What website were you trying to get your parents to connect to that wasn't using a properly signed cert?
I'm with the others, your parents should never be going through that menu - if they trust you and if you trust a self signed cert and understand the warnings, then they should get you to do it the first time.
(What kind of warnings are thrown up on subsequent visits?)
a) not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11
The stronger locked cockpit doors and the rule to not open it despite any demands or threats. Those would have prevented 9/11. You are correct that nowdays the violent group reaction is probably an even better counter - but without the 3000 dead of 9/11, no-one would ever do that.
There has never been any need to allow hijackers in the cockpit, just take them to where they want to go and do what they want you to do. The only reason the doors weren't put in before was cost.
b) the liquid explosive bit. No binary explosives might be a bit hard to do, but flat out and out liquid explosives HAVE been successfully used:
"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995" ... "The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."
In fact, the ban on significant quantities of liquids came 10 years TOO LATE. It's amazing that no-one else thought of attempting it since then. Maybe because they caught this bomb master in 1995 and he wasn't around to teach anyone else how to do it. Maybe because you don't need to use liquid explosives, regular bombs get through just fine a decent amount of the time.
It's my understanding that since Lockerbie, baggage containers were constructed to resist the types of explosions that brought that aircraft down. Are they widely used? Technically the baggage screening should prevent stuff in luggage from getting on. I think we simply need to do enough to cause them to shift their targets elsewhere, and as such force them to try and hit less-easier more fluid targets.
FAR FAR easier to stop having IDIOT reporters report on RAW FUNDAMENTAL research results as if they were going to be immediately applicable or as if they were guaranteed to be capable of going to market.
The problem isn't research. This is exactly how research goes. You investigate 1000 things for 10-20 years, and ONE comes out the door to use in widespread industry.
So - 1000 slashdot stories, times 10 dupes and repeats over the 10 years, times 10 because it's re-reported on all the other bloggies/forumish/etc/etc "news sources" - do you see where this is going? If reporters report this basic raw fundamental research like this, you MUST read 100,000 fucking slashdot style "stories" over 20 years before a single one gets commercialized.
We need a category called "basic/fundamental research", to which stories are assigned by people with brains, which then we can all exclude from our views.:)
Very useful insights. Especially about the pepper spray vs taser comparison.
Here's my own disclaimer - I'm concerned about taser overuse by the one in twenty or fifty officers who probably shouldn't be officers. On the other hand my brother is an officer, and one of his co-workers was able to de-escallate an escallating situation with a crowd of 30-50 angry youths just by displaying the taser and turning on the targeting laser (rural party, one person had to go to jail and a second just jumped using physical force against an officer to prevent that, and the crowd was getting very very agitated). In rural areas backup is 15-45 minutes away, so I'm very happy he has this option.
> "As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury."
Six times, just yourself? How many years have you had it?
I don't recall my parent's friends (the ones that were officers) being injured all that often. Before tasers were introduced, just how often were officers seriously injured vs nowdays? Or were they simply forced by the circumstances to spend more time talking, more time de-escallating, and more time waiting for backup?
You know what the real issue probably is? The one in twenty or one in fifty officers who should not be officers, whom other officers KNOW should not be officers - but who for bureaucratic and "union/blue-wall" type reasons - have not been fired yet.
You guys need to get rid of the damned blue wall and start holding yourselves to higher standards, and be more willing to get rid of the one in twenty who shouldn't be out there. You'll get even more respect from the rest of us citizens.
And you need to start publishing hard stats showing just how many fewer people are being seriously injured now that tasers are being used! That combined with lots of videos and personal stories of how it has been a positive thing - is the only way to combat the news organizations propensity for "If it bleeds, it leads".
(Hmmm, I should say I'm really really sorry you have to spend all day dealing with those of us that shouldn't be citizens...:| )
Now here's my biggest complaint. After years and years of field use, where are the statistical numbers that show a decrease in "adverse effects" - before and after taser use began? Yes yes you have to adjust for lots of different factors because crime waxes and wanes and so does the number of incidents with a given level of resistence from people being detained. BUT - if ANYONE in the world is equipped to collect good statistics, it should be police departments whose officers spend 50% of their time on paperwork.
Why the ******* are we all hanging in the wind GUESSING whether or not Taser use causes X% more deaths on the left, and not N% more bruises and M% more deaths due to savage beatings and justified and unjustified shootings on the other hand? Where are the ****ing hard numbers from all the YYY jurisdictions using tasers?!
Also the mumbo jumbo bull**** language about the "cause of death". The *only* thing that matters is whether or not the person would have died if the Taser had not been used. Are they actually claiming that they know for certain that the indviduals would have died had Tasers had not been used? **Exactly** what likelyhood do they place on the individual having died from a seizure or heart-attack if a Taser had not been used? If it's not zero percent, then the Taser's use IS contributory to the cause of death.
It doesn't matter if the person had a congenital heart defect!! Would the person have lived a longer life if a different form of force had been used!?
Now... balance that against the people that would have died (yes, probably completely different people, this is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't) if Tasers were not available...then we can choose how and where to allow the use of Tasers. So far I see no evidence that a systematic rational method of doing this is being done. Individual police departments are pulling guidelines out of their ass, for all I know. (They probably are not, but how come *that* is never mentioned? The only reason people get angry is because they don't know just how much effort is going into doing something right - and so they must presume that nothing is being done right - lack of evidence in such cases IS used against you by the public.)
There is no evidence that any of the children Dalhmer ate are dead.
> the children are in russia with nina's mother.
Did they get sent to Russia before he was charged with murder? Do you think them being sent to Russia was some kind of premeditated plan and so guaranteed that she could comfortably leave knowing that she would certainly get to see them again in her life? Or is this an after-the-fact "selective choice of facts" type of conspiracy theory conclusion?
> there is no evidence that she has not contacted her children.
Double negative. You can't prove God hasn't really contacted me. I can't prove you're not really the Devil.
> there is no evidence that she is not alive and well in russia.
There is no evidence that she is not alive and well at the bottom of the Marinaras Trench.
> the children's testimony was extremely conflictive
What's that? Children not being 100% lucid and razor accurate? You LIE!
> c'mon the bitch stole from his company. she destroyed his life. who can blame him?
They deserved it. They ALL deserved it.
PS: You're a psychopath with SERIOUS issues with "womankind" who are keeping you down and fucking you over... somehow.
> but the principles of the system are no different than you wanting privacy for all users of the internet
That is the stupidest dumbest fucking analogy I have EVER heard.
A vastly more accurate analogy would be if there were laws in all other western countries GUARANTEEING anonymity of internet traffic above all other laws - such that even if the police had records that a certain IP Address was used for grossly criminal purposes they would NOT be allowed to obtain warrants for the people holding and using those IP Addresses.
The "privacy" you have in your internet communications currently matches your "privacy" in your banking in all western countries(*), EXCEPT Switzerland - where you can commit ANY crime you want using their financial system and ALL other countries have no legal recourse what so ever.
I have not heard ANYONE arguing that one should be able to commit crime via the internet WITHOUT LEGAL RECOURSE by the authorities. Only that by DEFAULT without court orders, your communications should be privileged and private. IE: Facebook and Google have no right to divulge your private data without your permission - same as your bank.
I hereby declare that "atomic brainslide" is OUTRIGHT STUPID, if we ever establish a meritocracy he should not be allowed to hold office or vote.
(*) Your data is private, unless someone who is involved determines that you've committed a crime and forwards the information to police - aka Facebook notes that your private data is kiddy porn, or your bank has reason to suspect that you are laundering money. They tell the police, the police get court warrants, etc etc.
In Canada in the late 80's and 90's, the Conservatives (ideologically similar to your old school Republicans) almost completely dissolved and fragmented, with people spilling into the "Reform" party and then the "Alliance". Then not long ago they finally sorted out their ideological differences and all merged into one again.
Anyways, my point being that in order to get back that "old school Republican" principles, a metric ton of you voters need to splinter off and form a competing party with those principles. Sure for 1 or 2 elections you'll lose like hell to the Democrats, but it's an effective way of challenging and threatening the people ruining the party you used to like, and forcing it to return to it's roots, either that or they disappear as they loose voters to you.
I was going to partly agree with you - as I recalled that the vast majority of people have such paltry IQs and couldn't reason their way out of a wet bag. For them - yeah, maybe they do need some artificial emotionally based fairy-tale construct to constrain their behaviours as adults.
But then I completely convinced myself you are totally wrong, mostly with my second argument below:
> Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.
EVERYTHING can be derived from one single easily understandable principle - "You are free to do what you want, except for those things which would trample someone else's freedoms." All our 'morals' and rules are derived in a way as to maximize happiness in the world, starting from that one point. The ultimate expression of our "basic morals", our principles, is our Constitution (I'm Canadian, and I fucking love that puppy, the people who wrote it took the best balance of ideas from everywhere as of 1982. I would rather a court case be tried in Canada than anywhere else in the whole world.)
I would agree that it does take some logical reasoning abilities that a decent fraction of people *might* not have. However, you'd agree that 4 year olds don't have deadly sharp logical reasoning skills just yet, not really complicated ones, so please read on:
> Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.
When western parents teach a 2-6 year old what is right and what is wrong, do they immediately and primarily use religion? No. It's flat out plain "correct and discipline", with a basic explanation as to why they can't do what they want to. There's no religion involved at all. When young adults are moulded in school, is the primary tool religion? No, heck religion isn't even ALLOWED in there.
I argue that religion is NOT the primary method of teaching morals and right and wrong to the young of the modern western world.*
Religion is a relic from a bygone era, that is kept around SOLELY via a few of humankind's greatest weaknesses - weaknesses that are themselves a relic that probably served us well when we were apes and Neanderthals.
(*) There might be exceptions in more in the fundie parts of the USA, but most westerners don't grow up in the Religious heartlands of the US, they're an *exception*.
Is his time not worth anything? I mean, sure, it's probably not worth $300/hr, but *if* he'd accurately tracked how much of his time was spent on it, couldn't he have gotten *something* for all the personal time he had to throw into it? Has that ever been done?
Luckily, mobile phone base stations are stationary, and very very vulnerable to a first strike. So are all other emissions targ... I mean devices. [[ me begins figuring out how to cram 5-10 GBU39s into each cruise missile ]]
I'm in no way in favour of a nanny state - but corporations, organizations, and governments are obliged to learn from the past and learn from experience. If you serve 200 deg C coffee in flimsy cups to people driving cars, n% will suffer 3rd degree burns to significantly large parts of their bodies.
Either reduce the temperature of the coffee, or use sturdier cups. To purposefully ignore the n% who have already been hurt is to be directly responsible for the future n% who will be hurt.
The fact that some people, at home or at work, carefully walk to the table with sturdy ceramic mugs of piping hot cups of coffee - does not mean it's okay to serve scalding water in flimsy cups to motorists at a drive through window.
They WILL be hurt because statistically speaking humans have accidents and make mistakes. We're not perfect. You KNOW it's going to happen, therefore you are responsible for reducing the likelihood of it happening, especially if the cost to reduce the odds are so low and so simple.
As an organization or corporation, you can directly measure the likelihood and calculate the cost to remediate the damage. If you choose not to, you'd better have a good reason - and it can't be "oh they should have been more careful".
If "oh they should have been more careful" was allowed - there would be no seatbelt laws, no helmet laws, no sidewalks or curbs, and no speed limits.
You WOULD NOT BELIEVE just how irrational the lawyers are being - worrying about "open source" code accidentally getting into the codebase of the companies they advise.
A friend works for a company that is-being/was acquired by another BIG NAME 3-5 letter software company. They were forced to audit EVERYTHING they wrote, and
a) in writing guarantee that they did not use ANY open source code (accidentally or knowingly), and
b) for any open-source BSD-License code that was used, they were forced to get legal assurances (signed documents) from ALL of the authors of THAT 3rd party open source code stating that they did not include any code from previous employers in their code or that they did not use any code from ANY other open-source license. If they had failed to find the authors of the 3rd party open-source code, they would have been forced to re-write the code themselves.
The lawyers are making the pointy haired bosses in the big corporate bureaucracies paranoid about "being outed" someday in the future for stuff they didn't know about - and being sued, having to compensate someone else, or withdraw a product from the market while code is re-written. And they're probably also worried that someone who is nefarious enough could convince a court that they MUST release source code, as opposed to withdrawing a product from the market and/or re-writing code themselves.
Without a frickin doubt - lawyers know how to create work for themselves.
Imagine running a raid-1 array where if one half of the array goes bad, you have to replace BOTH. This immediately doubles your failure cost. No way in heck is anyone going to do that. Instead their going to raid-1 their failed "integrated raid-1" drives until the second half fails itself. Anything else would be a gross waste of money and time.
> You have to do that yourself,
How is buying and plugging in a second drive "hard"? You already have to buy one, why not just tell the guy behind the counter "two". It's not like you have to go to the store twice. Open up your computer twice. etc.
> it takes money,
You're either going to pay twice as much for the "integrated raid-1" drive, or you're going to get half the capacity. You haven't suddenly made this any cheaper.
> and most importantly it takes up space and electricity.
See "it takes money". You're either using the same amount of space and electricity and getting half the capacity you could have, or you're paying twice as much, using twice the space, and twice the electricity.
Sorry, you're imaginary magic doesn't work in this dimension:)
That part isn't insignificant. Have you read their proposed terms?
No occupation. No change to their government. They prosecute their own war criminals.
Yeah, sure. After you've murdered 10,000,000 civilians in other countries, after special unit 932 has vivisected 10,000 chinese civilians while alive and conscious, while you're threatening to kill another 250,000 Americans in an invasion and 10,000,000 of your own civilians in a suicidal last stand (or alternatively starve 10% of your populcation to death as we embargo you) - yeah, let's negotiate your retarded fucking terms in order to save 100,000 other different lives.
Even after 2 atomic bombs and threats of LOTS more, the emperor had to demand 4 days latter that his still evenly divided cabinet draw up his surrender speach. (Oct 9, 2nd bomb, emperor says they should surrender and cabinet kinda agrees, Oct 14 cabinet still discussing things, emperor DEMANDS they finish writing his surrender speach - which they finally do - having never heard their emperor demand something before).
If it wasn't for Hirohito (sorry, Emperor Shouwa) - the war would have easily claimed AT LEAST a few more million Japanese dead due to starvation alone.
To wear that shirt to an airport or even into a Bank is to ask to have guns pointed at your head. She's lucky she didn't bump into me first, she'd have a lot more bruises on her - I'm not as well trained in disarming people as officers of the law.
Punch it into google maps, switch to satellite view, and zoom in. It becomes clear that the green thing right below the bright object is a house, and right where the bright object is, that's all the things in that person's back yard.
A reflection from a car windshield or something. Bright reflections will often create pixel bleed, thus instead of a single bright point, there's the bright point plus a streak downwards.
This is the other possible downside of a search like this. This is the internet. There are TONS of assholes who will make trouble just for the sake of making trouble. Flagging every single one of hundreds of images as "a match". That and tons of people who can't copy and paste or who can't remember to re-click the "url to this page" and re-read the coords. Of the 6-8 coords reported by slashdotters that I've looked at, only two had anything remotely plane like. 4-6 were like "wtf, I see nothing but grass and trees".
In google-maps satellite view it looks more like a couple rocks.
amazon work units increasing, area, false pos
on
Help Find Steve Fossett
·
· Score: 3, Informative
When I started to help this morning there were 32,000 work units (called hits, images to be reviewed) available. They were disappearing at a rate of 5-10,000 per hour, meaning that all things being equal there were 50-100 people looking at them.
However over the past half hour the work units available have been *increasing*. Currently 12,000 and increasing. Clearly they are adding more to be done faster than we're doing them. So anyone who helped out at the beginning - don't assume the hits are "all done". There could be more at any time.
In my old version of IE I couldn't see the scale bars or the example image, looking at the same coords of a unique scene in google maps I estimated the image was 125m x 125m - which would be half meter resolution. Now I see they claim the images are actually 85x85m, which would be 1.08ft resolution.
Based on that and that I've done 400 units, that mean's I've searched one full square mile.
It also means the 32,000 units I saw when I started is only 10 miles x 10 miles, 100 square miles. I heard someone else say that they only have 500 square miles of imagery. Looking at Google Earth, assuming the new imagery is the kinda-rectangular patch that is all the same color/brightness - they have approx 1700 square miles. That means there is approximately 600,000 work units in total that need done. If everone does a square mile (shouldn't take more than an hour) then we need 1700 people helping.
But as someone else noted - they're really artificially limiting the search area, considering the range on his plane. Assuming he went certain places or crashed on his way back to the ranch. That doesn't bode well.
PS: It'd be way way more effective if they showed a "image before crash" so that people could self-discover their false positives, without forcing people to download google earth and figure it's before/after out, and/or be smart enough to copy/paste the coords into google-maps satellite view.
PPS: If they were really smart, they'd have a second private pool of the public's false positives being reviewed by amateurs or employees whom they know have much much smaller false positive rates, whom they know are comparing the two available before images (google maps and google earth) against the current images.
BTW: Here are images of the actual specific plane he was flying. http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N240R.html (Aviation buffs take pictures and index online everything that flies, apparently:) I'm guessing that although from the side it's mostly blue, that the top of the wings are white.
Slashdot Mirror
What website were you trying to get your parents to connect to that wasn't using a properly signed cert?
I'm with the others, your parents should never be going through that menu - if they trust you and if you trust a self signed cert and understand the warnings, then they should get you to do it the first time.
(What kind of warnings are thrown up on subsequent visits?)
I agree with everything you said, EXCEPT:
...
a) not a single policy enacted since that day was necessary to prevent a hijacking like those we had on 9/11
The stronger locked cockpit doors and the rule to not open it despite any demands or threats. Those would have prevented 9/11. You are correct that nowdays the violent group reaction is probably an even better counter - but without the 3000 dead of 9/11, no-one would ever do that.
There has never been any need to allow hijackers in the cockpit, just take them to where they want to go and do what they want you to do. The only reason the doors weren't put in before was cost.
b) the liquid explosive bit. No binary explosives might be a bit hard to do, but flat out and out liquid explosives HAVE been successfully used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
AND I QUOTE:
"Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995"
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."
In fact, the ban on significant quantities of liquids came 10 years TOO LATE. It's amazing that no-one else thought of attempting it since then. Maybe because they caught this bomb master in 1995 and he wasn't around to teach anyone else how to do it. Maybe because you don't need to use liquid explosives, regular bombs get through just fine a decent amount of the time.
It's my understanding that since Lockerbie, baggage containers were constructed to resist the types of explosions that brought that aircraft down. Are they widely used? Technically the baggage screening should prevent stuff in luggage from getting on. I think we simply need to do enough to cause them to shift their targets elsewhere, and as such force them to try and hit less-easier more fluid targets.
FAR FAR easier to stop having IDIOT reporters report on RAW FUNDAMENTAL research results as if they were going to be immediately applicable or as if they were guaranteed to be capable of going to market.
:)
The problem isn't research. This is exactly how research goes. You investigate 1000 things for 10-20 years, and ONE comes out the door to use in widespread industry.
So - 1000 slashdot stories, times 10 dupes and repeats over the 10 years, times 10 because it's re-reported on all the other bloggies/forumish/etc/etc "news sources" - do you see where this is going? If reporters report this basic raw fundamental research like this, you MUST read 100,000 fucking slashdot style "stories" over 20 years before a single one gets commercialized.
We need a category called "basic/fundamental research", to which stories are assigned by people with brains, which then we can all exclude from our views.
Quicktime? Fuck that. Please try again.
Very useful insights. Especially about the pepper spray vs taser comparison.
:| )
Here's my own disclaimer - I'm concerned about taser overuse by the one in twenty or fifty officers who probably shouldn't be officers. On the other hand my brother is an officer, and one of his co-workers was able to de-escallate an escallating situation with a crowd of 30-50 angry youths just by displaying the taser and turning on the targeting laser (rural party, one person had to go to jail and a second just jumped using physical force against an officer to prevent that, and the crowd was getting very very agitated). In rural areas backup is 15-45 minutes away, so I'm very happy he has this option.
> "As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury."
Six times, just yourself? How many years have you had it?
I don't recall my parent's friends (the ones that were officers) being injured all that often. Before tasers were introduced, just how often were officers seriously injured vs nowdays? Or were they simply forced by the circumstances to spend more time talking, more time de-escallating, and more time waiting for backup?
You know what the real issue probably is? The one in twenty or one in fifty officers who should not be officers, whom other officers KNOW should not be officers - but who for bureaucratic and "union/blue-wall" type reasons - have not been fired yet.
You guys need to get rid of the damned blue wall and start holding yourselves to higher standards, and be more willing to get rid of the one in twenty who shouldn't be out there. You'll get even more respect from the rest of us citizens.
And you need to start publishing hard stats showing just how many fewer people are being seriously injured now that tasers are being used! That combined with lots of videos and personal stories of how it has been a positive thing - is the only way to combat the news organizations propensity for "If it bleeds, it leads".
(Hmmm, I should say I'm really really sorry you have to spend all day dealing with those of us that shouldn't be citizens...
Now here's my biggest complaint. After years and years of field use, where are the statistical numbers that show a decrease in "adverse effects" - before and after taser use began? Yes yes you have to adjust for lots of different factors because crime waxes and wanes and so does the number of incidents with a given level of resistence from people being detained. BUT - if ANYONE in the world is equipped to collect good statistics, it should be police departments whose officers spend 50% of their time on paperwork.
... balance that against the people that would have died (yes, probably completely different people, this is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't) if Tasers were not available. ..then we can choose how and where to allow the use of Tasers. So far I see no evidence that a systematic rational method of doing this is being done. Individual police departments are pulling guidelines out of their ass, for all I know. (They probably are not, but how come *that* is never mentioned? The only reason people get angry is because they don't know just how much effort is going into doing something right - and so they must presume that nothing is being done right - lack of evidence in such cases IS used against you by the public.)
Why the ******* are we all hanging in the wind GUESSING whether or not Taser use causes X% more deaths on the left, and not N% more bruises and M% more deaths due to savage beatings and justified and unjustified shootings on the other hand? Where are the ****ing hard numbers from all the YYY jurisdictions using tasers?!
Also the mumbo jumbo bull**** language about the "cause of death". The *only* thing that matters is whether or not the person would have died if the Taser had not been used. Are they actually claiming that they know for certain that the indviduals would have died had Tasers had not been used? **Exactly** what likelyhood do they place on the individual having died from a seizure or heart-attack if a Taser had not been used? If it's not zero percent, then the Taser's use IS contributory to the cause of death.
It doesn't matter if the person had a congenital heart defect!! Would the person have lived a longer life if a different form of force had been used!?
Now
> there is no evidence that she is dead.
... somehow.
There is no evidence that any of the children Dalhmer ate are dead.
> the children are in russia with nina's mother.
Did they get sent to Russia before he was charged with murder? Do you think them being sent to Russia was some kind of premeditated plan and so guaranteed that she could comfortably leave knowing that she would certainly get to see them again in her life? Or is this an after-the-fact "selective choice of facts" type of conspiracy theory conclusion?
> there is no evidence that she has not contacted her children.
Double negative. You can't prove God hasn't really contacted me. I can't prove you're not really the Devil.
> there is no evidence that she is not alive and well in russia.
There is no evidence that she is not alive and well at the bottom of the Marinaras Trench.
> the children's testimony was extremely conflictive
What's that? Children not being 100% lucid and razor accurate? You LIE!
> c'mon the bitch stole from his company. she destroyed his life. who can blame him?
They deserved it. They ALL deserved it.
PS: You're a psychopath with SERIOUS issues with "womankind" who are keeping you down and fucking you over
$100 for an ssh client!?! WTF, has BB and/or the telco providers locked down the device or network stack so you can't run what you want on it?
> but the principles of the system are no different than you wanting privacy for all users of the internet
That is the stupidest dumbest fucking analogy I have EVER heard.
A vastly more accurate analogy would be if there were laws in all other western countries GUARANTEEING anonymity of internet traffic above all other laws - such that even if the police had records that a certain IP Address was used for grossly criminal purposes they would NOT be allowed to obtain warrants for the people holding and using those IP Addresses.
The "privacy" you have in your internet communications currently matches your "privacy" in your banking in all western countries(*), EXCEPT Switzerland - where you can commit ANY crime you want using their financial system and ALL other countries have no legal recourse what so ever.
I have not heard ANYONE arguing that one should be able to commit crime via the internet WITHOUT LEGAL RECOURSE by the authorities. Only that by DEFAULT without court orders, your communications should be privileged and private. IE: Facebook and Google have no right to divulge your private data without your permission - same as your bank.
I hereby declare that "atomic brainslide" is OUTRIGHT STUPID, if we ever establish a meritocracy he should not be allowed to hold office or vote.
(*) Your data is private, unless someone who is involved determines that you've committed a crime and forwards the information to police - aka Facebook notes that your private data is kiddy porn, or your bank has reason to suspect that you are laundering money. They tell the police, the police get court warrants, etc etc.
Sounds like you need to have a "Reform split".
In Canada in the late 80's and 90's, the Conservatives (ideologically similar to your old school Republicans) almost completely dissolved and fragmented, with people spilling into the "Reform" party and then the "Alliance". Then not long ago they finally sorted out their ideological differences and all merged into one again.
Anyways, my point being that in order to get back that "old school Republican" principles, a metric ton of you voters need to splinter off and form a competing party with those principles. Sure for 1 or 2 elections you'll lose like hell to the Democrats, but it's an effective way of challenging and threatening the people ruining the party you used to like, and forcing it to return to it's roots, either that or they disappear as they loose voters to you.
I was going to partly agree with you - as I recalled that the vast majority of people have such paltry IQs and couldn't reason their way out of a wet bag. For them - yeah, maybe they do need some artificial emotionally based fairy-tale construct to constrain their behaviours as adults.
But then I completely convinced myself you are totally wrong, mostly with my second argument below:
> Without God, you must explain moral codes in practical terms.
EVERYTHING can be derived from one single easily understandable principle - "You are free to do what you want, except for those things which would trample someone else's freedoms." All our 'morals' and rules are derived in a way as to maximize happiness in the world, starting from that one point. The ultimate expression of our "basic morals", our principles, is our Constitution (I'm Canadian, and I fucking love that puppy, the people who wrote it took the best balance of ideas from everywhere as of 1982. I would rather a court case be tried in Canada than anywhere else in the whole world.)
I would agree that it does take some logical reasoning abilities that a decent fraction of people *might* not have. However, you'd agree that 4 year olds don't have deadly sharp logical reasoning skills just yet, not really complicated ones, so please read on:
> Religion is a way of passing down millennia of hard-learned lessons in a way that leaves no room for argument.
When western parents teach a 2-6 year old what is right and what is wrong, do they immediately and primarily use religion? No. It's flat out plain "correct and discipline", with a basic explanation as to why they can't do what they want to. There's no religion involved at all. When young adults are moulded in school, is the primary tool religion? No, heck religion isn't even ALLOWED in there.
I argue that religion is NOT the primary method of teaching morals and right and wrong to the young of the modern western world.*
Religion is a relic from a bygone era, that is kept around SOLELY via a few of humankind's greatest weaknesses - weaknesses that are themselves a relic that probably served us well when we were apes and Neanderthals.
(*) There might be exceptions in more in the fundie parts of the USA, but most westerners don't grow up in the Religious heartlands of the US, they're an *exception*.
Is his time not worth anything? I mean, sure, it's probably not worth $300/hr, but *if* he'd accurately tracked how much of his time was spent on it, couldn't he have gotten *something* for all the personal time he had to throw into it? Has that ever been done?
Luckily, mobile phone base stations are stationary, and very very vulnerable to a first strike. So are all other emissions targ... I mean devices.
[[ me begins figuring out how to cram 5-10 GBU39s into each cruise missile ]]
YES, definitely.
I'm in no way in favour of a nanny state - but corporations, organizations, and governments are obliged to learn from the past and learn from experience. If you serve 200 deg C coffee in flimsy cups to people driving cars, n% will suffer 3rd degree burns to significantly large parts of their bodies.
Either reduce the temperature of the coffee, or use sturdier cups. To purposefully ignore the n% who have already been hurt is to be directly responsible for the future n% who will be hurt.
The fact that some people, at home or at work, carefully walk to the table with sturdy ceramic mugs of piping hot cups of coffee - does not mean it's okay to serve scalding water in flimsy cups to motorists at a drive through window.
They WILL be hurt because statistically speaking humans have accidents and make mistakes. We're not perfect. You KNOW it's going to happen, therefore you are responsible for reducing the likelihood of it happening, especially if the cost to reduce the odds are so low and so simple.
As an organization or corporation, you can directly measure the likelihood and calculate the cost to remediate the damage. If you choose not to, you'd better have a good reason - and it can't be "oh they should have been more careful".
If "oh they should have been more careful" was allowed - there would be no seatbelt laws, no helmet laws, no sidewalks or curbs, and no speed limits.
No problem! Give these people a cellphone and use it's signal to eliminate the false positives from nearby cellphones.
Of course then the Terrorist's first job will be to kidnap a couple of these people so they can take them along with the "shipment".
It's because of this:
..where someone point out that "xkcd's coming wasn't quite so funny any more" but did not provide a direct link.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/11/china.blogger/index.html
and also this:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Blogger_Beaten_to_Death_in_China_for_Filming_Argument
I can't believe I'm the first one to point this out!
It's probably just lawyers covering their asses.
You WOULD NOT BELIEVE just how irrational the lawyers are being - worrying about "open source" code accidentally getting into the codebase of the companies they advise.
A friend works for a company that is-being/was acquired by another BIG NAME 3-5 letter software company. They were forced to audit EVERYTHING they wrote, and
a) in writing guarantee that they did not use ANY open source code (accidentally or knowingly), and
b) for any open-source BSD-License code that was used, they were forced to get legal assurances (signed documents) from ALL of the authors of THAT 3rd party open source code stating that they did not include any code from previous employers in their code or that they did not use any code from ANY other open-source license. If they had failed to find the authors of the 3rd party open-source code, they would have been forced to re-write the code themselves.
The lawyers are making the pointy haired bosses in the big corporate bureaucracies paranoid about "being outed" someday in the future for stuff they didn't know about - and being sued, having to compensate someone else, or withdraw a product from the market while code is re-written. And they're probably also worried that someone who is nefarious enough could convince a court that they MUST release source code, as opposed to withdrawing a product from the market and/or re-writing code themselves.
Without a frickin doubt - lawyers know how to create work for themselves.
So you're saying that the networks ARE connected, and it's only the routers and the "networking" that "separate" them.
[extreme sarcasm] Routers and switches have never had vulnerabilities before... I'm not worried at all!!![/e]
Please leave the mission-critical security analysis to the rest of us, okay NEWB?
Imagine running a raid-1 array where if one half of the array goes bad, you have to replace BOTH. This immediately doubles your failure cost. No way in heck is anyone going to do that. Instead their going to raid-1 their failed "integrated raid-1" drives until the second half fails itself. Anything else would be a gross waste of money and time.
:)
> You have to do that yourself,
How is buying and plugging in a second drive "hard"? You already have to buy one, why not just tell the guy behind the counter "two". It's not like you have to go to the store twice. Open up your computer twice. etc.
> it takes money,
You're either going to pay twice as much for the "integrated raid-1" drive, or you're going to get half the capacity. You haven't suddenly made this any cheaper.
> and most importantly it takes up space and electricity.
See "it takes money". You're either using the same amount of space and electricity and getting half the capacity you could have, or you're paying twice as much, using twice the space, and twice the electricity.
Sorry, you're imaginary magic doesn't work in this dimension
> and to make their surrender unconditional.
That part isn't insignificant. Have you read their proposed terms?
No occupation.
No change to their government.
They prosecute their own war criminals.
Yeah, sure. After you've murdered 10,000,000 civilians in other countries, after special unit 932 has vivisected 10,000 chinese civilians while alive and conscious, while you're threatening to kill another 250,000 Americans in an invasion and 10,000,000 of your own civilians in a suicidal last stand (or alternatively starve 10% of your populcation to death as we embargo you) - yeah, let's negotiate your retarded fucking terms in order to save 100,000 other different lives.
Even after 2 atomic bombs and threats of LOTS more, the emperor had to demand 4 days latter that his still evenly divided cabinet draw up his surrender speach. (Oct 9, 2nd bomb, emperor says they should surrender and cabinet kinda agrees, Oct 14 cabinet still discussing things, emperor DEMANDS they finish writing his surrender speach - which they finally do - having never heard their emperor demand something before).
If it wasn't for Hirohito (sorry, Emperor Shouwa) - the war would have easily claimed AT LEAST a few more million Japanese dead due to starvation alone.
..and tried to "disarm" her.
To wear that shirt to an airport or even into a Bank is to ask to have guns pointed at your head. She's lucky she didn't bump into me first, she'd have a lot more bruises on her - I'm not as well trained in disarming people as officers of the law.
No.
Punch it into google maps, switch to satellite view, and zoom in. It becomes clear that the green thing right below the bright object is a house, and right where the bright object is, that's all the things in that person's back yard.
A reflection from a car windshield or something. Bright reflections will often create pixel bleed, thus instead of a single bright point, there's the bright point plus a streak downwards.
Definitely NOT a plane.
I don't see a single thing anywhere near there.
This is the other possible downside of a search like this. This is the internet. There are TONS of assholes who will make trouble just for the sake of making trouble. Flagging every single one of hundreds of images as "a match". That and tons of people who can't copy and paste or who can't remember to re-click the "url to this page" and re-read the coords. Of the 6-8 coords reported by slashdotters that I've looked at, only two had anything remotely plane like. 4-6 were like "wtf, I see nothing but grass and trees".
In google-maps satellite view it looks more like a couple rocks.
When I started to help this morning there were 32,000 work units (called hits, images to be reviewed) available. They were disappearing at a rate of 5-10,000 per hour, meaning that all things being equal there were 50-100 people looking at them.
:) I'm guessing that although from the side it's mostly blue, that the top of the wings are white.
However over the past half hour the work units available have been *increasing*. Currently 12,000 and increasing. Clearly they are adding more to be done faster than we're doing them. So anyone who helped out at the beginning - don't assume the hits are "all done". There could be more at any time.
In my old version of IE I couldn't see the scale bars or the example image, looking at the same coords of a unique scene in google maps I estimated the image was 125m x 125m - which would be half meter resolution. Now I see they claim the images are actually 85x85m, which would be 1.08ft resolution.
Based on that and that I've done 400 units, that mean's I've searched one full square mile.
It also means the 32,000 units I saw when I started is only 10 miles x 10 miles, 100 square miles. I heard someone else say that they only have 500 square miles of imagery. Looking at Google Earth, assuming the new imagery is the kinda-rectangular patch that is all the same color/brightness - they have approx 1700 square miles. That means there is approximately 600,000 work units in total that need done. If everone does a square mile (shouldn't take more than an hour) then we need 1700 people helping.
But as someone else noted - they're really artificially limiting the search area, considering the range on his plane. Assuming he went certain places or crashed on his way back to the ranch. That doesn't bode well.
PS: It'd be way way more effective if they showed a "image before crash" so that people could self-discover their false positives, without forcing people to download google earth and figure it's before/after out, and/or be smart enough to copy/paste the coords into google-maps satellite view.
PPS: If they were really smart, they'd have a second private pool of the public's false positives being reviewed by amateurs or employees whom they know have much much smaller false positive rates, whom they know are comparing the two available before images (google maps and google earth) against the current images.
BTW: Here are images of the actual specific plane he was flying. http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N240R.html (Aviation buffs take pictures and index online everything that flies, apparently