What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
It's people like you that convinced the venture capitalists not to fund the Wrights' research because the Flyer didn't have a cargo compartment for passengers' luggage.
This is a first design, producing known drugs for which there is a reliable synthesis mechanism that can be employed in a "raw materials in here, drug out here" continuous-flow process. Now that they have a basic design that works, they can expand it to incorporate other synthesis processes.
No where in the security fix description does it say its going to install something completely unrelated that nags you about updating to Windows 10.
This is not strictly true. The KB article for MS16-023 (KB3139929), under 'More Information', has 'Nonsecurity-related fixes that are included in this security update', 'General distribution release (GDR) fixes', it lists KB3146449, 'Updated Internet Explorer 11 capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7'; if you navigate to the KB article for KB3146449, its description is "This update adds functionality to Internet Explorer 11 on some computers that lets users learn about Windows 10 or start an upgrade to Windows 10." So as long as you're willing to go look up the KB article for the root patch and read it all the way through, and follow all the links to the incorporated KB articles, you'll find out that you may be getting nagware installed on your system, with nothing describing how you can tell whether or not you'll get it unless you just bite the bullet and install the update, then see if you get the nag pop-ups.
You can't read the key, but you don't have to. You make an image copy of the NAND flash, without worrying about what cells in the flash belong to what data. Then you make your ten tries, and if the phone wipes the flash memory, you just restore the whole image and do it again. When they get the correct passcode, the phone will unlock, and then the key in the NAND flash will become readable.
Putting it in the bottom of a bowl before filling it with lobscouse will render it edible by the time you're down to it. Or you can pound it back to flour, mix it with suet and some leavening, and bake it again to make duff, or bag the dough and boil it to make pudding duff.
Some current and historical anti-ship missiles have the capacity to take target designation and/or mid-course guidance from a designating vessel; the Tu-95 RTS 'Bear D', with its 'Big Bulge' radar, is one example of such a vessel. However, in the absence of such direction, or if the missile does not have the capacity for direction by uplink, the choice of target is entirely up to the logic of the missile's seeker, making it just as autonomous as the Harpoon or TASM.
US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.
Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen
...and the fact that they still haven't put safeguards in place to prevent these "bugs" is telling.
Well, of course they don't catch these "little goofs" -- all of their test systems are unblemished and run only genuine Microsoft applications, so they'll never even see when something they do 'accidentally' forces your preferences back to using the stock Microsoft applications, and keeps resetting them back when you try to make a 'third party' program the default for a file type. After all, Microsoft's software is perfect for all your needs; why would you ever want to use a different application to open your files than the one that Microsoft, in their infinite generosity, gave you as part of the operating system?
“No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it,”
And, of course, Applie would lock this up unretrievably; there would be no way for, say, a disgruntled employee to make a copy of the code to crack the OS and auction it on the darknet. No way for someone to accidentally leave the code on a laptop that gets stolen. No way to break into Apple and steal it. Once a dangerous object exists, it must be protected forever to prevent it from being misused.
If it is demonstrated to be possible to decrypt an iPhone by doing an end run around its built-in protections, then someone outside of Apple will figure out how to replicate Apple's process. At that point, iPhones spike in value to thieves, because instead of just wiping them and reselling them with different SIM cards, now there's a way to pull all of the credit card and account information off of the device.
And the FBI's claim that they want to decrypt this one phone only is specious. The information on the phone is 'important' because the owner was a 'terrorist' and a 'murderer', and the information on the phone could lead them to other terrorists. And what happens the next time they recover a phone from a murderer or terrorist? Are they going to just shrug and say 'we used up our one-time cracking with Apple on the last one'? No, they'll whip out another court order and force Apple to do it again. And if it's useful to do it when you're trying to track down terrorist networks, then surely it would be useful to do it to track down the accomplices of a murderer... or a rapist... or an armed robber... And they keep waving the "public safety" flag to justify forcing the cracking of encryption on phones owned by people accused of lesser and lesser crimes, even if they swore on a stack of Bibles it would only be this once... or only when going after terrorists... The police can always make a claim of 'public safety' whenever they want to extend their ability to derive evidence from material they never before had access to; there is nothing restraining them but their own morality. Oh, but Congress could pass a law restricting this use to terrorism cases. And later, under the guise of 'getting tough on crime', extend it to murders. And the people who'd be creating copycat encryption breakers won't care about any of that; they'll just make the tools.and sell them.
Basing it on the author's lifespan isn't the issue, nor is extending the copyright period itself. What is wrong with the way that copyright has been extended is that the changes are retroactive. Copyright is, in essence, a contract between the creator of a work and the government, stating that for X period of time, the government will provide a mechanism under the law for the creator to enforce their control over the replication of their work, in exchange for releasing it to the public after that period. The government changing the period of copyright retroactively is changing the terms of a contract after the contract has been agreed to, and thereby committing a tort upon the citizenry by depriving them of their expectation of works entering the public domain under the terms of the copyright at the time of the work's creation.
Of course, all the sites that will want you to sign up for push services are going to be whiter-than-white, squeaky clean upright organizations that would never allow their push servers to be used to send out notifications that attempt to bugger your system or trick you into loading malware. After all, we've all seen how excellently advertising providers work to provide tasteful, subtle, ads that don't distract you from the page you're reading, and would never deliver ads that try to trick you into installing malware on your system...
Penal Code 1546 just specifies that they're not allowed to get access without a warrant; the arguments that they'll be fronting for the bill is that, without a backdoor, complying with the provisions of PC1546 won't do them any good, because they still won't be able to decrypt the contents of the device. Never mind that the backdoor is only as safe as the rectitude of the people with access to the backdoor keys; create a backdoor and give its keys to the government, and then you have only the government's assurance that they'd never use it for illegally spying on individuals, that every single employee who would have access to this data has the moral qualities of a Lensman, and that no one outside the government could possibly ever get hold of these keys.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
Calling it the HeimatSicherheitsDienst is both accurate to the organization's title and, via historical allusion, the direction it wants to take the country...
What I don't understand is how none of these politicians who want backdoors into all encryption fail to understand that it would be just as easy for IS or Al-Qaeda or any other group that considers themselves enemies of the United States (North Korea, Iran, etc) to find and use the same backdoors against them.
These are also the same politicians who are saying that cyber attacks are the greatest threat to our economy, while remaining completely blind to the fact that they're bemoaning the dangers of attacks on our electronic systems with one hand while claiming that it's necessary to weaken one of our protections against them with the other.
'Daesh' is just the acronym for the Arabic phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), so it's still referring to it as the 'Islamic State', just doing it in Arabic. Calling the organization 'Daesh', though, annoys Daesh, because of the way Arabic lends itself to jokes and puns through pronunciation changes to deliver subtle insults -- 'Daes' means 'one who tramples underfoot', and 'Dahes' means 'one who sows discord', and according to NBC, the organization has threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone it hears using the term. Which, in my view, is reason enough to use it; if they hate it that much, all the better.
To their credit, the folks bringing the guns haven't been there before, so they didn't get a chance to see the signs.
The laws prohibiting firearms within, what is it, 1000 feet of schools have been in effect for how many years? And got flogged around the media outlets like there was no tomorrow as the solution to armed violence at schools when they were enacted, so the likelihood that they didn't know that just having a gun there was illegal. But if they've already decided that they're going to shoot someone, do you really think that the illegality of carrying the gun where they intend to carry out the shooting is going to deter them? All the 1000-foot exclusion zone does is make them confident that they're unlikely to encounter someone who can shoot back -- lots of defenseless targets.
If you load the vehicle up on a trailer, you can take it away without needing any insurance on the vehicle; as DaHat said, license, registration, and insurance are only required for vehicles operated on public roads. You can transport an unregistered vehicle on public roads anywhere you want to, as long as you don't drive it, and the vehicle can be completely unable to meet any of the safety requirements for registration.
It's not that state and local law enforcement aren't getting a cut of seized property now that this program has been shut down; it's that the state asset forfeiture setups gave less of the seized value back to local law enforcement. TFA, IIRC, gave an example of California's process giving 66.5% to local law enforcement, while federal asset forfeiture returned 80% -- the local law enforcement just wanted to get more money out of it.
From TFA, the reference to Kerry's speech "In the version of the speech he delivered upon arrival in Paris, he said the flat-earthers seem to think that as the world’s oceans rise, the water is just going to pour off the sides." shows the fundamental disconnect; the AGW proponents aren't willing to even consider the premises of the skeptics, so they make ad hominem attacks against the skeptics themselves to make them personally ridiculous and their positions inherently fallacial. It's always seemed to me, though, that if the proponents of one side of a scientific disagreement have to resort to bad-mouthing the proponents of the other side, rather than the research and data presented by the other side, they do it because they know that their research and data won't stand up to close scrutiny in a comparison.
blasphemer! all talk not in line with current climate control agenda is expressly forbidden. you shall not dissent or stray from that which is known to be true and scientific.
Exactly. "You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthropogenic climate change."
Not to imply that this is the mechanism for cold fusion, or even a mechanism for cold fusion, but quantum tunnelling allows subatomic particles to move through space without traveling through the space between the start and end points. Given the oddities involved with quantum effects, it is at least theoretically possible for fusion to occur locally without a high-temperature environment. The results to date, however, argue that if it does occur, it does not occur at a rate that makes it viable as an energy source. So cold fusion as an energy source has two hurdles -- first, proving that it does occur, and then making it occur at a high enough rate to produce useful amounts of energy.
From the linked article: "Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change"
And we all know that correlation equals causation, don't we? The article points out the single charted metric of atmospheric composition and matches that against extinctions, and derives the foregone conclusion that CO2 increase causes extinctions. Nothing about any other possible causes; the goal is to show that increased CO2 is evil, and they've found this correlation, and that's proof enough for them.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
It's people like you that convinced the venture capitalists not to fund the Wrights' research because the Flyer didn't have a cargo compartment for passengers' luggage.
This is a first design, producing known drugs for which there is a reliable synthesis mechanism that can be employed in a "raw materials in here, drug out here" continuous-flow process. Now that they have a basic design that works, they can expand it to incorporate other synthesis processes.
...with only a semi-colon?
No where in the security fix description does it say its going to install something completely unrelated that nags you about updating to Windows 10.
This is not strictly true. The KB article for MS16-023 (KB3139929), under 'More Information', has 'Nonsecurity-related fixes that are included in this security update', 'General distribution release (GDR) fixes', it lists KB3146449, 'Updated Internet Explorer 11 capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7'; if you navigate to the KB article for KB3146449, its description is "This update adds functionality to Internet Explorer 11 on some computers that lets users learn about Windows 10 or start an upgrade to Windows 10." So as long as you're willing to go look up the KB article for the root patch and read it all the way through, and follow all the links to the incorporated KB articles, you'll find out that you may be getting nagware installed on your system, with nothing describing how you can tell whether or not you'll get it unless you just bite the bullet and install the update, then see if you get the nag pop-ups.
You can't read the key, but you don't have to. You make an image copy of the NAND flash, without worrying about what cells in the flash belong to what data. Then you make your ten tries, and if the phone wipes the flash memory, you just restore the whole image and do it again. When they get the correct passcode, the phone will unlock, and then the key in the NAND flash will become readable.
Putting it in the bottom of a bowl before filling it with lobscouse will render it edible by the time you're down to it. Or you can pound it back to flour, mix it with suet and some leavening, and bake it again to make duff, or bag the dough and boil it to make pudding duff.
Some current and historical anti-ship missiles have the capacity to take target designation and/or mid-course guidance from a designating vessel; the Tu-95 RTS 'Bear D', with its 'Big Bulge' radar, is one example of such a vessel. However, in the absence of such direction, or if the missile does not have the capacity for direction by uplink, the choice of target is entirely up to the logic of the missile's seeker, making it just as autonomous as the Harpoon or TASM.
From TFA:
US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.
Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen
...and the fact that they still haven't put safeguards in place to prevent these "bugs" is telling.
Well, of course they don't catch these "little goofs" -- all of their test systems are unblemished and run only genuine Microsoft applications, so they'll never even see when something they do 'accidentally' forces your preferences back to using the stock Microsoft applications, and keeps resetting them back when you try to make a 'third party' program the default for a file type. After all, Microsoft's software is perfect for all your needs; why would you ever want to use a different application to open your files than the one that Microsoft, in their infinite generosity, gave you as part of the operating system?
“No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it,”
And, of course, Applie would lock this up unretrievably; there would be no way for, say, a disgruntled employee to make a copy of the code to crack the OS and auction it on the darknet. No way for someone to accidentally leave the code on a laptop that gets stolen. No way to break into Apple and steal it. Once a dangerous object exists, it must be protected forever to prevent it from being misused.
If it is demonstrated to be possible to decrypt an iPhone by doing an end run around its built-in protections, then someone outside of Apple will figure out how to replicate Apple's process. At that point, iPhones spike in value to thieves, because instead of just wiping them and reselling them with different SIM cards, now there's a way to pull all of the credit card and account information off of the device.
And the FBI's claim that they want to decrypt this one phone only is specious. The information on the phone is 'important' because the owner was a 'terrorist' and a 'murderer', and the information on the phone could lead them to other terrorists. And what happens the next time they recover a phone from a murderer or terrorist? Are they going to just shrug and say 'we used up our one-time cracking with Apple on the last one'? No, they'll whip out another court order and force Apple to do it again. And if it's useful to do it when you're trying to track down terrorist networks, then surely it would be useful to do it to track down the accomplices of a murderer... or a rapist... or an armed robber... And they keep waving the "public safety" flag to justify forcing the cracking of encryption on phones owned by people accused of lesser and lesser crimes, even if they swore on a stack of Bibles it would only be this once... or only when going after terrorists... The police can always make a claim of 'public safety' whenever they want to extend their ability to derive evidence from material they never before had access to; there is nothing restraining them but their own morality. Oh, but Congress could pass a law restricting this use to terrorism cases. And later, under the guise of 'getting tough on crime', extend it to murders. And the people who'd be creating copycat encryption breakers won't care about any of that; they'll just make the tools.and sell them.
Basing it on the author's lifespan isn't the issue, nor is extending the copyright period itself. What is wrong with the way that copyright has been extended is that the changes are retroactive. Copyright is, in essence, a contract between the creator of a work and the government, stating that for X period of time, the government will provide a mechanism under the law for the creator to enforce their control over the replication of their work, in exchange for releasing it to the public after that period. The government changing the period of copyright retroactively is changing the terms of a contract after the contract has been agreed to, and thereby committing a tort upon the citizenry by depriving them of their expectation of works entering the public domain under the terms of the copyright at the time of the work's creation.
Of course, all the sites that will want you to sign up for push services are going to be whiter-than-white, squeaky clean upright organizations that would never allow their push servers to be used to send out notifications that attempt to bugger your system or trick you into loading malware. After all, we've all seen how excellently advertising providers work to provide tasteful, subtle, ads that don't distract you from the page you're reading, and would never deliver ads that try to trick you into installing malware on your system...
Penal Code 1546 just specifies that they're not allowed to get access without a warrant; the arguments that they'll be fronting for the bill is that, without a backdoor, complying with the provisions of PC1546 won't do them any good, because they still won't be able to decrypt the contents of the device. Never mind that the backdoor is only as safe as the rectitude of the people with access to the backdoor keys; create a backdoor and give its keys to the government, and then you have only the government's assurance that they'd never use it for illegally spying on individuals, that every single employee who would have access to this data has the moral qualities of a Lensman, and that no one outside the government could possibly ever get hold of these keys.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
Calling it the HeimatSicherheitsDienst is both accurate to the organization's title and, via historical allusion, the direction it wants to take the country...
What I don't understand is how none of these politicians who want backdoors into all encryption fail to understand that it would be just as easy for IS or Al-Qaeda or any other group that considers themselves enemies of the United States (North Korea, Iran, etc) to find and use the same backdoors against them.
These are also the same politicians who are saying that cyber attacks are the greatest threat to our economy, while remaining completely blind to the fact that they're bemoaning the dangers of attacks on our electronic systems with one hand while claiming that it's necessary to weaken one of our protections against them with the other.
'Daesh' is just the acronym for the Arabic phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), so it's still referring to it as the 'Islamic State', just doing it in Arabic. Calling the organization 'Daesh', though, annoys Daesh, because of the way Arabic lends itself to jokes and puns through pronunciation changes to deliver subtle insults -- 'Daes' means 'one who tramples underfoot', and 'Dahes' means 'one who sows discord', and according to NBC, the organization has threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone it hears using the term. Which, in my view, is reason enough to use it; if they hate it that much, all the better.
To their credit, the folks bringing the guns haven't been there before, so they didn't get a chance to see the signs.
The laws prohibiting firearms within, what is it, 1000 feet of schools have been in effect for how many years? And got flogged around the media outlets like there was no tomorrow as the solution to armed violence at schools when they were enacted, so the likelihood that they didn't know that just having a gun there was illegal. But if they've already decided that they're going to shoot someone, do you really think that the illegality of carrying the gun where they intend to carry out the shooting is going to deter them? All the 1000-foot exclusion zone does is make them confident that they're unlikely to encounter someone who can shoot back -- lots of defenseless targets.
If you load the vehicle up on a trailer, you can take it away without needing any insurance on the vehicle; as DaHat said, license, registration, and insurance are only required for vehicles operated on public roads. You can transport an unregistered vehicle on public roads anywhere you want to, as long as you don't drive it, and the vehicle can be completely unable to meet any of the safety requirements for registration.
Ten points to Slytherin.
It's not that state and local law enforcement aren't getting a cut of seized property now that this program has been shut down; it's that the state asset forfeiture setups gave less of the seized value back to local law enforcement. TFA, IIRC, gave an example of California's process giving 66.5% to local law enforcement, while federal asset forfeiture returned 80% -- the local law enforcement just wanted to get more money out of it.
From TFA, the reference to Kerry's speech "In the version of the speech he delivered upon arrival in Paris, he said the flat-earthers seem to think that as the world’s oceans rise, the water is just going to pour off the sides." shows the fundamental disconnect; the AGW proponents aren't willing to even consider the premises of the skeptics, so they make ad hominem attacks against the skeptics themselves to make them personally ridiculous and their positions inherently fallacial. It's always seemed to me, though, that if the proponents of one side of a scientific disagreement have to resort to bad-mouthing the proponents of the other side, rather than the research and data presented by the other side, they do it because they know that their research and data won't stand up to close scrutiny in a comparison.
blasphemer! all talk not in line with current climate control agenda is expressly forbidden.
you shall not dissent or stray from that which is known to be true and scientific.
Exactly. "You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthropogenic climate change."
Not to imply that this is the mechanism for cold fusion, or even a mechanism for cold fusion, but quantum tunnelling allows subatomic particles to move through space without traveling through the space between the start and end points. Given the oddities involved with quantum effects, it is at least theoretically possible for fusion to occur locally without a high-temperature environment. The results to date, however, argue that if it does occur, it does not occur at a rate that makes it viable as an energy source. So cold fusion as an energy source has two hurdles -- first, proving that it does occur, and then making it occur at a high enough rate to produce useful amounts of energy.
From the linked article: "Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change"
And we all know that correlation equals causation, don't we? The article points out the single charted metric of atmospheric composition and matches that against extinctions, and derives the foregone conclusion that CO2 increase causes extinctions. Nothing about any other possible causes; the goal is to show that increased CO2 is evil, and they've found this correlation, and that's proof enough for them.
3. Greenland does not exist.
You have now checked number 1. Let's sit back another hour or so and we will probably have covered the whole list.
Who am I to prevent the Slashdot readers from finding the data on the Greenland ice cover from the Danish Meteorological Institute?