At first I was thinking "what the bell I'd wrong with this guy? He can't even read what he just posted? Is he stoned or what?" Then I saw your username. Happy 420, dude.
You've posted the automatic, chat-bot response that you've been trained to go to whenever anyone mentions the rest of the solar system. Now take two seconds to actually think about what you just said.
I said: by a combination of these
You replied: Nope - the sun's influence has been shown to not be as important
Then you went on with childish attacks. Think about the phrase "not AS important". That's a comparison. That phrase means one thing is important, and the other thing is more important. In other words, a combination, precisely as I said.
"You can't use simple logic..." Indeed, simple logic does get in the way of parroting the party line.
Quick fact: earth has warmed more than the neighboring planets have.
Mercury, Earth, and Venus have gotten warmer. What do Mercury, earth, and Venus have in common? The sun, of course. Sun cycles are probably the cause of this warning.
Earth has warmed more the other two. What's special about earth? A) our atmosphere b) humans and c) water. The additional warming of earth probably has to do with our atmosphere being more affected by the increased solar output, by water holding the heat, by human activity, or by a combination of these.
Are you thinking of SSL (not TLS) and how it used a predictable IV in CBC mode? That's an SSL issue, not a CBC issue.
CBC is "broken" to the extent that it isn't tamper-evident, so if a bad guy has write access to your encrypted storage you might not know it (unless you hash the file, just like any other storage). XTS is the same!
Many consumer grade (and most enterprise grade) NAS devices run Linux or BSD. They are usable from a home desktop OS such as Windows, so yes, even Windows can write files to properly encrypted storage.
The authors of Truecrypt said "WARNING: TrueCrypt is not secure".
I learned a long time ago that if you go on a date with a woman and she says "I'm crazy", BELIEVE HER. She IS crazy. Even if she's hot, she's probably telling the truth when she says she's crazy. I think the same principle may apply here. If the Truecrypt project page says "Truecrypt is not secure", believe them - it probably is not secure.
Other options seem to be more secure. Personally, I use dm-crypt (cryptsetup) with 256 bit ESSIV AES CBC, plus a little magic I've thrown in.
> They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
I think specifically it means "change". And "hope". Hope and change. Is that more clear for you?
If supporters had any recourse when candidates turned on them, such recourse would have been used on Bush Jr. and Obama.
This is why I steer clear of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and try to avoid saying anything which might bother anyone - there's no telling what they'll actually do. I prefer someone like Chris Christie who says things that piss me off as well as things I agree with - it's pretty plain what he believes and what he intends to do. Whether or not you agree with his position, it's extremely clear what his position is.
99.99% of the people who swipe their card in an ATM are not employees. Yet, they are still able to swipe their card and even do two-factor authentication by entering their pin.
If you have a contract with First Bank to maintain their ATMs, your techs carry their First Bank card to do so. How hard is that? Remembering of course that the most of your employees don't need, and shouldn't have, access cards for the ATMs. Only a couple of field techs need them.
First, dozens of people shouldn't have administrative access to a particular ATM at once. Where I work, most systems have one or two people with passwords. If both people get hit by a bus, you can boot from a USB stick and proceed from there, but only two people have admin accounts.
Regarding the logistics of controlling who has access to what, every organization with more than a very few employees needs to manage who has access to what, and that's been true for thousands of years. It's very much a solved problem. Most companys use Active Directory for this purpose. Since ATMs already have card readers, an obvious answer for routine maintenance is to have the employee swipe their employee ID card. The ATM then uses its existing network connection to authorize access via AD. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, the solution was a key rack held by a designated employee. Other remployees would check out the keys they needed to use that day. It's kind of an interesting problem, but one that has been solved since roughly the Roman empire or so.
I think this post may be the best in the thread because it answers the question (time based, not coy power), it's somewhat practical unlike astronomical solutions, and recent events show it would be secure. If multiple motivated governments can't find an airliner, someone in a Snowden-like position could be reasonably confident that a small container dropped even just off the coast of California would remain there for quite a long time.
I can't think of a counter-point to vertical takeoff and landing. Sure, it might make sense to have a few VTL planes, but to add that additional weight, complexity, and expense to the nation's primary jet is pretty silly.
The EPA says: CH4 (methane) is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
As you said, in thelong term methane becomes co2, so if you're worried about co2, you should also be that much more concerned about methane. Therefore, one who is concerned about global warming would be concerned about hydroelectric. Not that it matters much - there are only a certain number of places that can be flooded by building hydroelectric dams. Hydro is self-limiting.
He's not pushing for balanced trade. He's pushing to force China to reduce carbon emissions. According to him, he calls his own agenda liberal. Conservatives have their own separate concerns about our relationship with China .
Typo. That should read "you don't go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you go hydro because it is renewable". Hydro is probably worse for global warming than natural gas. Naturally gas will eventually run out, though.
> without greenhouse gas emissions. States with access to Hydro
Methane, which hydroelectric dams produce thousands of tons of, is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. You do go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you do it because it'll never run out. Natural gas is a better choice in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. See ex Fearnside for details, or International Rivers links to good to sources of detailed info. (International Rivers is not objective, but they link to reliable sources).
"China is enormously dependent on access to advanced-country markets". If Americans, for example, didn't have access to BUY goods from China, a lot of our inexpensive consumer goods would cost quite a bit more. Cables for electronics, lightbulbs, trash cans, trailer hitches, and a million other things would cost alot more to produce domestically. Therefore, cutting ourselves off from China would mean we could afford to buy less - we'd all become poorer, in terms of purchasing power. In that way, we're nearly as dependant on China as they are on us, are we not?
Krugan certainly knows more about global economics than I do, but he's not shy about the fact that his writings are as much about promoting a liberal agenda as they are about understanding how global markets actually work. His book and blog are both titled The Conscience of a Liberal. Perhaps this proposal is a bit of wishful thinking, of wanting to promote "green", setting aside the fact that we don't really have much leverage over China. Heck, we've been trying for decades to get them to have some respect for basic human rights and we haven't been able to coerce them to do anything on human rights that they didn't want to do. They've been quite bold with claiming territory and sending warships to places they ought not be, so they don't seem to think the western countries have any leverage to rebuke them.
It was a former union president who pointed out to conservatives the problem of having unions "negotiating" with the politicians they put in office. This is completely different from most unions, who negotiate with companies. An endorsement from the police and teachers' unions normally all but guarantees the election for a mayor or city council. Throw in some cash contributions and campaigning by the teachers' union and the police union...
What ends up happening is that the police and teachers unions hand money to a mayoral candidate. A month later, the now mayor hands your money to the union. It's a win for the union and a win for the politician, a lose for the taxpayers and citizens who aren't represented in this process. The politician is supposed to represent the citizens owes a huge favor to the union.
Prior to the 1980s, was kind of common sense, everybody saw the conflict of interest. In the 1980s, a former union president became ppresident of the US, and defined modern conservatism. Because Reagan pointed out the obvious conflict of interest, democrats suddenly didn't want to talk about it. Democrats extreme and illogical support for screwing the citizenry is only because that was the position they had to take in order to be opposite of Reagan - who, as president of a union, obviously wasn't anti-union. He was anti-screw-over-the-citizens-with-an-obvious-conflict-of-interest.
Secondly, and even more importantly, what do unions do when they don't want to accept a negotiated contract? They go on strike. If GM doesn't give the auto union what they want, there is a strike and GM doesn't build any cars for a week. If the police union doesn't get what they want, they go on strike and there's no police protection for a week? Really? You think the union should be allowed to hold the entire city hostage like that?
> imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette.
GM DID make a Chevy Silverado VHO and the GMC Syclone, which was in fact faster than a Vette. The Silverado VHO was a pretty good truck, which was a little slower than a Corvette. I don't know how the Syclone was for truck duty, but I do know that a work truck and a fast car both rely on having a powerful engine and stiff suspension.
The Pendleton Act only says that civil service employees can't be required to make political contributions , and can't be fired FOR FAILURE TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. The president can fire executive branch appointees for any other reason (except race, religion, age over 40).
Slashdot Mirror
At first I was thinking "what the bell I'd wrong with this guy? He can't even read what he just posted? Is he stoned or what?" Then I saw your username. Happy 420, dude.
You've posted the automatic, chat-bot response that you've been trained to go to whenever anyone mentions the rest of the solar system. Now take two seconds to actually think about what you just said.
I said:
by a combination of these
You replied:
Nope - the sun's influence has been shown to not be as important
Then you went on with childish attacks. Think about the phrase "not AS important". That's a comparison. That phrase means one thing is important, and the other thing is more important. In other words, a combination, precisely as I said.
"You can't use simple logic ..."
Indeed, simple logic does get in the way of parroting the party line.
Do you have a theory as to what is causing Earth, Mars, and Venus to warm? Certainly not invisible aliens building invisible power plants on Mars.
Quick fact: earth has warmed more than the neighboring planets have.
Mercury, Earth, and Venus have gotten warmer. What do Mercury, earth, and Venus have in common? The sun, of course. Sun cycles are probably the cause of this warning.
Earth has warmed more the other two. What's special about earth? A) our atmosphere b) humans and c) water. The additional warming of earth probably has to do with our atmosphere being more affected by the increased solar output, by water holding the heat, by human activity, or by a combination of these.
> volume on a USB flash drive, you'd have to shrink the NAS down to pocket size
See Gumstix and many similar options.
Are you thinking of SSL (not TLS) and how it used a predictable IV in CBC mode? That's an SSL issue, not a CBC issue.
CBC is "broken" to the extent that it isn't tamper-evident, so if a bad guy has write access to your encrypted storage you might not know it (unless you hash the file, just like any other storage). XTS is the same!
Many consumer grade (and most enterprise grade) NAS devices run Linux or BSD. They are usable from a home desktop OS such as Windows, so yes, even Windows can write files to properly encrypted storage.
> Doesn't get much more secure than that.
The authors of Truecrypt said "WARNING: TrueCrypt is not secure".
I learned a long time ago that if you go on a date with a woman and she says "I'm crazy", BELIEVE HER. She IS crazy. Even if she's hot, she's probably telling the truth when she says she's crazy. I think the same principle may apply here. If the Truecrypt project page says "Truecrypt is not secure", believe them - it probably is not secure.
Other options seem to be more secure. Personally, I use dm-crypt (cryptsetup) with 256 bit ESSIV AES CBC, plus a little magic I've thrown in.
> They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
I think specifically it means "change". And "hope". Hope and change. Is that more clear for you?
If supporters had any recourse when candidates turned on them, such recourse would have been used on Bush Jr. and Obama.
This is why I steer clear of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and try to avoid saying anything which might bother anyone - there's no telling what they'll actually do. I prefer someone like Chris Christie who says things that piss me off as well as things I agree with - it's pretty plain what he believes and what he intends to do. Whether or not you agree with his position, it's extremely clear what his position is.
99.99% of the people who swipe their card in an ATM are not employees. Yet, they are still able to swipe their card and even do two-factor authentication by entering their pin.
If you have a contract with First Bank to maintain their ATMs, your techs carry their First Bank card to do so. How hard is that? Remembering of course that the most of your employees don't need, and shouldn't have, access cards for the ATMs. Only a couple of field techs need them.
First, dozens of people shouldn't have administrative access to a particular ATM at once. Where I work, most systems have one or two people with passwords. If both people get hit by a bus, you can boot from a USB stick and proceed from there, but only two people have admin accounts.
Regarding the logistics of controlling who has access to what, every organization with more than a very few employees needs to manage who has access to what, and that's been true for thousands of years. It's very much a solved problem. Most companys use Active Directory for this purpose. Since ATMs already have card readers, an obvious answer for routine maintenance is to have the employee swipe their employee ID card. The ATM then uses its existing network connection to authorize access via AD. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, the solution was a key rack held by a designated employee. Other remployees would check out the keys they needed to use that day. It's kind of an interesting problem, but one that has been solved since roughly the Roman empire or so.
I think this post may be the best in the thread because it answers the question (time based, not coy power), it's somewhat practical unlike astronomical solutions, and recent events show it would be secure. If multiple motivated governments can't find an airliner, someone in a Snowden-like position could be reasonably confident that a small container dropped even just off the coast of California would remain there for quite a long time.
I can't think of a counter-point to vertical takeoff and landing. Sure, it might make sense to have a few VTL planes, but to add that additional weight, complexity, and expense to the nation's primary jet is pretty silly.
If itmadness to convince the other forum members, or not get found out, what will that two you about the level of online discourse?
The EPA says:
CH4 (methane) is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
As you said, in thelong term methane becomes co2, so if you're worried about co2, you should also be that much more concerned about methane. Therefore, one who is concerned about global warming would be concerned about hydroelectric. Not that it matters much - there are only a certain number of places that can be flooded by building hydroelectric dams. Hydro is self-limiting.
He's not pushing for balanced trade. He's pushing to force China to reduce carbon emissions. According to him, he calls his own agenda liberal. Conservatives have their own separate concerns about our relationship with China .
Perhaps it's not that he doesn't know anything, it's just that what he knows happens to be wrong?
Typo. That should read "you don't go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you go hydro because it is renewable". Hydro is probably worse for global warming than natural gas. Naturally gas will eventually run out, though.
> without greenhouse gas emissions. States with access to Hydro
Methane, which hydroelectric dams produce thousands of tons of, is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. You do go hydroelectric to protect the atmosphere, you do it because it'll never run out. Natural gas is a better choice in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. See ex Fearnside for details, or International Rivers links to good to sources of detailed info. (International Rivers is not objective, but they link to reliable sources).
"China is enormously dependent on access to advanced-country markets". If Americans, for example, didn't have access to BUY goods from China, a lot of our inexpensive consumer goods would cost quite a bit more. Cables for electronics, lightbulbs, trash cans, trailer hitches, and a million other things would cost alot more to produce domestically. Therefore, cutting ourselves off from China would mean we could afford to buy less - we'd all become poorer, in terms of purchasing power. In that way, we're nearly as dependant on China as they are on us, are we not?
Krugan certainly knows more about global economics than I do, but he's not shy about the fact that his writings are as much about promoting a liberal agenda as they are about understanding how global markets actually work. His book and blog are both titled The Conscience of a Liberal. Perhaps this proposal is a bit of wishful thinking, of wanting to promote "green", setting aside the fact that we don't really have much leverage over China. Heck, we've been trying for decades to get them to have some respect for basic human rights and we haven't been able to coerce them to do anything on human rights that they didn't want to do. They've been quite bold with claiming territory and sending warships to places they ought not be, so they don't seem to think the western countries have any leverage to rebuke them.
It was a former union president who pointed out to conservatives the problem of having unions "negotiating" with the politicians they put in office. This is completely different from most unions, who negotiate with companies. An endorsement from the police and teachers' unions normally all but guarantees the election for a mayor or city council. Throw in some cash contributions and campaigning by the teachers' union and the police union ...
What ends up happening is that the police and teachers unions hand money to a mayoral candidate. A month later, the now mayor hands your money to the union. It's a win for the union and a win for the politician, a lose for the taxpayers and citizens who aren't represented in this process. The politician is supposed to represent the citizens owes a huge favor to the union.
Prior to the 1980s, was kind of common sense, everybody saw the conflict of interest. In the 1980s, a former union president became ppresident of the US, and defined modern conservatism. Because Reagan pointed out the obvious conflict of interest, democrats suddenly didn't want to talk about it. Democrats extreme and illogical support for screwing the citizenry is only because that was the position they had to take in order to be opposite of Reagan - who, as president of a union, obviously wasn't anti-union. He was anti-screw-over-the-citizens-with-an-obvious-conflict-of-interest.
Secondly, and even more importantly, what do unions do when they don't want to accept a negotiated contract? They go on strike. If GM doesn't give the auto union what they want, there is a strike and GM doesn't build any cars for a week. If the police union doesn't get what they want, they go on strike and there's no police protection for a week? Really? You think the union should be allowed to hold the entire city hostage like that?
> you might well miss whatever it is that you're wanting to see because you're looking at a different monitor at the time.
Who said anything about watching 24/7? When an event like this occurs, the attorneys get the video from car #54 at 2:45 PM.
> Nor the logistical challenge of uploading that much data to a server while the officer is out on patrol.
Yes, that's true.
> There's also the issue of all the people they come into contact that don't necessarily want their images being put on a publicly accessible website.
Who said anything about a public web site?
The longevity of the B-52 is impressive.
> imagine what would happen if Ford decided to try really hard to make the F-150 outrace a corvette. It would end up being a far less capable truck and still wouldn't be able to catch the vette.
GM DID make a Chevy Silverado VHO and the GMC Syclone, which was in fact faster than a Vette. The Silverado VHO was a pretty good truck, which was a little slower than a Corvette. I don't know how the Syclone was for truck duty, but I do know that a work truck and a fast car both rely on having a powerful engine and stiff suspension.
The Pendleton Act only says that civil service employees can't be required to make political contributions , and can't be fired FOR FAILURE TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. The president can fire executive branch appointees for any other reason (except race, religion, age over 40).