I'm perfectly happy with them rolling out new models in a non-stop stream. I have a 3 year old phone and it works fine for me. Thanks to the never-ending roll out of new phones a 1 year old model (which is also going to be just fine to me) is going to be heavily discounted because they're pushing "this-year's model".
When I do chose to update, I'll buy a new phone that is a model or two out of date and save $100s. Constantly spewing out slightly better phones is good news for the smart consumer who understands that a miniscule gain in performance isn't worth the extra money.
No system is foolproof. The idea is to make it harder to crack than is worthwhile for most people to bother with.
If you put a security system on your home, it's not because you think there aren't criminals out there who can disable them, it's because you're going to make yourself a difficult enough target that people are less likely to bother.
Digital security is much the same. There is no system that can't be compromised, not even an air-gapped system; however you can make it ridiculously difficult that few people would bother putting in the resources to crack you.
I would suspect the vast majority of computers that would be targeted would not have speakers. They're not going to be playing music or youtube videos on an air-gapped computer. Playing on a speaker is pointless.
This method of listening to hard drive reminds me of old spy techniques I've read about such as:
a) recording the sound a printer makes and using it to determine what was printed. b) by pointing a laser at a window you can "listen" to what is going on inside by tracking how much the window flexes with vibrations.
I understand that this has proteins and is somewhat balanced but really, adult humans shouldn't be drinking ANY digestible carbs. Carbs should come from solid food, preferably in complex form.
Digestible carbs from liquids are handled differently in the body than they are in solid form, they are more readily available for breakdown and digestion. The occasional fruit juice or milk isn't going to kill you, but make a habit of drinking carbs every day (such as this breakfast drink) and you could be harming your kidneys.
A lot of South East Asia is reminiscent of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. They're realizing their newfound power on the world stage and they're comparing dick sizes against each other. They're building monuments to try and out-impress each other and other status symbols. China is the modern day Britain or France. They want to lay claim to any rock one of their boats has ever passed. Whereas, so far they've pursued their irresponsible dreams responsibly, that could change at any time.
China is currently looking in the mirror flexing its biceps saying: "Look at my guns". They want people to, *um* Panda, to their narcissism and say "Yes China, your abs do look buff."
I don't think China want war. They just want people to admire them and they want to feel powerful and superior to other countries. I think China wants to pursue a peaceful path as they flex their muscle but there are dangers involved, and Britain and China could end up at odds against each other. I don't trust that China won't put something in place to ensure they take control of the plant should things turn from sweet to sour.
No it isn't. It may not be ideal, but it isn't the worst. It's been a bit of a trade off. Obama has been in power for 8 years and managed to not get us into any major wars in that time. On the downside, a few of our rivals have been able to bully us and our bungling of Iraq has led to establishment of ISIS.
Sure, we've done some bombing runs here and there but no major wars of too big of a threat to us. Libby has probably been Obama's "biggest war"- which is pretty impressive for almost a decade in power. There has been a few terror attacks around the world, but as tragic as Boston and the gay night club shootings were- on the grand scale they were fairly small attacks. (and the night club shootings is probably better attributed to hate crime than terrorism).
So all in all- it's been 8 years of relative peace. Which is good. The flip side to this administration is that we've let Russia bully us and essentially been out-manovered by them and are overwhelmed by them on NATO's eastern border. Half of Eastern Europe could be in Russia's hands before we were able to have enough troops positioned to significantly slow them. China has sensed our weakness and started bullying everyone in SE Asia with an 18th Century imperialistic attitude. They know we're not going to do much to stop them. They've quickly erected islands in disputed territory to establish bases whilst we have a pacifist in office.
All in all, I suspect Republicans will call Obama weak and spineless and Democrats will call him a peaceful and idyllic. Truth be told it is subjective. One thing it definitely isn't though is "the worst".
There have been far worse presidential foreign policies (both Republican and Democrat).
I, am neither "naive" nor "incredibly cunning" in a dangerous way.
My real name doesn't appear anywhere online (not from my activity anyway- others may talk about me)- and I haven't signed up for any social networks- although I am very active on forums and blogs like this one.
As a kid on the old BBSs that were popular before the internet got big, my brother used to watch the forums for things I said that he could report to my parents to get me in trouble. Even though I used an alias- he knew what my alias was. I got in trouble too many times for things I posted online not to be carefull.
As a result- I learnt very early on to hide my real name (and even my alias where possible) from anyone who might want to track me for nefarious purposes. Now, I never use the same name on more than one place I comment.
The Judaeo-Christian worldview is by-and-large anti-science.
I think currently this is true- but has not always been the case. As an example- Mendel was in a monestary when he discovered genetics with his peas. Throughout most of the middle ages- much learning and technology would have been lost or forgotten about if it were not for the church. Church was responsible for most of the education and educating that occurred for hundreds of years.
The trend today seems to be for Church to attack science- and has been in the past- but it has at times been responsible for preserving knowledge of the sciences.
You can't. Other scientists can. Everything should be treated with some skepticism until it is duplicated.
The problem is- when somethings such as evidence of global warming is found... again... and again... some people see it as an affront to what they believe- and therefore choose to deny it.
I do as a whole agree with you though. The multi-discipline sciences are too difficult for the average person to duplicate or test for feasibility- so there is a certain "trust" that you have to apply that the peer-review process and duplication by other scientists is working to produce (on average) a better understanding of the world.
Volcano explosions do not put out radioactive materials on the same scale. Volcano explosions- the physical explosion is local- not widespread. Soot spreads- but there is a single centre of source.
In fact- there has been extinctions and population declines heavily linked with large volcano explosions due to climactic changes they can incur. So even though Volcanos are not weapons- they do kill.
Humanity has suffered two bottle necks in the past. Using DNA analysis it is estimated at one point our population dropped down below a couple-score. We very nearly went extinct.
We have enough nuclear material on this planet to destroy every urban centre. The radiation would spread in heavy doses to all areas. Climate change is likely- so even if radiation doesn't kill you- the fact that food supplies would be cut off would result in starvation. No water supply would be left un-altered. Survivors could be far-spread and not have interaction. Lower populations are more volatile and likely to die out due to random fluctuations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Fucking sheep...
No, but there is a law against fucking sheep.
I'm perfectly happy with them rolling out new models in a non-stop stream. I have a 3 year old phone and it works fine for me. Thanks to the never-ending roll out of new phones a 1 year old model (which is also going to be just fine to me) is going to be heavily discounted because they're pushing "this-year's model".
When I do chose to update, I'll buy a new phone that is a model or two out of date and save $100s. Constantly spewing out slightly better phones is good news for the smart consumer who understands that a miniscule gain in performance isn't worth the extra money.
My vote is for both: It requires an imperfect user using imperfect software.
Also, his middle name is Chu. Not many people know that.
Pikka Chu Rantala.
No system is foolproof. The idea is to make it harder to crack than is worthwhile for most people to bother with.
If you put a security system on your home, it's not because you think there aren't criminals out there who can disable them, it's because you're going to make yourself a difficult enough target that people are less likely to bother.
Digital security is much the same. There is no system that can't be compromised, not even an air-gapped system; however you can make it ridiculously difficult that few people would bother putting in the resources to crack you.
I would suspect the vast majority of computers that would be targeted would not have speakers. They're not going to be playing music or youtube videos on an air-gapped computer. Playing on a speaker is pointless.
This method of listening to hard drive reminds me of old spy techniques I've read about such as:
a) recording the sound a printer makes and using it to determine what was printed.
b) by pointing a laser at a window you can "listen" to what is going on inside by tracking how much the window flexes with vibrations.
Play clicky-clacky-white noise in your server room to confuse any microphone.
Slashdot can no longer call itself news for nerds if a story about Russia does not have any comments that start with:
In Soviet Russia...
Ex: In Soviet Russia, Google searches you.
Falklands never were part of Argentina.
Spain complaining about Gibraltar is an example of hypocrisy. Spain maintains colonies in Africa still.
Yes, and the Atlantic ocean belongs to Atlanta, GA.
I understand that this has proteins and is somewhat balanced but really, adult humans shouldn't be drinking ANY digestible carbs. Carbs should come from solid food, preferably in complex form.
Digestible carbs from liquids are handled differently in the body than they are in solid form, they are more readily available for breakdown and digestion. The occasional fruit juice or milk isn't going to kill you, but make a habit of drinking carbs every day (such as this breakfast drink) and you could be harming your kidneys.
This sounds interesting, but what about the growing number of people are allergic to Soy?
They can eat people instead.
Worse! It's light-roast coffee.
A lot of South East Asia is reminiscent of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. They're realizing their newfound power on the world stage and they're comparing dick sizes against each other. They're building monuments to try and out-impress each other and other status symbols. China is the modern day Britain or France. They want to lay claim to any rock one of their boats has ever passed. Whereas, so far they've pursued their irresponsible dreams responsibly, that could change at any time.
China is currently looking in the mirror flexing its biceps saying:
"Look at my guns".
They want people to, *um* Panda, to their narcissism and say "Yes China, your abs do look buff."
I don't think China want war. They just want people to admire them and they want to feel powerful and superior to other countries. I think China wants to pursue a peaceful path as they flex their muscle but there are dangers involved, and Britain and China could end up at odds against each other. I don't trust that China won't put something in place to ensure they take control of the plant should things turn from sweet to sour.
Choosing the wrong ISP probably won't cause birth defects in your unborn children or permanently destroy your bowel
If you think that you've never had to deal with Comcast.
" literally, is the worst"
No it isn't. It may not be ideal, but it isn't the worst. It's been a bit of a trade off. Obama has been in power for 8 years and managed to not get us into any major wars in that time. On the downside, a few of our rivals have been able to bully us and our bungling of Iraq has led to establishment of ISIS.
Sure, we've done some bombing runs here and there but no major wars of too big of a threat to us. Libby has probably been Obama's "biggest war"- which is pretty impressive for almost a decade in power. There has been a few terror attacks around the world, but as tragic as Boston and the gay night club shootings were- on the grand scale they were fairly small attacks. (and the night club shootings is probably better attributed to hate crime than terrorism).
So all in all- it's been 8 years of relative peace. Which is good. The flip side to this administration is that we've let Russia bully us and essentially been out-manovered by them and are overwhelmed by them on NATO's eastern border. Half of Eastern Europe could be in Russia's hands before we were able to have enough troops positioned to significantly slow them. China has sensed our weakness and started bullying everyone in SE Asia with an 18th Century imperialistic attitude. They know we're not going to do much to stop them. They've quickly erected islands in disputed territory to establish bases whilst we have a pacifist in office.
All in all, I suspect Republicans will call Obama weak and spineless and Democrats will call him a peaceful and idyllic. Truth be told it is subjective. One thing it definitely isn't though is "the worst".
There have been far worse presidential foreign policies (both Republican and Democrat).
Lazy journalism at play.
I've always suspected that sloths are intelligent. Think of all the advancements to science we could discover if sloths spilled their secrets.
We need to start a sloth torture facility. Torture them until they tell us the secrets of Nuclear Fusion generators.
I, am neither "naive" nor "incredibly cunning" in a dangerous way.
My real name doesn't appear anywhere online (not from my activity anyway- others may talk about me)- and I haven't signed up for any social networks- although I am very active on forums and blogs like this one.
As a kid on the old BBSs that were popular before the internet got big, my brother used to watch the forums for things I said that he could report to my parents to get me in trouble. Even though I used an alias- he knew what my alias was. I got in trouble too many times for things I posted online not to be carefull.
As a result- I learnt very early on to hide my real name (and even my alias where possible) from anyone who might want to track me for nefarious purposes. Now, I never use the same name on more than one place I comment.
The Judaeo-Christian worldview is by-and-large anti-science.
I think currently this is true- but has not always been the case. As an example- Mendel was in a monestary when he discovered genetics with his peas. Throughout most of the middle ages- much learning and technology would have been lost or forgotten about if it were not for the church. Church was responsible for most of the education and educating that occurred for hundreds of years.
The trend today seems to be for Church to attack science- and has been in the past- but it has at times been responsible for preserving knowledge of the sciences.
You can't. Other scientists can. Everything should be treated with some skepticism until it is duplicated.
The problem is- when somethings such as evidence of global warming is found... again... and again... some people see it as an affront to what they believe- and therefore choose to deny it.
I do as a whole agree with you though. The multi-discipline sciences are too difficult for the average person to duplicate or test for feasibility- so there is a certain "trust" that you have to apply that the peer-review process and duplication by other scientists is working to produce (on average) a better understanding of the world.
Actually, most squirrels I know are in favour of Rick Santorum which makes them conservatives.
Apparantly, squirrels like nuts.
It could probably catch a stomache bug.
They built a gut on a chip? That's nothing... I built my gut on chips back in the 90's.
The real challenge was laying off the chips to make the gut shrink again.
Volcano explosions do not put out radioactive materials on the same scale.
Volcano explosions- the physical explosion is local- not widespread. Soot spreads- but there is a single centre of source.
In fact- there has been extinctions and population declines heavily linked with large volcano explosions due to climactic changes they can incur. So even though Volcanos are not weapons- they do kill.
Humanity has suffered two bottle necks in the past. Using DNA analysis it is estimated at one point our population dropped down below a couple-score. We very nearly went extinct.
We have enough nuclear material on this planet to destroy every urban centre. The radiation would spread in heavy doses to all areas. Climate change is likely- so even if radiation doesn't kill you- the fact that food supplies would be cut off would result in starvation. No water supply would be left un-altered. Survivors could be far-spread and not have interaction. Lower populations are more volatile and likely to die out due to random fluctuations.