Somewhat harder than it would be to hide a remote controlled smartphone under the car that connects to the brake line and drains the fluid on command -- to get to the computer port you at least have to open the door.
It is, but you can test during pre-defined maintenance windows when downtime is expected, or you can migrate active services to other hosts and leave these running as backups during the test, so that a failure does not bring down the primary.
not having children because of your own ideology is just as selfish from the unborn potential child's perspective.
Really? Do you keep every woman you see continuously pregnant (or yourself, if you're a woman)? Because if you don't you're killing all the "potential children" that could result from you impregnating every woman in your line of sight. They might not all agree to your proposition, but isn't it at least your moral obligation to attempt to convince them of their duty to remain pregnant at all times, and to endeavor to impregnate them if they agree?
Or if you'd like to actually discuss the situation rationally we could agree that dead/undead/otherwise-not-currently-alive "persons" cannot be granted the same moral considerations as persons that are currently alive; while a potential life might have some moral impact it cannot be considered equivalent to an actual life in any useful system of morality.
There's also the matter that some of us actually have an attachment to our family, history, culture, etc and would like to ensure that it survives for another generation. I don't think that's selfish at all, though some would probably disagree.
How does adopting a child into your family prevent you from propagating your "family, history, culture, etc." for another generation? Does your culture have a genetic component? And if it does, is that really a trait that you want to pass on to future generations -- while I'm sure there are exceptions, I suspect that the vast majority of people here would not consider multigenerational racism a good thing.
But they aren't claiming to have sold you a license separate from the disk -- if they were they would have no problem with you downloading another copy for use on your non-compatible devices, or with selling your disk sans-license and keeping a copy for your personal use while someone else holds physical rights to the plastic that shipped with the license.
Let me know how that MPAA/RIAA raid goes with your ripped-then-sold-without-license CD/DVD/Blu-Ray collection.
It absolutely does not. Those are handy places to find new keys, but it's perfectly possible for someone to simply send you their public key as part of the first exchange, and then do whatever sort of out-of-band validation you'd do with a key you found in the keyserver.
There's a working ENUM system someplace? There's e164.org, and while useful, that's not really an authority. And none of the actual authorities have any working, useful service available. Nor should you expect them to while the authorities are related to the phone companies -- why would the phone company want to give their users the ability to re-route calls without charge, or to change service providers without the lock-in provided by the current system?
With this coupon system, you might get 20% but my coupon is only good for 15%.
That's true of your loyalty-card system too, at least if and when they choose to do so. I'm not sure about grocery stores, but I know airlines and hotels and credit cards offer different perks to different customers in their rewards programs.
Frankly I'm not sure why anyone sees this as a problem. Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not understanding the net benefit to society of having fixed prices vs. negotiated prices. For the largest purchases most consumers make -- a house and a car -- the price is almost always negotiated. What's special about shoes that requires we sell them at the same price to everyone? If it's so important to keep prices the same, shouldn't we be worried about prices that different among stores in the same city? In the same state?
6/10. Next time remember that drive letters belong to DOS, that most of the Mac with built-in monochrome CRTs didn't have internal hard drives, that token-ring devices were typically connected to a MSAU that took offline hosts out of the loop, and that encryption was not readily available -- particularly whole-disk encryption that can be applied while running from the disk in use -- anytime that the computers described in common use. Also try to work in an offensive or controversial person or group name for maximum effect.
It wasn't luck -- he played the odds. And it's not like he had a lot to lose; a tiny bit of ego and reputation related to a comment that was at best ambiguous about your gender -- a reading of your post with respect to the usual application of negatives to conjoined phrases suggests that you are neither female nor seeking to create and account -- and you have no way to conclusively demonstrate your gender either way.
Further, the 5th can legally only be used to prevent self-incrimination. It is illegal to refuse to answer questions where the answer would not incriminate you. In essence it is an admission of guilt except that you refuse to provide the details.
Could you provide a citation for that? I could be wrong, but that doesn't jive with my understanding of the law.
You know planes aren't held aloft by their engines, right? I mean, it can be hard to find an appropriate landing surface, and you certainly have less maneuvering capabilities, but a plane at 20,000' has a lot of potential energy, and a very efficient mechanism for converting that energy into stable, controllable flight.
If the wings fell off and you landed safely*, then I'd be impressed. But engines are no more necessary for safe flight than they are for safe driving -- you're better off with them, but it's hardly a death sentence to lose them.
*I am aware this has happened, and I am impressed, even if the guy was flying something more akin to a missile than a plane.
Your list makes me giggle. Your point is not absurd, but the list is pretty funny.
Electricity and telephone service are available to almost everyone, so I'll give you that one. And to a lesser degree the same is true of roads, though probably not as universally as you imagine -- the government is under no obligation to run a road even to the edge of your property, let alone to someplace that would be useful for you, and there are many landowners who build their own roads and negotiate with their neighbors for access via connecting properties.
Cable buys franchise rights from the locality; they negotiate the right to lay cable and their customers pay for it, so it's not anything like a government service or in any way funded by your tax dollars or social contract except insofar as you've already been forced to give access to the right-of-way for whatever the government deems necessary by generations past.
Sewer and water are commonly not available even in fully developed areas; many new housing developments provide their own sewer and water and don't tie into the city until years later when the cost is more reasonable. And actual rural areas almost never have centralized water or sewer services. The same is true of sidewalks.
Gas is simply not available to anyone who lives outside high-density areas. They seem to do just fine. And there's always LP and various other forms of storable oil if they do want pipe-friendly fire.
Post is available everywhere, but the level of service is highly variable. Some people get delivery to their door, some to the end of the street, and some must drive to the post office to pick up their mail. If you're in that last group the fact that the government was required to assign you an address is hardly evidence of any valuable postal service.
Fire protection is assumed by people living in high-density areas, and for them it's a good plan due to the risk of the fire affecting more than one dwelling. In many rural areas however, firefighting is often a paid service with its own levies, and if you haven't paid the only service they provide is for the public safety, not for your own property, so if you don't have close neighbors they might not do anything.
Law enforcement is available in virtually all locations, but that's a reflection of the government's projection of power, not necessarily a service for the people. Even in places with regular patrols the police are reactionary -- in terms of prevention they little more than an expensive deterrent, let alone in places where there are only 6 men covering the entire county.
Okay. "Never whitelist" is probably overkill. But whitelists should only *only* be used when there are fixed number of allowed behaviors and no significant new behaviors are likely to ever exist. For example, a whitelist prescribing the way in which execute people is probably reasonable; there might be new ways to kill people, but we wouldn't want to adopt them right away, and they're not likely to be materially different anyway. But that sort of legislation is so infrequent that it's hardly worth arguing that you should "never" whitelist in legislation. You might set thresholds -- sump pumps must produce at lest 6 GPM at 35' of head, drivers may not travel in excess of 75 MPH -- but there's virtually no reason to ever specifically enumerate allowed behaviors.
This is not exactly a new idea; it's fundamental to US legislation, beginning with the US Constitution: the powers granted to the government are whitelisted, while the powers reserved by the people have no such limitations.
First, name something that isn't a limited resource. Here's a hint: there is not such thing. Given that fact and your reasoning above I must conclude that you support government-imposed quotas on all resources.
Second, why are quotas the only reasonable way to control usage? The parent clearly allowed for governmental intervention to adjust the price of resources to reflect costs not otherwise represented in the traditional market value of those resources. Couldn't that system work to achieve the same goals without the inflexibility of quotas?
You're assuming that the WAF doesn't introduce its own security issues. I've seen more than a few that can be remotely crashed, thus DoSing everything behind them, and I've even seen one that can be exploited to run arbitrary code -- by adding the "security" of a WAF you might just be adding an Internet-exposed, remotely-exploitable host that not only has access to your internal app servers, but also all their input and output, and the ability to arbitrarily manipulate both.
And then there's all the regular sysadmin issues, like having them be fast enough to run all the regexes you've got installed without slowing down the app. Or how far toward the edge of the network you have to push your encryption setup, and what additional risks that longer, harder to monitor path for unencrypted data means for your overall security.
I'm not saying WAFs worthless -- they can be useful -- but it's naive to suggest that simply adding another "security appliance" necessarily increases security overall. But hey, if it helps you sleep better to call me an OSS zealot for thinking beyond the marketing blather on a WAF brochure go ahead.
You wouldn't, you'd buy a 12th generation drive. Or maybe a "Double 12G" drive if you went for the 2x10^12 model. Or some other name that can be incremented but is not strictly tied to the drive size.
It's not like marketing names are strictly tied to SI unit names, and they already print "1 TB = 1,000,000,000,000" in the fine print on the box to declare the actual size, so printing 1X10^12 would actually be simpler than the status quo.
Black & White
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I love how "Apple's computer-accessory devices are fairly closed" is somehow the opposite of "Apple makes general purpose computers". As though it were impossible to make both a fully programmable, general-purpose, use-any-way-you-like piece of computer equipment and also make computer equipment that has a more limited function and is vendor-locked.
Seriously, get a grip. Apple isn't even pretending that the iPad is a replacement for a general-purpose computer, and more than AT&T is pretending their smartphones are replacements for general-purpose computers. Until someone suggests that Apple will stop selling general-purpose computers it's INSANE to say that the iPad represents a fundamental change in the way anything works. (And we'll totally ignore the relatively small portion of the general-purpose computer market that Apple makes up).
Heck, if you want to complain about vendor-locked, dumbed-down hardware you should take a look at the last 20 years of cell phones. Cellular providers have consistently killed features and interoperability on their handsets for decades and the show no signs of stopping anytime in the future. Compared to the rest of the mobile-data ecosystem the iPad is one of the most open platforms available.
I know for a fact that some insurers and claims processors have stopped using encrypted archives and moved to faxes for "secure" documents, because faxes only fall under the privacy rule, not the security rule, and their archive vendor would not indemnify them against security rule violations.
I seriously doubt this is the only example of "following the specific rules decreases system security" related HIPAA or any other rule-based security policy/regulation. It's pretty much a given that any new rule you enact will result in people changing their behavior to avoid the scope of the rule rather than simply complying with the rule; it happens even with 8-year-olds who want to stay up late, let alone managers who spend all day looking for a way to gain $0.02/unit over the competition.
--
And let's not even get into the harm caused by selling people "secure" systems that are not. For example, most "secure" email solutions neither guarantee encryption of outbound mail nor provide authentication of the intended recipient. But since they comply with the specific requirements of the relevant regulation we buy them anyway. Then users feel safe in sending sensitive information over the new "secure" system -- information that they may never have sent if we didn't tell them it was secure -- thereby increasing the risk profile while at the same time wasting money on non-secure "security" systems, all in the name of regulatory compliance.
Patents are worth exactly nothing unless you can pay to defend them, and unless you're the size of Apple you can't.
So getting patents is not really about protecting your use of the technology, it's about giving you something to fight back with if another big name ever tries to sue you for use of their technology. When you're fighting the little guy you just plan to outspend them (or if necessary, to buy them).
Ahh well. On subject. The morality of these unmanned killing machine? They don't appeal to me very much. Somehow, it seems a bit cowardly.
That sounds a lot like the objections people had to aerial bombing. Or automatic guns. Or guns in general. And probably originally to catapults, swords and sharp sticks when they were first put into use in warfare. But as it turns out the goal of warfare is to control the actions of your opponent through force, and to that end new technology (including tactics) is always likely to improve your ability to project force or your ability to resist force, or both.
The technology in use does not affect the morality of the underlying attack any more than the color of a car affects the morality of drunk driving. And of course you're ignoring the moral benefit of having clear-minded attackers and reducing the total number of lives at risk not only by protecting our own forces but also by making the battle so one-sided that our opponents are unwilling to fight. I'm pretty sure our noble and courageous spear-bearing soldiers of times past would be reluctant to engage a force armed with automatic guns; if they were sufficiently committed to their cause they might still fight, but they'd at least think twice about it, and it would raise the bar from "worth fighting about" to "would rather be dead than lose this argument".
Finally, while improvements in military technology may reduce the courage required to undertake a particular act it does not reduce the courage available from a given attacker, thus allowing for a more efficient use of the limited amount of courage available. This also has moral benefits, because that additional courage not required for basic attacks is available for things like restraint — an attacker who feels safer is much more likely to take risks like allowing remaining opponents to retreat or capturing prisoners instead of killing everyone, or taking the time to more carefully select a target or for innocents to clear the area.
You're sure the weight loss is related to HFCS directly and not, say, the 300 calorie-per-can drinking habit you gave up? I'd like to see your results when you added a similar amount of non-HFCS sugars back into your water.
If you can afford to run 10Gbps to your off-site backup location it's either not far enough away to be useful or you're so rich that the shipping costs of tape vs. disk are irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat harder than it would be to hide a remote controlled smartphone under the car that connects to the brake line and drains the fluid on command -- to get to the computer port you at least have to open the door.
It is, but you can test during pre-defined maintenance windows when downtime is expected, or you can migrate active services to other hosts and leave these running as backups during the test, so that a failure does not bring down the primary.
not having children because of your own ideology is just as selfish from the unborn potential child's perspective.
Really? Do you keep every woman you see continuously pregnant (or yourself, if you're a woman)? Because if you don't you're killing all the "potential children" that could result from you impregnating every woman in your line of sight. They might not all agree to your proposition, but isn't it at least your moral obligation to attempt to convince them of their duty to remain pregnant at all times, and to endeavor to impregnate them if they agree?
Or if you'd like to actually discuss the situation rationally we could agree that dead/undead/otherwise-not-currently-alive "persons" cannot be granted the same moral considerations as persons that are currently alive; while a potential life might have some moral impact it cannot be considered equivalent to an actual life in any useful system of morality.
There's also the matter that some of us actually have an attachment to our family, history, culture, etc and would like to ensure that it survives for another generation. I don't think that's selfish at all, though some would probably disagree.
How does adopting a child into your family prevent you from propagating your "family, history, culture, etc." for another generation? Does your culture have a genetic component? And if it does, is that really a trait that you want to pass on to future generations -- while I'm sure there are exceptions, I suspect that the vast majority of people here would not consider multigenerational racism a good thing.
But they aren't claiming to have sold you a license separate from the disk -- if they were they would have no problem with you downloading another copy for use on your non-compatible devices, or with selling your disk sans-license and keeping a copy for your personal use while someone else holds physical rights to the plastic that shipped with the license.
Let me know how that MPAA/RIAA raid goes with your ripped-then-sold-without-license CD/DVD/Blu-Ray collection.
It absolutely does not. Those are handy places to find new keys, but it's perfectly possible for someone to simply send you their public key as part of the first exchange, and then do whatever sort of out-of-band validation you'd do with a key you found in the keyserver.
There's a working ENUM system someplace? There's e164.org, and while useful, that's not really an authority. And none of the actual authorities have any working, useful service available. Nor should you expect them to while the authorities are related to the phone companies -- why would the phone company want to give their users the ability to re-route calls without charge, or to change service providers without the lock-in provided by the current system?
With this coupon system, you might get 20% but my coupon is only good for 15%.
That's true of your loyalty-card system too, at least if and when they choose to do so. I'm not sure about grocery stores, but I know airlines and hotels and credit cards offer different perks to different customers in their rewards programs.
Frankly I'm not sure why anyone sees this as a problem. Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not understanding the net benefit to society of having fixed prices vs. negotiated prices. For the largest purchases most consumers make -- a house and a car -- the price is almost always negotiated. What's special about shoes that requires we sell them at the same price to everyone? If it's so important to keep prices the same, shouldn't we be worried about prices that different among stores in the same city? In the same state?
6/10. Next time remember that drive letters belong to DOS, that most of the Mac with built-in monochrome CRTs didn't have internal hard drives, that token-ring devices were typically connected to a MSAU that took offline hosts out of the loop, and that encryption was not readily available -- particularly whole-disk encryption that can be applied while running from the disk in use -- anytime that the computers described in common use. Also try to work in an offensive or controversial person or group name for maximum effect.
You got lucky.
It wasn't luck -- he played the odds. And it's not like he had a lot to lose; a tiny bit of ego and reputation related to a comment that was at best ambiguous about your gender -- a reading of your post with respect to the usual application of negatives to conjoined phrases suggests that you are neither female nor seeking to create and account -- and you have no way to conclusively demonstrate your gender either way.
Further, the 5th can legally only be used to prevent self-incrimination. It is illegal to refuse to answer questions where the answer would not incriminate you. In essence it is an admission of guilt except that you refuse to provide the details.
Could you provide a citation for that? I could be wrong, but that doesn't jive with my understanding of the law.
You know planes aren't held aloft by their engines, right? I mean, it can be hard to find an appropriate landing surface, and you certainly have less maneuvering capabilities, but a plane at 20,000' has a lot of potential energy, and a very efficient mechanism for converting that energy into stable, controllable flight.
If the wings fell off and you landed safely*, then I'd be impressed. But engines are no more necessary for safe flight than they are for safe driving -- you're better off with them, but it's hardly a death sentence to lose them.
*I am aware this has happened, and I am impressed, even if the guy was flying something more akin to a missile than a plane.
And obviously the road to improvement is to ban the progress we've made so far and hold out for the yet-to-come perfect solution in the future.
Your list makes me giggle. Your point is not absurd, but the list is pretty funny.
Electricity and telephone service are available to almost everyone, so I'll give you that one. And to a lesser degree the same is true of roads, though probably not as universally as you imagine -- the government is under no obligation to run a road even to the edge of your property, let alone to someplace that would be useful for you, and there are many landowners who build their own roads and negotiate with their neighbors for access via connecting properties.
Cable buys franchise rights from the locality; they negotiate the right to lay cable and their customers pay for it, so it's not anything like a government service or in any way funded by your tax dollars or social contract except insofar as you've already been forced to give access to the right-of-way for whatever the government deems necessary by generations past.
Sewer and water are commonly not available even in fully developed areas; many new housing developments provide their own sewer and water and don't tie into the city until years later when the cost is more reasonable. And actual rural areas almost never have centralized water or sewer services. The same is true of sidewalks.
Gas is simply not available to anyone who lives outside high-density areas. They seem to do just fine. And there's always LP and various other forms of storable oil if they do want pipe-friendly fire.
Post is available everywhere, but the level of service is highly variable. Some people get delivery to their door, some to the end of the street, and some must drive to the post office to pick up their mail. If you're in that last group the fact that the government was required to assign you an address is hardly evidence of any valuable postal service.
Fire protection is assumed by people living in high-density areas, and for them it's a good plan due to the risk of the fire affecting more than one dwelling. In many rural areas however, firefighting is often a paid service with its own levies, and if you haven't paid the only service they provide is for the public safety, not for your own property, so if you don't have close neighbors they might not do anything.
Law enforcement is available in virtually all locations, but that's a reflection of the government's projection of power, not necessarily a service for the people. Even in places with regular patrols the police are reactionary -- in terms of prevention they little more than an expensive deterrent, let alone in places where there are only 6 men covering the entire county.
Okay. "Never whitelist" is probably overkill. But whitelists should only *only* be used when there are fixed number of allowed behaviors and no significant new behaviors are likely to ever exist. For example, a whitelist prescribing the way in which execute people is probably reasonable; there might be new ways to kill people, but we wouldn't want to adopt them right away, and they're not likely to be materially different anyway. But that sort of legislation is so infrequent that it's hardly worth arguing that you should "never" whitelist in legislation. You might set thresholds -- sump pumps must produce at lest 6 GPM at 35' of head, drivers may not travel in excess of 75 MPH -- but there's virtually no reason to ever specifically enumerate allowed behaviors.
This is not exactly a new idea; it's fundamental to US legislation, beginning with the US Constitution: the powers granted to the government are whitelisted, while the powers reserved by the people have no such limitations.
First, name something that isn't a limited resource. Here's a hint: there is not such thing. Given that fact and your reasoning above I must conclude that you support government-imposed quotas on all resources.
Second, why are quotas the only reasonable way to control usage? The parent clearly allowed for governmental intervention to adjust the price of resources to reflect costs not otherwise represented in the traditional market value of those resources. Couldn't that system work to achieve the same goals without the inflexibility of quotas?
You're assuming that the WAF doesn't introduce its own security issues. I've seen more than a few that can be remotely crashed, thus DoSing everything behind them, and I've even seen one that can be exploited to run arbitrary code -- by adding the "security" of a WAF you might just be adding an Internet-exposed, remotely-exploitable host that not only has access to your internal app servers, but also all their input and output, and the ability to arbitrarily manipulate both.
And then there's all the regular sysadmin issues, like having them be fast enough to run all the regexes you've got installed without slowing down the app. Or how far toward the edge of the network you have to push your encryption setup, and what additional risks that longer, harder to monitor path for unencrypted data means for your overall security.
I'm not saying WAFs worthless -- they can be useful -- but it's naive to suggest that simply adding another "security appliance" necessarily increases security overall. But hey, if it helps you sleep better to call me an OSS zealot for thinking beyond the marketing blather on a WAF brochure go ahead.
You wouldn't, you'd buy a 12th generation drive. Or maybe a "Double 12G" drive if you went for the 2x10^12 model. Or some other name that can be incremented but is not strictly tied to the drive size.
It's not like marketing names are strictly tied to SI unit names, and they already print "1 TB = 1,000,000,000,000" in the fine print on the box to declare the actual size, so printing 1X10^12 would actually be simpler than the status quo.
I love how "Apple's computer-accessory devices are fairly closed" is somehow the opposite of "Apple makes general purpose computers". As though it were impossible to make both a fully programmable, general-purpose, use-any-way-you-like piece of computer equipment and also make computer equipment that has a more limited function and is vendor-locked.
Seriously, get a grip. Apple isn't even pretending that the iPad is a replacement for a general-purpose computer, and more than AT&T is pretending their smartphones are replacements for general-purpose computers. Until someone suggests that Apple will stop selling general-purpose computers it's INSANE to say that the iPad represents a fundamental change in the way anything works. (And we'll totally ignore the relatively small portion of the general-purpose computer market that Apple makes up).
Heck, if you want to complain about vendor-locked, dumbed-down hardware you should take a look at the last 20 years of cell phones. Cellular providers have consistently killed features and interoperability on their handsets for decades and the show no signs of stopping anytime in the future. Compared to the rest of the mobile-data ecosystem the iPad is one of the most open platforms available.
I know for a fact that some insurers and claims processors have stopped using encrypted archives and moved to faxes for "secure" documents, because faxes only fall under the privacy rule, not the security rule, and their archive vendor would not indemnify them against security rule violations.
I seriously doubt this is the only example of "following the specific rules decreases system security" related HIPAA or any other rule-based security policy/regulation. It's pretty much a given that any new rule you enact will result in people changing their behavior to avoid the scope of the rule rather than simply complying with the rule; it happens even with 8-year-olds who want to stay up late, let alone managers who spend all day looking for a way to gain $0.02/unit over the competition.
--
And let's not even get into the harm caused by selling people "secure" systems that are not. For example, most "secure" email solutions neither guarantee encryption of outbound mail nor provide authentication of the intended recipient. But since they comply with the specific requirements of the relevant regulation we buy them anyway. Then users feel safe in sending sensitive information over the new "secure" system -- information that they may never have sent if we didn't tell them it was secure -- thereby increasing the risk profile while at the same time wasting money on non-secure "security" systems, all in the name of regulatory compliance.
Patents are worth exactly nothing unless you can pay to defend them, and unless you're the size of Apple you can't.
So getting patents is not really about protecting your use of the technology, it's about giving you something to fight back with if another big name ever tries to sue you for use of their technology. When you're fighting the little guy you just plan to outspend them (or if necessary, to buy them).
Ahh well. On subject. The morality of these unmanned killing machine? They don't appeal to me very much. Somehow, it seems a bit cowardly.
That sounds a lot like the objections people had to aerial bombing. Or automatic guns. Or guns in general. And probably originally to catapults, swords and sharp sticks when they were first put into use in warfare. But as it turns out the goal of warfare is to control the actions of your opponent through force, and to that end new technology (including tactics) is always likely to improve your ability to project force or your ability to resist force, or both.
The technology in use does not affect the morality of the underlying attack any more than the color of a car affects the morality of drunk driving. And of course you're ignoring the moral benefit of having clear-minded attackers and reducing the total number of lives at risk not only by protecting our own forces but also by making the battle so one-sided that our opponents are unwilling to fight. I'm pretty sure our noble and courageous spear-bearing soldiers of times past would be reluctant to engage a force armed with automatic guns; if they were sufficiently committed to their cause they might still fight, but they'd at least think twice about it, and it would raise the bar from "worth fighting about" to "would rather be dead than lose this argument".
Finally, while improvements in military technology may reduce the courage required to undertake a particular act it does not reduce the courage available from a given attacker, thus allowing for a more efficient use of the limited amount of courage available. This also has moral benefits, because that additional courage not required for basic attacks is available for things like restraint — an attacker who feels safer is much more likely to take risks like allowing remaining opponents to retreat or capturing prisoners instead of killing everyone, or taking the time to more carefully select a target or for innocents to clear the area.
Yes. Studies that said being distracted by phone call is a lot like being distracted by any of 100 other things that commonly distract drivers.
But hey, maybe if we pretend that distracted driving is related only to phones we can solve the problem in one swoop. That seems totally plausible.
You're sure the weight loss is related to HFCS directly and not, say, the 300 calorie-per-can drinking habit you gave up? I'd like to see your results when you added a similar amount of non-HFCS sugars back into your water.
If you can afford to run 10Gbps to your off-site backup location it's either not far enough away to be useful or you're so rich that the shipping costs of tape vs. disk are irrelevant.