That's certainly a much shorter way to describe it.
I like the drama of "the source of all Truth and Knowledge." It's artistic, and theatrical, but sometimes it might be useful to get it out in a monosyllabic hurry.
Your choice is to either embrace it, and adapt, or resist it, and perish.
You definately have to view it all with a more critical eye, but that too is a skill that must be developed and honed, and it will serve us well (not just on the Internet, either).
Are you saying that flying a plane into will not harm it, or that the effect of destroying it will mean very little in the grand scheme of things?
The ribbon will have tremendous tensile strength, but that doesn't mean it would stand up to an impact of that sort.
For example, a fiber optic strand is very strong. Pulling on it from it's ends, it takes a lot of force to pull it apart. However, if you apply just a little force creating a narrow bend, it'll snap with almost no effort at all.
I don't know enough about carbon nano-tubes to determine how it would hold up, nor to gauge how strong they are in relation to specific types of force, and how those forces are applied.
That said, I'm pretty sure that flying a large aircraft into it at a speed upwards of 500 mph would definately cause some trouble.
You're on crack. The WTC trajectory was difficult not because it's hard to hit a building with an airplane, but rather, it was trying not to hit anything else that loomed between the plane and the eventual target. Flying a jumbo jet through a city trying to hit a specific building is a difficult task. Flying a jumbo jet into a tall object surrounded by nothing else would be a piece of cake even to an unskilled pilot.
It's not like trying to hit a 1 square meter target... It's hitting a target 1 meter wide, but for all practicle intents and purposes, infinately long.
Pilots line up to hit the center of a runway every time they land. You don't think a terrorist could easily hit this thing within the width of a given airplane?
As far as your other point, regarding the "attractiveness" of this target from a terrorists perspective, I'm with you on that one. It's not a sexy terrorism target. Very few casualties, if any... Very low visibility on most people's radar.
It'd be a waste of time and energy for terrorists.
You are not a lawyer, and neither am I, but instead of simply accepting what I hear, sometimes I like to check into things, especially before I go giving other people advice.
An employer is not required by law to obtain an employees Social Security number. The law requires only that they ask for it. (How can they be required to obtain an employees SSN, when in fact, there is no legal requirement that a person obtain an SSN in the first place?)
Here's a relevant excerpt (And please ignore the religious component... That's not the point.):
Employment is a form of contractual agreement. Generally, the same points made in the previous answer regarding contractual agreements also apply here. If the terms of employment include a requirement that the employee must supply their social security number then there are basically four options available: 1) supply the requested SSN; 2) ask to work out another arrangement where the SSN isn't required; 3) don't work for that company; or, 4) sue the business in court.
An employee or job applicant may be able to receive protection from coerced submission of a SSN for employment purposes by relying on federal anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703(a)(1), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate against any employee or perspective employee on the bases of his or her religion. (This is in addition to the basic Constitutional First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.)
In 1992 a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by a Mr. Hanson, wherein he claimed as a "Christian Fundamentalist" he could not obtain or use a SSN. The EEOC filed suit against the business that fired Mr. Hanson on his behalf. The suit claimed that firing Mr. Hanson due to his not having or getting a SSN constituted discrimination due to his religious belief. The business claimed that they were required to either force Mr. Hanson to get a SSN or fire him because they were required by certain IRS Code sections and regulations to report all employees' SSNs on certain IRS forms. The business also responded that it was required by federal law to report all employees' SSNs to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
The EEOC countered that the only requirement imposed upon a businesses by the various tax laws was that employers must "request" an employee's or potential employee's taxpayer identification number, and that there was be no penalty for a business not succeeding in obtaining one. The EEOC, itself a federal government agency, stated in its "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" that:
"the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS."
The EEOC further argued that employers were permitted to use any one of several acceptable forms of identification and employment eligibility verification other than a SSN and still comply with the Immigration Reform Act requirements.
The Court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint. A settlement was later reached in which Mr. Hanson was awarded back-pay. The Court's final decree setting out the terms of the settlement stated that:
"The [employer] shall be permanently enjoined from terminating an employee for failure to provide a social security number because of religious beliefs."
A sincerely held religious belief may serve as a valid basis for objecting to requirements for a social security number for employment purposes. A business could be found guilty of discrimination for taking adverse action against an employee or applicant due to their refusal to use or obtain a SSN.
To hear you tell it, NAFTA is a group of people, like the UN.
It's only a treaty.
And the US would do well to distance itself from the rest of North America... If we could just find a way to reposition a couple of fault lines, and trigger "The Big One[tm]," we'd be much better off.
No doubt Dilbert fans remember the Gruntmaster 6000, which has fewer features than the Gruntmaster 9000, but is software upgradable.
As an aside, the Dilber TV show has just started airing on Comedy Central (I think... My Tivo just started grabbing them, and I'm not 100% sure were they came from... Ahhh... The Glory of Tivo.).
Way to blow a 23 point 3rd quarter lead on the road, letting Miami turn them into their bitch... That would have been a crippling loss for Miami. It'd have taken them out of the season, and ended the longest active win streak in the country, and the longest active streak of home victories... UF won't even get a redemption game next year. The teams don't meet again until 2005, at a neutral site.
But what matters most is that you've successfully misidentified the school in question, and their mascot. University of Florida, or UF (or FU, to the Tallahassee faithful), are the Florida Gators.
FSU stands for Florida State University, and they are the Florida State Seminoles.
And, praytell, what do you think they use to pay for all of these academic endeavors?
At FSU, Seminole Football pays the bills. This is the Magnet that Bobby Bowden built. Even if none of the revenue paid for this research directly, it paid for a lot of other programs that would have been competing for those dollars at budget time.
The DirecTV Tivo models are far less expensive than the standalone units for 2 reasons:
First, because they are recording an aldeary digital signal directly from the satellite stream, they do not have any expensive MPEG encoding hardware... It would be redundant.
Second, DirecTV subsidizes the cast of the receivers, expecting to make their money on your annual subscriptions.
Currently, the Hughes HDVR2 (Series 2 DirecTivo) is running about $250 at Circuit City. You can get a much better deal as a new DirecTV customer buying it as part of an installation package. Many times, they will include one for free.
My first Tivo recorded 35 hours, and I paid $99 (Hughes Series 1 DirecTivo). So, using the values you provided, that would be roughly 8.8 times cooler than what you just described.
SW-1# conf t
(SW-1-config)int range fa0/1 - 48
(SW-1-config-int)switchport port-security mac-address sticky
(SW-1-config-int)switchport port-security maximum 1
(SW-1-config-int)switchport port-security violation shutdown
(SW-1-config-int)switchport port-security aging 0
(SW-1-config-int)^Z
SW-1# wr mem
Not foolproof, but better than what most people have configured today.
When they connect that second device to their stealth hub or switch, your switch will cut them off (Seeing a second connected MAC address disables the switchport).
Just to follow up, VoIP can indeed function very well with higher latencies, including the ranges you mentioned above.
The most important concern that that the latency remain fairly constant. If you have a consistant 300ms latency, the call will be great. If, however, the latency fluctuates between 100ms and 400ms, that's where call quality can rapidly go down the tubes.
Consistant latency is the most important factor for streaming traffic.
I'm not looking for a Trans-Atlantic pissing contest, but you're posting on an "Ask Slashdot" topic. If you know something about the topic, then share it. If not, don't.
If everyone was required to do their homework, there wouldn't be much point to Ask Slashdot, would there?
Yes, this comment had some useful information, but I reject it's moderation because of the following excerpt:
There was a good test this spring in the Swedish equivalent of Consumer report, but unfortunately it's in Swedish (and you have to be a subscriber). The noteworthy point was that not all -deltaV chargers are created equal, one undercharged, so you may want to check around.
The comment was going so well, up until the point where you told us we couldn't have the really valuable nugget of information that you seem to be privy to.
"Watch out, there's a model that undercharges! No, I won't tell you which one it is."
Gee, thanks, for sharing.
That's what makes Slashdot such a wonderful place... So many smart, well-informed people, most of which are perfectly content to simply lord it over your head that they know something you don't.
That's funny... I VPN to my office, and countless customers sites every day, all from behind NAT'd connections.
I've always thought it worked just fine. Is there something more that it should be doing, you know, other than providing me with the remote access I enjoy? Fetching my coffee perhaps?
But NAT is here and now, and enjoys very wide usage.
Who in their right mind would develop an application in this day and age that could not be made to work in a NAT'd environment?
I mean, if a tire manufacturer introduced a new tire line today that didn't work on asphalt, would you be blaming the paving crew?
Most roads are made of asphalt. Most network environments make use of NAT. That's the lay of the land. Application developers are foolish not to accept that reality, and for failing to build their products in such a way that they may function in a perfectly normal network scenario that they're likely to encounter in the vast majority of their customers' sites.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, thanks for putting my address out there. I need more spam, dick.
This week, my neighbors are thinking:
I can't believe they had the audacity to criticize you for not referring to some archaic fringe publication in order to continue your search.
Bastards.
That's certainly a much shorter way to describe it.
I like the drama of "the source of all Truth and Knowledge." It's artistic, and theatrical, but sometimes it might be useful to get it out in a monosyllabic hurry.
I may partially adopt that.
Sign your name, tough guy. I can kill a man in 7 seconds.
Your choice is to either embrace it, and adapt, or resist it, and perish.
You definately have to view it all with a more critical eye, but that too is a skill that must be developed and honed, and it will serve us well (not just on the Internet, either).
I don't like the "seediness" you mention... I mean, I'm a regular guy, not some prevert. I just like a little latex, and livestock from time to time.
I much prefer the current porn delivery method. ;)
We refer to it as "the source of all Truth and Knowledge." (I am not making this up.)
We never use the phone book... We never call anyone to make travel arrangements... We never write checks and mail them to pay bills...
I often wonder how anybody did anything prior to the advent of "the source of all Truth and Knowledge."
Are you saying that flying a plane into will not harm it, or that the effect of destroying it will mean very little in the grand scheme of things?
The ribbon will have tremendous tensile strength, but that doesn't mean it would stand up to an impact of that sort.
For example, a fiber optic strand is very strong. Pulling on it from it's ends, it takes a lot of force to pull it apart. However, if you apply just a little force creating a narrow bend, it'll snap with almost no effort at all.
I don't know enough about carbon nano-tubes to determine how it would hold up, nor to gauge how strong they are in relation to specific types of force, and how those forces are applied.
That said, I'm pretty sure that flying a large aircraft into it at a speed upwards of 500 mph would definately cause some trouble.
We're always trying to figure out what to do with hard to dispose of, toxic, non-decomposing materials.
Once a day, we could launch this stuff at the Sun as the Earth makes it's daily rotation.
It'd be the largest "sling" ever created. David would have been impressed, and had he been armed with it, Goliath might have been a no-show.
It's not like trying to hit a 1 square meter target... It's hitting a target 1 meter wide, but for all practicle intents and purposes, infinately long.
Pilots line up to hit the center of a runway every time they land. You don't think a terrorist could easily hit this thing within the width of a given airplane?
As far as your other point, regarding the "attractiveness" of this target from a terrorists perspective, I'm with you on that one. It's not a sexy terrorism target. Very few casualties, if any... Very low visibility on most people's radar.
It'd be a waste of time and energy for terrorists.
An employer is not required by law to obtain an employees Social Security number. The law requires only that they ask for it. (How can they be required to obtain an employees SSN, when in fact, there is no legal requirement that a person obtain an SSN in the first place?)
Take a look at this.
Here's a relevant excerpt (And please ignore the religious component... That's not the point.):
It's only a treaty.
And the US would do well to distance itself from the rest of North America... If we could just find a way to reposition a couple of fault lines, and trigger "The Big One[tm]," we'd be much better off.
As an aside, the Dilber TV show has just started airing on Comedy Central (I think... My Tivo just started grabbing them, and I'm not 100% sure were they came from... Ahhh... The Glory of Tivo.).
But what matters most is that you've successfully misidentified the school in question, and their mascot. University of Florida, or UF (or FU, to the Tallahassee faithful), are the Florida Gators.
FSU stands for Florida State University, and they are the Florida State Seminoles.
Now, just to keep it on topic:
Magnets, magnets, magnets!
At FSU, Seminole Football pays the bills. This is the Magnet that Bobby Bowden built. Even if none of the revenue paid for this research directly, it paid for a lot of other programs that would have been competing for those dollars at budget time.
The DirecTV Tivo models are far less expensive than the standalone units for 2 reasons: First, because they are recording an aldeary digital signal directly from the satellite stream, they do not have any expensive MPEG encoding hardware... It would be redundant. Second, DirecTV subsidizes the cast of the receivers, expecting to make their money on your annual subscriptions. Currently, the Hughes HDVR2 (Series 2 DirecTivo) is running about $250 at Circuit City. You can get a much better deal as a new DirecTV customer buying it as part of an installation package. Many times, they will include one for free.
My first Tivo recorded 35 hours, and I paid $99 (Hughes Series 1 DirecTivo). So, using the values you provided, that would be roughly 8.8 times cooler than what you just described.
When they connect that second device to their stealth hub or switch, your switch will cut them off (Seeing a second connected MAC address disables the switchport).
The most important concern that that the latency remain fairly constant. If you have a consistant 300ms latency, the call will be great. If, however, the latency fluctuates between 100ms and 400ms, that's where call quality can rapidly go down the tubes.
Consistant latency is the most important factor for streaming traffic.
If everyone was required to do their homework, there wouldn't be much point to Ask Slashdot, would there?
The comment was going so well, up until the point where you told us we couldn't have the really valuable nugget of information that you seem to be privy to.
"Watch out, there's a model that undercharges! No, I won't tell you which one it is."
Gee, thanks, for sharing.
That's what makes Slashdot such a wonderful place... So many smart, well-informed people, most of which are perfectly content to simply lord it over your head that they know something you don't.
I've always thought it worked just fine. Is there something more that it should be doing, you know, other than providing me with the remote access I enjoy? Fetching my coffee perhaps?
Who in their right mind would develop an application in this day and age that could not be made to work in a NAT'd environment?
I mean, if a tire manufacturer introduced a new tire line today that didn't work on asphalt, would you be blaming the paving crew?
Most roads are made of asphalt. Most network environments make use of NAT. That's the lay of the land. Application developers are foolish not to accept that reality, and for failing to build their products in such a way that they may function in a perfectly normal network scenario that they're likely to encounter in the vast majority of their customers' sites.