I know a girl from CSM. And yes, she is pretty. Unfortunately, she's also thoroughly pissed at me, or at least she was last time I heard from her, over two years ago...
What ever happened to the good ol' days, before all of this digital switching crap, when the lines were directly connected by copper running from my phone to his? The days when telemarketers could be dealt with by liberal application of a 25-kV spark coil? Never did have a return call from those companies...
[Your] friendly neighborhood ISP caches the most often used DNS info, and 80% of internet traffic is resolved there...That's why, as the article said, 8 of the 13...
Actually, the reason you'd have to take out 8 of the 13 has nothing to do with caching. It's because the root DNS servers MUST be able to handle three times the peak traffic of any one server at any time; that is, normal traffic, with all servers operating, MUST never exceed 1/3 capacity of the server in question. This is part of RFC 2870, the RFC that specifies operational details for the root servers. The RFC specifies this level of capacity to provide for redundancy; that capacity means that we can lose 2/3 of the servers without overloading the remaining boxen. 8 is just a shade less than 2/3 of 13, so that's where we get the number.
Unbreakable encryption is easy. I can write a program in under five minutes that will encrypt a file in such a way that I would be willing to guarantee, in cash, that it could never be broken. Simple algorithm, too:
for all bits n in the plaintext: if(bit_n)==0 return; if(bit_n)==1{ bit_n=0; return; }
And now I'd like to complain about the increasing retard-ification of our society. How can people be unable to choose a few non-obvious passwords (hell, just some random sequences of alphanumeric characters will do) and remember them with a mnemonic device?
I assume you're referring to my secretary, who seems to believe that the little light at the top of the keyboard (the one with the words "CAPS LOCK" next to it) is the power light for the keyboard. The one who didn't understand why I wouldn't give her an Administrator account, since her job includes administering some of our (expense) accounts. (She pouted for two days over that one.) The one who refuses to log out of her machine at night, because she likes coming in to work and having her computer ready for her? (Note, that point applies to many of my co-workers.) The one who made me turn off the 30-day password cycling, because she didn't want to remember "all those passwords."
The real problem here is that these people don't see the need for security. They think of computers as fancy toys, and maybe something to write letters. "Big deal--you don't need security for that. I don't care if somebody reads my letter to my brother, or plays my games." While that may be fine at home, I'd really rather people not get into our financial accounts, or our grade records (I work at a university). "Well, who would want to?" Well, for starters, any student who has a grade on that system. Anybody who'd like a little extra cash, from our pockets.
The real problem isn't that they can't use a decent password, it's that they don't want to, because they don't see the threat. Until this changes, nothing will change.
Yes, the higher-end SCSI drives (with associated higher spindle speeds, up to 15,000 RPM) are designed for full-time use, but aren't the mechanisms functionally the same? Isn't it just the case of a faster motor, more heatsinking around the drive (such as the Compaq 15K drives that have a big aluminum sink built into the tray), and an interface board for U160 instead of ATA100?
Almost. There's one more difference in there, and it's a big one: quality control. Same way the low-speed Athlons are just high-speed models that didn't pass QA checks, consumer drives are not manufactured to the same standards as server drives. To do so would be cost prohibitive--the cost increases exponentially as tolerances get closer. To build a drive that is capable of handling server-esque duties requires much tighter machining tolerances, better heat dissipation, better wear characteristics, etc. than a consumer drive. With that improved quality comes greater manufacturing cost. Think of it this way: would you put a cheap no-name printer on a network, send it a thousand pages a day, and expect it to stand up to the load, or would you step up to the plate and get a network-class LaserJet rated for 30K pages/month duty cycle? Yes, it's disappointing that these drives are big enough and cheap enough for us geeks to use them in servers, but at the end of the day, you have to remember that they're still consumer drives; by a strict definition ("to use wrongly" (dictionary.com)), using them as server drives constitutes abuse. If you want server drives, pay for them; if you want to pay for consumer drives, don't expect more than consumer quality. Enjoy it when you get it, but if it counts, pay for it.
HOO-RAH Chicago! At some point, I need to trade MP3's with you. (I try to buy all of their albums, but I just don't have the dough right now. I'm at about 15 or so. I will buy them all, though...). Drop me a note if you'd be interested in sharing. --Dave qohpxyrf@bh.rqh (ROT13)
Personally, I let my servers name themselves. When I built my NAT/router (sssh! don't tell the cable co.), the cheapest hardware I could find was a Duron 750. Having successfully run NAT/routers on a 486, a Duron seemed overkill. Thus was born marvin. The MOTD is a paraphrase from H2G2. Other boxen are quicksand (every time I tried to fix that damned thing, it sucked me in deeper), tower (domain controller at an airport), gozer (that fucker is evil, I swear...killed two HDD's, one proc, at least one DIMM...), the yet to be built media servers rosen and valenti, etc. Have fun with it--you're the admin, it's one of the few chances you get to make your mark. You can always use the DNS to assign logical names--assigning aliases by service tends to work well.
Other good names include the DNS servers at my university. zoo is the first DNS server; it is so named because the admin who built it looked at the DNS tables and remarked that they looked like a zoo. ooz is the second one (zoo backwards, for the dim), then ozo, and finally zoz. All of my workstations are named by room number, and yes, they do get renamed when they move. I do this because I don't have access to the DNS tables, so I can't put useful information in the table. If I could, I'd let the users name them (without telling them, of course...).
Ctrl-W...I've been using Ctrl-F4 for some time now (on Windows), and it usually works (usually). Is this unsupported, and, more importantly, is it supposed to do that? It is consistent with the 'doze scheme for shortcuts (Alt for OS, Ctrl for program; meta-F4 for close). Didn't know about the PgUp/PgDn bit either...that's going to be useful.
If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it.
Apparently, you've never heard of the idea of "combat effectiveness." Sending a bunch of people to die to achieve the goal, when there is an alternative that will keep them alive, is not the most efficient use of resources. It
Wastes people. People are *expensive* to train, both financially and temporally.
Decimates morale. Are you going to want to volunteer for the Armed Forces if you know that the commanders would rather snuff your life out than give you the tools to do the job effectively?
Inefficient. Using powerful weapons acts as a force multiplier. Take the nuking of Japan: it was estimated (at the time) that the invasion of Japan would cost approximately one million US soldiers their lives. The two nukes took fewer than twenty people (directly) to deliver. By my math, that's a force multiplication of 50,000. Even when you factor in all of the supporting personnel (maintenence techs for the airplanes, scientists, factory workers, etc.) you're still looking at a multiplier of several thousand times.
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme, we should return to unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, because every weapon seeks to improve combat effectiveness--every weapon seeks to help the attacker live, while killing the target. Actually, that's another purpose of a weapon: to outclass the target such that he declines to be a target. It is estimated that in 99% of self-defense cases involving a firearm, the gun is never fired. Why? Because the attacker knows he is outclassed, so he yields before the weapon is used. By making the target feel as though there's no possible way for him to win the battle, the battle can often be avoided. "You don't need to be holding four aces if they think you're holding four aces." As to your calling the poster a coward, well, I don't see you volunteering for unarmed combat. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know about the Pinochet bit, but we are not starving Cuba to death. We decline to do business with them, yes. That no doubt hurts them financially. However, as you are probably aware, there's a world outside of the US. They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose. We are not running a military blockade of the island, we aren't shooting down airliners going into the country, we're just saying "no thanks, we'll take our business elsewhere." If Cuba is starving, it's because their leader chooses to spend his country's limited budget on military hardware (Cuba has a very respectable air force, given the size of the nation) instead of on feeding the people. It's the old "guns-vs.-butter" debate, and Castro seems to have chosen guns. Is it our responsibility to bail him out of that mess? I think not.
Well, this is almost news...I've only been using a Gateway Profile at work for the past two years, and it was there before I was. Yes, they've upgraded it a couple of times, and now they're upgrading it again, but it's the same concept, and it was out long before the current iMac. Actually, they're not bad little systems, at least not for our purposes (public web terminal).
The recording companies are a product of government fiat.
Try this: The recording companies as we know them are a product of government fiat. Because of the government fiat, yes, they have been able to make a viable business model of peddling the same mindless pap for years. However, if they had been forced to compete on artistic merit a century ago, they would have a) gone out of business, b) changed their product, or c) discovered what the public wanted was, in fact, the mindless pap that they were pushing, and done well. In any case, without the interference that started giving them power, regulation wouldn't be needed today. In the case of A and B, everybody would be happier--there would be better music, more competition (--> lower prices), etc.; in the case of C, we'd be in about the same boat as today, but if it's what the people really want, well, I suppose they deserve it.
What could they use to draw a distinction between one form of radio wave carrying music and another?
Probably the Commercial Radiotelephone License. 802.11b may be in a licensed band, but the license terms are that anybody may use it--the license follows the device. (Actually, it's more like an unlicensed band--as long as you comply with power, signal purity, etc. requirements, you can use it). Radio stations (traditional) are licensed for a broadcast of x watts on y frequency, plus individuals are licensed with CRL's. That's how I would differentiate between traditional and internet radio stations, if I had my head up my ass.
Excuse me, but in order to fly a 767, you have to understand the principles of flight, navigation and controls.
Yes, this is true. But aircraft blueprints won't help you with this--you need flight maunals for learning the basics (i.e. the textbooks published by Jeppesen Sandersen, ASA, etc.) and the Pilot's Operating Handbook, Airplane Flight Manual, etc. for aircraft-specific info. The blueprinte will tell you how to build the airplane, not how to fly it. You might also recall that the hijackers took flight instruction; Zacarias Moussaoui (spelling?), the "20th Hijacker" trained just down the street from where I work, at Airman Flight School, in Norman, OK (I work for OU Aviation).
Yes, to fly a 747 and 140mph over VNE takes some skill
Agreed, but not as much as you'd think. If you understand the principles of flight, and have sufficient time (distance) to line up, you could hit a building. I have flown Level D (full-motion) simulators for the T-1, E-3 (B707), and MD11. Both of the larger airplanes are a little sensitive on the roll axis, but with a little practice (~15 minutes), I was shooting instrument approaches. The WTC attack would be relatively easy; the attack on the Pentagon was the impressive one, from a piloting perspective. Also, the airplanes were 757's and 767's, not 747's. VNE on the '5 is 513KIAS, the '6 is 516KIAS; I don't recall hearing that the planes were flying at 650KIAS when they hit, but I might have missed it. That just sounds a bit high to me; the stresses would be tremendous.
Yes aiming an aircraft going over "terminal velocity" into a toothpick in all reality is HARD TO DO.
Yes, it is. Matter of fact, it's impossible.
Terminal Velocity:
(a) The velocity acquired at the end of a body's motion. (b) The limit toward which the velocity of a body approaches, as of a body falling through the air.
Source: Webster's, as provided by www.dictionary.com
Short answer: terminal velocity is the maximum speed you can attain--it is the speed at which the force of drag (roughly proportional to the square of airspeed, without getting into induced and parasite drag) is equal to the force of thrust. At that point, with the forces in equilibrium, acceleration will be zero, and you won't go any faster. To go faster requires more power; when you add power, terminal velocity increases. Terminal velocity is subject to change based on configuration; when you are in stable cruise flight, you are at terminal velocity for that power setting and attitude. Push the throttle forward, or put the nose down, and you are changing configuration, changing your terminal velocity.
Knowing how to use the GPS, knowing how to disable your transponder, knowing how to comminicate with other hijacked craft...
We don't know that they used the GPS. The VOR would have worked just as well, and it's pretty easy to use, if you know what to look for. As these people had flight training, they would have known what to look for. Failing that, they could have used a handheld GPS, or even pilotage ("fly east until you hit the coast, then follow the coast to New York") to find New York. The weather was beautiful that day, so they didn't need to shoot an approach into the towers--"point the nose at the tall buildings" would have been sufficient.
The transponder is in plain sight on the front panel. Again, they would have known what they were looking for. Pressing about three buttons would have taken care of the problem.
I don't recall hearing any evidence that they communicated with other after takeoff. I thought it was just well planned and well executed. But even if not, A) the radios are easy enough to use, just have to coordinate a frequency, and B) I trust you've heard of cell phones.
Anyhow, in short, yes, you do need some knowledge of the aircraft systems, but you really don't need any knowledge of the aircraft design to fly. Blueprints aren't going to make one whit of difference in this sort of attack.
By the way, by way of credentials, I'm a Certificated Flight Instructor (soon to be Instrument Instructor as well) with commercial single- and multi-engine ratings, and instrument priviliges in both. (Anybody in the Oklahoma City area looking for flight training, drop me a note:-) )
NOTE: I am employed by the University of Oklahoma, Aviation Department, and by AirOne, Inc These comments are my own, and do not reflect the views of my employers.
Perhaps Barcelona (the city) would be better served with barcelona.sp, barcelona.city.sp, or barcelona.(spanish for city).sp., or perhaps even barcelona.gov (admittedly, most.gov addresses are referring to US-centric governmental entities)..com domains are (ostensibly) for commercial entities; hence, a travel portal would, in fact, be appropriate. In this case, the intended naming structure should (IMHO) be used as a guide.
The big problem with this approach is that most of the internet user base doesn't know about this naming structure. Most users think of.com as the only TLD, and append.com automatically; indeed, I have done so myself several times, knowing full well what I meant. Look at the popularity of www.whitehouse.com, www.nasa.com, and other such domains as evidence of this. The case for ruling in favor of the city of Barcelona is best made with an argument about the {customs, expectations, ignorance, stupidity} of the users.
I know this is a troll, I know I'm going to get modded down for responding, but I'm capped anyway, so I have points to burn. Why not?
In case you haven't noticed, we were attacked a few months ago. What would you have us do, roll over and show them our throats? Slink off and whimper in a corner? If your dog bites you for not giving him your steak bone, you don't reward him with a steak. If somebody attacks you and murders 3,000 innocent civilians, you don't ignore them and hope they go away--that only encourages them to do it again. You sure as hell don't give them what they want. That policy is called "appeasement," and it's been tried. Little obscure guy called Adolf Hitler. Seems to have worked rather well, don't you think?
Powerful enough to take over the entire world, eh? Something tells me Russia, Europe (collectively, and several contries individually (not France)), China, and a few other countries might disagree with that assessment. And we're not exactly building new forces here--we're restoring what President Clinton cut.
As any half-competent economics professor can tell you, cutting taxes results in an increase in tax revenues. No liberal would ever admit it, because the *percentage* of GNP pilfered by the government is lower (i.e. they have less control over the subject^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens), but in terms of absolute dollars, cutting taxes ends up in higher revenues. For an explanation of this phenomenon, consult any economics textbook, professor, or probably most TA's. Short answer: more money --> more investment --> more business --> more spending --> more tax revenue.
Perhaps my favorite part of your little rant: your ad hominem attack on President Bush. Intelligent, informed, mature debate focuses on policies, ideas, etc. Attacking him on that level is puerile. As far as his "sophistication" goes, I for one am sick and tired of the "sophistication" of politics, and I find it most refreshing to have a politician who says what he means, and means what he says. It's a refreshing change of pace from previous administrations, which were governed strictly by the Poll of the Week. Often attributed to Groucho Marx, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." seems to apply well to certain administrations in the not-so-recent past. And as for the picture, well, I'm sure you've never tripped in your life, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to mock the rest of us, who are not so perfect. Oh, and the big words are underlined because they're links: I didn't want to cause you too much trouble in figuring out the meaning, so I went ahead and linked them to a dictionary for you. You're welcome.
I'd continue, but I just realized something: you're not worth my time.
Re:Second time more criminal
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.
Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:
We dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on Tokyo warning that we had a new weapon of incredible destructive power, and would use it if Japan did not surrender. This was several days before August 6th (though I don't recall the exact date). We gave them fair warning.
August 6th: we nuke Hiroshima, using a uranium-235 device known as "Little Boy." The bomb hits very close to the target (within 500 feet, if memory serves--extremely good, for the time).
August 7 and 8: we drop tens of thousands of leaflets on the Japanese, reminding them of the bomb we just dropped (which, by the way, decimated a large portion of your city, with one bomb, and you couldn't stop it), and that we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We called Emperor Hirohito and asked for a surrender, warning him personally that we'd drop another one if he didn't surrender. He didn't. The fact that he didn't surrender after an actual use, on his people, is probably pretty good evidence that he would not have surrendered to a mere demonstration.
August 9th: we drop a plutonium-239 implosion-type device, known as "Fat Man," on Nagasaki. This bomb misses the target by over half a mile, but still obliterates the primary target--a pleasant side effect of having that much power is that you don't necessarily need the accuracy afforded by modern Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), though it is still nice to have.
We drop more leaflets, and call Hirohito again for a surrender. This time, he decides it might just be a good idea.
Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.
To answer the charges you make in your reply:
Had to, in the sense I just discussed. Best option of a sorry lot--unfortunately, war is like that sometimes.
Just wanted to test it again? We conducted dozens upon dozens of tests of nuclear weapons, in our desert, on islands, underground, and possibly even upper-atmosphere. We didn't need Hiroshima as a testing grounds. Did we study the effects? Hell, yes! But we still study the effects of simple 500lb "dumb bombs," looking for ways to improve them, and seeing their effects against different types of targets, so we can optimize for different types of targets. Not availing ourselves of a research opportunity would just be foolish.
Your example of mugging is a complete non-sequitor. A better example would be "I had to shoot him twice because he hadn't succeeded in not continuing to attack me by the time I was done shooting him the first time." This was not a random mugging of an uninvolved individual--this was an attempt to end a war, a war which was started by the other side (perhaps you remember a little sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), a war which was likely to drag on for some time, with many more lives lost, if it wasn't ended decisively.
Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.
...especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed...
...a non-murderous demonstration of the bomb...
Hmm. Let's look at that for a moment. Perhaps, if we had vaporized a small island, to show them what the bomb could do to a city, they would have surrendered without us having to use it.
I'm sure that's why we had to use it TWICE, even though we asked for a surrender after the first one--because they realized how bad it could be, and immediately decided not to pursue things further, in light of the destruction they were facing. Yeah, sure, an island demo would have worked.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a girl from CSM. And yes, she is pretty. Unfortunately, she's also thoroughly pissed at me, or at least she was last time I heard from her, over two years ago...
Where do you live that your library gets new books that quickly?
Centerville, OH.
What ever happened to the good ol' days, before all of this digital switching crap, when the lines were directly connected by copper running from my phone to his? The days when telemarketers could be dealt with by liberal application of a 25-kV spark coil? Never did have a return call from those companies...
[Your] friendly neighborhood ISP caches the most often used DNS info, and 80% of internet traffic is resolved there...That's why, as the article said, 8 of the 13...
Actually, the reason you'd have to take out 8 of the 13 has nothing to do with caching. It's because the root DNS servers MUST be able to handle three times the peak traffic of any one server at any time; that is, normal traffic, with all servers operating, MUST never exceed 1/3 capacity of the server in question. This is part of RFC 2870, the RFC that specifies operational details for the root servers. The RFC specifies this level of capacity to provide for redundancy; that capacity means that we can lose 2/3 of the servers without overloading the remaining boxen. 8 is just a shade less than 2/3 of 13, so that's where we get the number.
(Grammar correction mine.)
Unbreakable encryption is easy. I can write a program in under five minutes that will encrypt a file in such a way that I would be willing to guarantee, in cash, that it could never be broken. Simple algorithm, too:
Platform
Independent
Gaming...
So, what you're saying is that Java is a PIG.
Well, duh...
And now I'd like to complain about the increasing retard-ification of our society. How can people be unable to choose a few non-obvious passwords (hell, just some random sequences of alphanumeric characters will do) and remember them with a mnemonic device?
I assume you're referring to my secretary, who seems to believe that the little light at the top of the keyboard (the one with the words "CAPS LOCK" next to it) is the power light for the keyboard. The one who didn't understand why I wouldn't give her an Administrator account, since her job includes administering some of our (expense) accounts. (She pouted for two days over that one.) The one who refuses to log out of her machine at night, because she likes coming in to work and having her computer ready for her? (Note, that point applies to many of my co-workers.) The one who made me turn off the 30-day password cycling, because she didn't want to remember "all those passwords."
The real problem here is that these people don't see the need for security. They think of computers as fancy toys, and maybe something to write letters. "Big deal--you don't need security for that. I don't care if somebody reads my letter to my brother, or plays my games." While that may be fine at home, I'd really rather people not get into our financial accounts, or our grade records (I work at a university). "Well, who would want to?" Well, for starters, any student who has a grade on that system. Anybody who'd like a little extra cash, from our pockets.
The real problem isn't that they can't use a decent password, it's that they don't want to, because they don't see the threat. Until this changes, nothing will change.
Yes, the higher-end SCSI drives (with associated higher spindle speeds, up to 15,000 RPM) are designed for full-time use, but aren't the mechanisms functionally the same? Isn't it just the case of a faster motor, more heatsinking around the drive (such as the Compaq 15K drives that have a big aluminum sink built into the tray), and an interface board for U160 instead of ATA100?
Almost. There's one more difference in there, and it's a big one: quality control. Same way the low-speed Athlons are just high-speed models that didn't pass QA checks, consumer drives are not manufactured to the same standards as server drives. To do so would be cost prohibitive--the cost increases exponentially as tolerances get closer. To build a drive that is capable of handling server-esque duties requires much tighter machining tolerances, better heat dissipation, better wear characteristics, etc. than a consumer drive. With that improved quality comes greater manufacturing cost. Think of it this way: would you put a cheap no-name printer on a network, send it a thousand pages a day, and expect it to stand up to the load, or would you step up to the plate and get a network-class LaserJet rated for 30K pages/month duty cycle? Yes, it's disappointing that these drives are big enough and cheap enough for us geeks to use them in servers, but at the end of the day, you have to remember that they're still consumer drives; by a strict definition ("to use wrongly" (dictionary.com)), using them as server drives constitutes abuse. If you want server drives, pay for them; if you want to pay for consumer drives, don't expect more than consumer quality. Enjoy it when you get it, but if it counts, pay for it.
HOO-RAH Chicago! At some point, I need to trade MP3's with you. (I try to buy all of their albums, but I just don't have the dough right now. I'm at about 15 or so. I will buy them all, though...). Drop me a note if you'd be interested in sharing.
--Dave
qohpxyrf@bh.rqh (ROT13)
Personally, I let my servers name themselves. When I built my NAT/router (sssh! don't tell the cable co.), the cheapest hardware I could find was a Duron 750. Having successfully run NAT/routers on a 486, a Duron seemed overkill. Thus was born marvin. The MOTD is a paraphrase from H2G2. Other boxen are quicksand (every time I tried to fix that damned thing, it sucked me in deeper), tower (domain controller at an airport), gozer (that fucker is evil, I swear...killed two HDD's, one proc, at least one DIMM...), the yet to be built media servers rosen and valenti, etc. Have fun with it--you're the admin, it's one of the few chances you get to make your mark. You can always use the DNS to assign logical names--assigning aliases by service tends to work well.
Other good names include the DNS servers at my university. zoo is the first DNS server; it is so named because the admin who built it looked at the DNS tables and remarked that they looked like a zoo. ooz is the second one (zoo backwards, for the dim), then ozo, and finally zoz. All of my workstations are named by room number, and yes, they do get renamed when they move. I do this because I don't have access to the DNS tables, so I can't put useful information in the table. If I could, I'd let the users name them (without telling them, of course...).
...one million dollars
</Pinky>
Why would anybody on Slashdot be worried about a spellchecker?
Ctrl-W...I've been using Ctrl-F4 for some time now (on Windows), and it usually works (usually). Is this unsupported, and, more importantly, is it supposed to do that? It is consistent with the 'doze scheme for shortcuts (Alt for OS, Ctrl for program; meta-F4 for close). Didn't know about the PgUp/PgDn bit either...that's going to be useful.
If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it.
Apparently, you've never heard of the idea of "combat effectiveness." Sending a bunch of people to die to achieve the goal, when there is an alternative that will keep them alive, is not the most efficient use of resources. It
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme, we should return to unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, because every weapon seeks to improve combat effectiveness--every weapon seeks to help the attacker live, while killing the target. Actually, that's another purpose of a weapon: to outclass the target such that he declines to be a target. It is estimated that in 99% of self-defense cases involving a firearm, the gun is never fired. Why? Because the attacker knows he is outclassed, so he yields before the weapon is used. By making the target feel as though there's no possible way for him to win the battle, the battle can often be avoided. "You don't need to be holding four aces if they think you're holding four aces." As to your calling the poster a coward, well, I don't see you volunteering for unarmed combat. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know about the Pinochet bit, but we are not starving Cuba to death. We decline to do business with them, yes. That no doubt hurts them financially. However, as you are probably aware, there's a world outside of the US. They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose. We are not running a military blockade of the island, we aren't shooting down airliners going into the country, we're just saying "no thanks, we'll take our business elsewhere." If Cuba is starving, it's because their leader chooses to spend his country's limited budget on military hardware (Cuba has a very respectable air force, given the size of the nation) instead of on feeding the people. It's the old "guns-vs.-butter" debate, and Castro seems to have chosen guns. Is it our responsibility to bail him out of that mess? I think not.
Well, this is almost news...I've only been using a Gateway Profile at work for the past two years, and it was there before I was. Yes, they've upgraded it a couple of times, and now they're upgrading it again, but it's the same concept, and it was out long before the current iMac. Actually, they're not bad little systems, at least not for our purposes (public web terminal).
The recording companies are a product of government fiat.
Try this: The recording companies as we know them are a product of government fiat. Because of the government fiat, yes, they have been able to make a viable business model of peddling the same mindless pap for years. However, if they had been forced to compete on artistic merit a century ago, they would have a) gone out of business, b) changed their product, or c) discovered what the public wanted was, in fact, the mindless pap that they were pushing, and done well. In any case, without the interference that started giving them power, regulation wouldn't be needed today. In the case of A and B, everybody would be happier--there would be better music, more competition (--> lower prices), etc.; in the case of C, we'd be in about the same boat as today, but if it's what the people really want, well, I suppose they deserve it.
What could they use to draw a distinction between one form of radio wave carrying music and another?
Probably the Commercial Radiotelephone License. 802.11b may be in a licensed band, but the license terms are that anybody may use it--the license follows the device. (Actually, it's more like an unlicensed band--as long as you comply with power, signal purity, etc. requirements, you can use it). Radio stations (traditional) are licensed for a broadcast of x watts on y frequency, plus individuals are licensed with CRL's. That's how I would differentiate between traditional and internet radio stations, if I had my head up my ass.
Excuse me, but in order to fly a 767, you have to understand the principles of flight, navigation and controls.
Yes, this is true. But aircraft blueprints won't help you with this--you need flight maunals for learning the basics (i.e. the textbooks published by Jeppesen Sandersen, ASA, etc.) and the Pilot's Operating Handbook, Airplane Flight Manual, etc. for aircraft-specific info. The blueprinte will tell you how to build the airplane, not how to fly it. You might also recall that the hijackers took flight instruction; Zacarias Moussaoui (spelling?), the "20th Hijacker" trained just down the street from where I work, at Airman Flight School, in Norman, OK (I work for OU Aviation).
Yes, to fly a 747 and 140mph over VNE takes some skill
Agreed, but not as much as you'd think. If you understand the principles of flight, and have sufficient time (distance) to line up, you could hit a building. I have flown Level D (full-motion) simulators for the T-1, E-3 (B707), and MD11. Both of the larger airplanes are a little sensitive on the roll axis, but with a little practice (~15 minutes), I was shooting instrument approaches. The WTC attack would be relatively easy; the attack on the Pentagon was the impressive one, from a piloting perspective. Also, the airplanes were 757's and 767's, not 747's. VNE on the '5 is 513KIAS, the '6 is 516KIAS; I don't recall hearing that the planes were flying at 650KIAS when they hit, but I might have missed it. That just sounds a bit high to me; the stresses would be tremendous.
Yes aiming an aircraft going over "terminal velocity" into a toothpick in all reality is HARD TO DO.
Yes, it is. Matter of fact, it's impossible.
Terminal Velocity:
Short answer: terminal velocity is the maximum speed you can attain--it is the speed at which the force of drag (roughly proportional to the square of airspeed, without getting into induced and parasite drag) is equal to the force of thrust. At that point, with the forces in equilibrium, acceleration will be zero, and you won't go any faster. To go faster requires more power; when you add power, terminal velocity increases. Terminal velocity is subject to change based on configuration; when you are in stable cruise flight, you are at terminal velocity for that power setting and attitude. Push the throttle forward, or put the nose down, and you are changing configuration, changing your terminal velocity.
Knowing how to use the GPS, knowing how to disable your transponder, knowing how to comminicate with other hijacked craft...
Anyhow, in short, yes, you do need some knowledge of the aircraft systems, but you really don't need any knowledge of the aircraft design to fly. Blueprints aren't going to make one whit of difference in this sort of attack.
By the way, by way of credentials, I'm a Certificated Flight Instructor (soon to be Instrument Instructor as well) with commercial single- and multi-engine ratings, and instrument priviliges in both. (Anybody in the Oklahoma City area looking for flight training, drop me a note :-) )
NOTE: I am employed by the University of Oklahoma, Aviation Department, and by AirOne, Inc These comments are my own, and do not reflect the views of my employers.
My kingdom for a mod point! And I thought I was the only one who saw these things...
Perhaps Barcelona (the city) would be better served with barcelona.sp, barcelona.city.sp, or barcelona.(spanish for city).sp., or perhaps even barcelona.gov (admittedly, most .gov addresses are referring to US-centric governmental entities). .com domains are (ostensibly) for commercial entities; hence, a travel portal would, in fact, be appropriate. In this case, the intended naming structure should (IMHO) be used as a guide.
The big problem with this approach is that most of the internet user base doesn't know about this naming structure. Most users think of .com as the only TLD, and append .com automatically; indeed, I have done so myself several times, knowing full well what I meant. Look at the popularity of www.whitehouse.com, www.nasa.com, and other such domains as evidence of this. The case for ruling in favor of the city of Barcelona is best made with an argument about the {customs, expectations, ignorance, stupidity} of the users.
Just my two cents.
...that tore down the house that Jack built.
I know this is a troll, I know I'm going to get modded down for responding, but I'm capped anyway, so I have points to burn. Why not?
I'd continue, but I just realized something: you're not worth my time.
Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.
Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:
Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.
To answer the charges you make in your reply:
Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.
Hmm. Let's look at that for a moment. Perhaps, if we had vaporized a small island, to show them what the bomb could do to a city, they would have surrendered without us having to use it.
I'm sure that's why we had to use it TWICE , even though we asked for a surrender after the first one--because they realized how bad it could be, and immediately decided not to pursue things further, in light of the destruction they were facing. Yeah, sure, an island demo would have worked.