If you think you can deliver letters across the country for less than half a dollar, you're free to do so.
Um, no, you're not. The USPS has a Federally mandated monopoly on first-class letter distribution. They have gone to court to protect this, like when they shut down some kids who were delivering Christmas cards.
You might try actually reading what I write. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that the profit motive was better, only that it doesn't necessarily follow that it causes pollution.
It's not a question of black and white. It's a matter of pointing out that you can't chalk pollution up to the profit motive when the worst polluters had no profit motive.
Nonsense, things like oil spills happen because companies are only spend the minimum they can on safety. This is a result of the PROFIT MOTIVE and hence capitalism there is massive incentive to do things as cheaply and badly as possible for maximum profit and this is common knowledge
I'd be more impressed by this line of argument if the communist nations hadn't been worse polluters than any corporation ever dreamed of being.
I read the first link. The only piece of concrete information it provided about Duqu was that it was "malware". It actually had more information about Stuxnet than about Duqu.
The problem is, and its not necessarily an IT depts fault, is that its often *more expensive* to underfund IT.
Of course it is. But this is hardly the IT department's fault. In fact, the biggest cause of frustration in any IT department is likely to be that they can't get the resources to do their jobs right.
A true scientist would take every conceivable explanation into account.
No, he doesn't. He can't. Because there is always a infinite number of possible explanations to take into account. A scientist can't waste his time thinking about invisible pink unicorns (you can't know they're not there! They're invisible!). A true scientist takes the most likely explanation into account, and then runs experiments on it to see if he can disprove it. If he can, then it's time to formulate a new explanation. If not, the current explanation stands, for now.
An Islamic state is constitutional ( defined by the Koran ofc ) where the ruler is chosen by a group of scholars, approved by the population and can be removed.
Officially, that's what Iran has. Unofficially, of course, the self-selected "group of scholars" are the real rulers, as was absolutely inevitable given the set up you outline.
Think of it from a different point of view. You submit a dissertation in which you reference one of these new texts and supports your claim that the sky is blue. Between the time you submit the paper and the paper being reviewed the text you have referenced is changed to say the sky is actually slightly violet rather than blue.
What's needed here is a distinction between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are a direct report and should never change. Secondary sources are compilations and should change as the facts are updated. Since you should cite primary sources (your dissertation cite about the sky being blue *was* from a primary source, right?), that solves the problem.
Correct. Fortunately, this doesn't add greatly to the difficulty of the task. In any case, the first task is proving we won't put somebody's eye out with this thing. Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.
They'd be unable to attempt a decrypt without using the software that encrypted it
Wrong. The idea that the encryption *algorithm* is resistant to analysis is one of the most common mistakes beginners in encryption make. Only the key makes the encryption hard to break.
How do you think police decrypt something encrypted with a commercial software package?
With the commercial software package--because they can trust it. That means it's not worth the trouble to reverse-engineer it. With your home-brewed, booby-trapped software that they don't trust at all? They'll take the trouble, assuming that they care that much about what's on the disk.
there's no way to determine the number of hidden volumes.
Am I missing something here? The physical disk has a known, fixed size. When the size of all the volumes you have discovered (including their free space) add up to the size of the physical disk, you've found everything.
I live in the US, and I've never lived anywhere you couldn't drink tap water. In fact, I always have; I very rarely buy bottled water, because it's such a scam.
Slashdot Mirror
The customer should always be treated with respect, even when he's not a customer any more. That doesn't mean it makes sense to serve every customer.
Unless you make the mistake of going with Quebec.
Um, no, you're not. The USPS has a Federally mandated monopoly on first-class letter distribution. They have gone to court to protect this, like when they shut down some kids who were delivering Christmas cards.
Okay, it's obvious you don't need me; you're carrying on both sides of the conversation by yourself. Have fun!
You might try actually reading what I write. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that the profit motive was better, only that it doesn't necessarily follow that it causes pollution.
It's not a question of black and white. It's a matter of pointing out that you can't chalk pollution up to the profit motive when the worst polluters had no profit motive.
I'd be more impressed by this line of argument if the communist nations hadn't been worse polluters than any corporation ever dreamed of being.
Maybe you don't. Everybody else does.
I read the first link. The only piece of concrete information it provided about Duqu was that it was "malware". It actually had more information about Stuxnet than about Duqu.
...beats the generics by selling at a generics price, I don't really see what the problem is.
"I'm not a cancer cure, but I play one in the movies. That ought to be good enough for anybody."
Not the only people that happened to, either. Ask Bayer.
Of course it is. But this is hardly the IT department's fault. In fact, the biggest cause of frustration in any IT department is likely to be that they can't get the resources to do their jobs right.
No, he doesn't. He can't. Because there is always a infinite number of possible explanations to take into account. A scientist can't waste his time thinking about invisible pink unicorns (you can't know they're not there! They're invisible!). A true scientist takes the most likely explanation into account, and then runs experiments on it to see if he can disprove it. If he can, then it's time to formulate a new explanation. If not, the current explanation stands, for now.
Congratulations, you are the one billionth idiot who has no idea what a scientific theory is. You win!
Officially, that's what Iran has. Unofficially, of course, the self-selected "group of scholars" are the real rulers, as was absolutely inevitable given the set up you outline.
Most people call it a "wedding band". Coincidental resemblance? You decide.
What's needed here is a distinction between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are a direct report and should never change. Secondary sources are compilations and should change as the facts are updated. Since you should cite primary sources (your dissertation cite about the sky being blue *was* from a primary source, right?), that solves the problem.
Correct. Fortunately, this doesn't add greatly to the difficulty of the task. In any case, the first task is proving we won't put somebody's eye out with this thing. Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.
The Chinese government is not in charge of Gundam!
That's the same combination I have on my luggage!
Wrong. The idea that the encryption *algorithm* is resistant to analysis is one of the most common mistakes beginners in encryption make. Only the key makes the encryption hard to break.
With the commercial software package--because they can trust it. That means it's not worth the trouble to reverse-engineer it. With your home-brewed, booby-trapped software that they don't trust at all? They'll take the trouble, assuming that they care that much about what's on the disk.
Unless it's really freakin' big, the Coriolis forces will be a bitch, though.
Am I missing something here? The physical disk has a known, fixed size. When the size of all the volumes you have discovered (including their free space) add up to the size of the physical disk, you've found everything.
I live in the US, and I've never lived anywhere you couldn't drink tap water. In fact, I always have; I very rarely buy bottled water, because it's such a scam.