, do you?
Read section 5.1.
Nobody'll see pink OMG PONIES!!1!!!1 subs in a guy's apartment.
Unless he's openly gay, or has a 5 year old daughter....
i would think it would work on a wide range of frequencies (some better than others) but all should be better than nothing.
True, but "ultrasound waves" essentially covers any sound from 20kHz up. There's no way it can work on that kind of a range effectively enough to hide something as big as a sub from someone who really wants to find it.
Comparing it to the soundproofing in recording studios doesn't really work, as audible sound only covers, at most, 20Hz to 20kHz. For most people, it's more like 35Hz to 18kHz. As well as that, studio sound baffling absorbs sound indiscriminately.
I get the impression from this that it's not absorbing it so much as redirecting it around the cloaked object. TFA (which I've read now) compares it to similar cloaks which have been worked on for visible light. These light cloaks redirect light around the object, so you see what's behind it. A sonar cloak would have to do the same thing to be effective, otherwise the viewing vessel would see:
seabedseabedseabed.........seabedseabed
Any gap in the seabed would indicate a cloaked sub between you and the bottom.
Not really.
It just means that, as a sub commander, the only thing you can now be sure of is where something is, rather than where something isn't.
So, in order to avoid crashing into invisible, cloaked submarines, all a sub commander will have to do is crash into the seabed.
I'm assuming you're a guy......
So paint them pink, and put OMG PONIES!!1!!1 stickers all over them, then put up an SEP.
You must be fun at parties.
Of course not. That's why he's posting on /. instead of getting drunk and picking up chicks....