Shhhh be quiet! We're trying to find an excuse for our left-brained hatred of Jewry, and don't want anyone to distract us with facts or logic!
The affinity (and frequent historical collusion) between the Western political Left, Muslims, the bygone Communists of Russia and the National Socialists of Germany is fairly striking: hatred and blaming of the Jews for all/many of their woes; top-down political structures which make people miserable; love for and acceptance of dramatic, glorious, image-invoking rhetoric; and ready acceptance of a Jewish scrapegoat.
If I were looking for a culprit in this worm, I'd be looking for someone with this shared affinity.
What you're calling hypocritical is, basically, the rough equivalent of the police arresting the guy across the street who came over and shot your child in the face - and getting shot in the process of resisting.
Israel has not once "attacked" it's neighbors. It has repeatedly have to contend with jihadists attacking into Israel from the stateless occupied territories to their west, and recently from Lebanon to their north (as a seemingly state-sponsored action). Historically they've had all of their neighbors attack them, unprovoked, for "being Jews".
So, sure: Israel keeps attacking their neighbors, in the same way that a police officer shoots at people who are shooting at them, first. Damn hypocritical police officers!
Your argument sucks. It's the one commonly employed by anti-Semites, and is at its core anti-Jew.
I suspect Israel has nukes for the same reason any country with peaceable aims might (as Israel does): as a deterrent. Israel's actions are not of an aggressive hostile force; if they were, they'd have taken over the whole region and expunged or exterminated the residents, as is common amongst the other countries of the region. The behavior of their neighbors is precisely what Israel is trying to dissuade.
They can't make a decision on how to tie their collective shoes together, much less conspire to attack a foreign country.
To be fair, tying that many shoes together would be time consuming and difficult: bathroom and lunch breaks, people with poor balance, butting heads, etc. would all make for quite the clusterfuck.
Look at the EU's "common position" on the Iran sanction proposals for the spine, resolution, unity and swift action the "state actor" has...
I looked, but all I could find information on was medusozoa, eels, and slime molds which are more than happy to poison you if it means their own personal preservation.
If you were to craft an illicit weapon, would you stick your fingerprint on it if you didn't want it coming back to you? No, you'd wear gloves and avoid any possibility of contamination.
A date like this in there is either an outside coincidence, is significant for a technical reason (eg. it relates to the code bases being attacked), or it's a false flag attack intended to make it look like Israel is responsible.
Anyone - an individual or a group of individuals - capable of writing something like this had to know that it would spread outside the desired infection targets, and that it would be a hot button, politically. Allies of Israel (or at least, nations Israel would not want to piss off) would be impacted.
Look, I get it. Being anti-Jew is popular amongst liberals in the West, for some reason; being anti-Israel is even more so. But concluding that "this was Israel's fault" is asinine. Shit, it even goes against the "crafty Jew" stereotype to be this brazen.
Consider: if I were someone's enemy and that enemy remarked intent to attack a mutual opponent, might I not perpetrate that attack in the initial enemy's name, killing two birds with one stone?
In my opinion, these are the most likely scenarios (not mutually exclusive):
* It was perpetrated by a group or groups which have hostile intents towards Israel, either physically, politically, or simply ideologically - and would be willing to harm allies to accomplish an attack against Israel. Candidates spring to mind: any number of groups of Muslims/Arabs, any Arab/Muslim country (Saudi Arabia?), hell, even Venezuela. * A country/countries which would benefit politically/financially by damaging the Middle Eastern oil, gas, and nuclear facilities. By chance, they might be operating facilities using different technology which is not impacted by Stuxnet. The result would be higher demand for their own products in the same industries. * A financial group which would benefit from the collapse of said industries in the Middle East. * Interest groups which would benefit (politically, economically, ideologically) from the supply of oil ceasing and which happen to dislike the Jews. (Hell, Ford Motor Company doing this is more plausible in my mind than the Jews - in the desire to push people to EVs.) * It's also possible that the Jews were just a convenient scrapegoat, given how much progressive groups in the West seem to hate them. "Something evil happened, it must've been those Jews!" Seems damn near every conspiracy theory these days has, "... and the Jews/Israel..." in it.
Personally, that Israel/Jews would do it sounds outrageous. The last thing I'm going to do if I make an attack against someone is put my fingerprints all over the weapon so I can say, "Look, I'm being framed!"
Now stand 5' further from your monitor than you are comfortable doing and tell me which is easier. Those lowercase letters may be easier to read on a screen, but larger = better at distance.
Someone who has legal-to-drive vision may also have astigmatisms (night driving = difficult) or not have 20/20 vision. Myopia (and old age) make these things difficult to see as it is.
As someone who has myopia, I prefer the big, bold lettered NYC street signs to those found elsewhere. I can read them at a glance instead of having to squint.
Hypothetical situation: two kids on a playground get in a fight. One, the larger of the two who helps protect the weaker kids, has the spindly brat of a bully throw some stones at him. So he goes over there and starts beating the shit out of the spindly bully.
Well, the bully throws sand in his eyes, and he's having a hard time of it. Does he: * Buck up and take the pain, and finish the job, so he can tend to his wounds. * Roll into a ball/run away to take care of the sand in his eyes, and allow the smaller bully to kick him while he's on the ground?
Probably not option #2, if he can help it. That's a good way to lose.
The only way to "take soldiers out of harm's way" is to win a war. Otherwise, you're bringing your troops home without winning, while the enemy is still ready to fight. This is called retreating, and is a good way to have the enemy on your doorstep.
It makes sense if you want to maintain game realism.
If they were to implement the Taliban accurately, nobody on the Taliban team would have more kills per death (unless they implemented bomb belts). They'd all shoot Muslim Typewriters*, and not be able to place two shots within 10 yards of each other. This would quickly result in people not playing the Taliban side (or playing it only for the game nerfing effect and to ruin gameplay for others), effectively making the game suck.
It's better than making the Taliban balance accurate to real life and catching all the flack for "Muslim hatred" or some such bullshit.
* "muslim typewriter" - an AK or derived gun used by hajjis which is phyiscally unable of accurate repeat shot placement. subsequent shots pull sharply to the left (the same direction of the Arabic writing system).
Actually, I doubt that is true. At this point, the commercial UNIX vendors and the BSDs seem to be putting their weight behind Clang/LLVM/LLDB, in large part due to GCC going GPLv3. In addition to being a cleaner architecture that's easier to enhance than GCC, it is also faster, and it often produces much better code as well. The GNU toolchain's days as the de facto standard are numbered, IMHO.
As far as linux is concerned, the kernel and most of the common useerland will also compile "just fine" with Open64 these days, which offers signfiicant performance improvements over gcc.
gcc has been a bit dated for some time now - try almost a decade. THe performance of the resulting binaries is sad, even when compared against older versions of Microsoft's compilers (which now stomp it thoroughly.) It got a 'rewrite' with 4, but a lot of projects still use 3. I'd say it's probably about time for a change.
I have to say, I like this idea; it's basically what I came up with as a preferred method, but I'd not conceived the "NATe" intricacies. I'm not much of a network engineer, though, so I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting. None the less, it makes much more sense within the scope of things I understand - and, unlike IPv6, it isn't a one-way compatibility with the current getup. (Usually, new systems have to support communication with the old both ways, not just one, as is the case with IPv6.)
It could even be extended repeatedly, using the same mechanisms. At the fabric layer, the overhead would seemingly be somewhat negligible.
I really wish that this would be the route we take forward. It's much more organic as an extension, and allows for further extension down the line without a 'reboot'.
That's kind of part of the problem, though. An IPv6 address is much more difficult to read.
Not only did they (needlessly) do away with the . separator, making it intrinsically incompatible (and more difficult to read), they made decimal representation of an address difficult. Nevermind netmasks and broadcast. Quick: which subnet is 3ffe:0501:9999:ffff:: in?
In essence, they did a complete redesign, from the ground up, with only slight consideration for backward compatibility. Why? "So we don't have to change this again," or something like it, I'm sure. How many times have we heard that (and then hit them on the head some time down the road)?
Doubtful. I'd wager they're ahead of the curve, to be honest.
Unlike the West, they haven't got 30+ years of institutional IT build-up and backward compatibility to worry about. They haven't got mainframes which have outlasted a hundred employees and are not compatible. They're able to implement from the ground up due to not having the glut of legacy stuff.
Let's just assume we can put IPv4 address exhaustion off for a couple years.
What then? It's a chicken/egg scenario. Let's say I'm a good admin and I move all my outside-facing servers to IPv6.
This assumes All the software we've got (internally and externally developed stuff) is going to work with IPv6 addressing. What are the chances of that happening?
This also assumes that not only is all equipment new enough to do IPv6 properly, but the newer stuff all properly supports it. That's also not much of a concern if I can't even get IPv6 addresses from my upstream provider.
FOr the most part, I think IPv6 is a problem looking for a solution. The huge mental jump for administrators and the added burden it adds to day-to-day crap (mail admin would be so much fun with IPv6 addresses in logs, don't you think?) alone makes it something that many people want to put off. It doesn't matter if I can do the hex/arabic transition in my mind; remembering that much more between looking @ one log to the next is going to be a headache. And yeah, I really want to start typing lengthy hex strings into network configurations (whether it's BIND or a Cisco or something else).
The 'shortage' of IPv4? Somehow, it doesn't seem like the bigger shops are much concerned. Likewise, there always seems to be an abundance of allocation: if indeed it were a limited resource, someone, somewhere - aside from a regulatory board or a sensationalist author looking for his pay day - would be taking notice.
Even though these netblocks are allocated does not mean they are used. Clearly, there is surplus as of now - there is more supply than demand, because they still exist.
I'd think there'd be
Here's another idea: why didn't they just expand the address space by x256 by prefixing it another couple bits? Would that not have been enough? They could have then put their added security extensions on that "IPv6" stack as an optional extension instead of a prerequisite, and humans would still be able to read the "quads" (which would now be a quint).
I'll second all of the above. The country was settled by people of different ethnicities area by area. California and New England are shorter than the people in the midwest.
Ironically, I'm in the Midwest, but my family is from New York. My wife (from the Midwest) is short. The generation since my grandfathers and on, all the males have been over 6' - mixed Irish/Italian on one side, and "so American I've been here since the Mayflower"/Irish/English/Dutch on the other. So I'm exceptionally tall for people from where I come from, but yes: Midwesterners are a taller breed, generally.
Most of the genetics around here seem to be of mixed German/Norwegian and a bit of Irish thrown in for good measure (lots of Chicago immigrants, once minorities stared taking over).
Out here in the Midwest, there's a saying that people grow big, tall, and strong because they're corn fed ("corn fed Iowa boys"). I don't know how true that is, but when I look at the people who grew up in town and then the ones who grew up on the ranch/farm, there's a big difference in general physical stature: the out-of-town kids tend to be 'healthier' looking and, yes, taller. I'd not chalk it up to hormones (processed food has 'em too) as much as I'd chalk it up to less corn and higher-nutrient (vegetables and meat) diets.
Are you kidding? "Oh, primitive ape-bush people! How quaint!" is somewhat different than "OMG super powerful exoplanet overlords! Oh shit!"
If anything fits within the religious context, they'll be seen as angels and/or demons, and most likely demons, amongst Christians. Others might see them as jinn (Jews, Muslims) and/or angels or demons. I doubt there will be much acceptance of them within religious groups until they thoroughly demonstrate they aren't the Antichrist and do not have malefic intent. Even then, if the aliens somehow get cast as "Christ" by one of those three religions, the other two will likely be calling him/it/them the Antichrist.
I think there is also a disconnect in referring to height in a numeric manner. It's interesting when you look at it from a statistical standpoint, I've seen people refer to guys who were 5'9" and 5'10" as short.
In some parts of the country, that is short.
I'm 6'2" - just barely. My brother is 6'3", maybe a little more. My boss is 6'2" and thick (280lb or so). My best friend is 6'5". My dad is 6'1" (or was before he started getting old). Other friends and acquaintances are anywhere from 5'11 up through 6'6" and various builds (most around the 6'1" height).
My FIL is one of the "shorter" men I know - at 5'10".
No, it doesn't have much to do with the group I hang with: out here, people really are taller and bigger than the average (don't ask why, I don't know). This is particularly true in many small towns (visit one, and I feel short. Oi!) in the area where people spent their days working with their hands.
5'6" is short, as it's uncommon for women to be over 5'10" (the height for 'professional' modeling, I hear). Sure, that's a 4" window, but most seem to be near the lower end. There also seem to be more "tall" than "under 5'4", so someone at 5'4" is an exception. (My wife is 5'6" and is considered "short", being several inches shorter than most of her peers).
When I go to (say) the coasts of the US (NE corridor or California) I'd find myself having a good head's view over the crowds - I am 'quite tall' there, whereas here, I'm relatively normal. (Hell, due to a slight build, I'd even be considered small.) I'm not "the tall guy", I'm "the skinny guy".
"Probably didn't work"? If it disrupted their efforts, it had military success. If it stopped their efforts and set them back, it was a shining success.
Would you have preferred a strategic strike against said nuclear installations? I'm sure they would have been somewhat more likely to "result in war". A couple more people would have certainly died using this approach (and it'd have cost everyone a lot more).
The truth is, Iran would have no "capacity" to wage war on any significant scale without nuclear weapons. Denying your enemy the means to fight is kind of the point, thus why this was done.
Current societal mores are fucked up. If someone with power does something oppressive/offensive/etc. it's considered a war crime, a crime against humanity, etc.
If someone (or a group of someones) does something
This is used to excuse and even laud the most odious of crimes against others. See: people justifying the 9/11 attackers or suicide bombers.
Many, many more people have been killed, maimed, etc. by 'underdogs' than by the actions of those in power (the US, et al), yet it's ignored for politically and morally suspect reasons.
So assume the US or Israel were at direct fault for this, ignoring the fallacy of "no single group" for a moment.
Why is that a problem, exactly?
We've got many, many quotes from the Iranian leaders (many of them) which are along the lines of:
* death to Israel * we will hit Israel with a nuke * we wish to see Israel as bright as the sun * we can hit Europe with our ballistic missiles! * America is our Enemy
This, all in light of their nuclear program having no explicable goal at this point aside from nuclear weaponry. A year or two ago, you could excuse it as being for 'peaceful means' but not any longer.
If someone says "I'm going to come over and beat the shit out of you sometime this week while you sleep" you act proactively, one way or another.
I would much rather the approach of calling the police and getting them put on house arrest than the approach of boarding up the guy's house and burning it down.
If people do conclude this was a US/Israel attack, they should take it as an indication to everyone watching that the US and Israel are not bloodthirsty. This is about as non-aggressive as you can get in terms of a physical attack, and the thought and planning involved is significantly more than simply launching an airstrike or missiles.
If it were the American government, don't you think they'd probably leverage such technologies to, I dunno, not lose wars?
Clearly this technology is above and beyond what is even comprehensible by the common public (as well as many scientifically minded people). How has it been kept secret?
if it is some higher echelon amongst the US government, why have we not seen internal conflict (w/in the US gov't) for control thereof?
* A world power has been able to keep "top secret" projects and crafts capable of (at the least) noiseless levitation and operation, capable of avoiding radar and (likely) able to traverse from the stellar system. These crafts are able to remotely disrupt the operation of any and all known planetary technologies, including nukes inside bunkers. They have kept these things from the prying eyes of civilians and government officials to the extent that nobody has ever presented evidence as to the existence of the crafts or the programs, despite the many, many specialized people who would have to work on such a project over a long period of time to make it functionally viable. * That there is extraterrestrial life capable of space faring with similar technology.
In terms of probability, I suspect the later wins out - especially since these "bogeys" have been seen since the WWII era (in the form of the foofighters).
Silverlight? Oh, you mean that thing Netflix uses?
The only interesting thing to infer/extrapolate here is that:
1) maybe Netflix has a very broad subscriber base 2) More people are buying newer computers, and Silverlight has been out long enough to be bundled with the vast majority of new Windows 7 desktops and laptops.
I've yet to see a Silverlight site aside from Netflix. Maybe I'm just not looking, but I've yet to see one.
They are a necessity in a scenario where the most active threat is actually sitting at the computers in question.
Desktops, regardless of their type, should be on their own networks with means to filter/actively block traffic, if at all possible. They should also have individual firewalls which inhibit any incoming connections and block unapproved traffic going out.
With as easy as it has become for a Windows workstation to be infected, doing anything else is asking for infosec breaches.
I've noticed that people who are constantly swearing in a lackluster (uncreative) fashion tend to have fairly short fuses. They have no emotional maturity and do not have the 'verbal buffer' others do.
Recently antiquated vulgar/swear words (in common use):
* fuck shit bitch cock
"Current" vulgar/swear words:
* nigger cunt spic wetback neocon
As language and culture changes as a whole, so do the swear words. I remember hearing of my uncles getting their mouths washed out with soap regularly by their grandfather for saying "darn". Things once accepted are now no longer accepted, and vice versa.
It really is kinda funny to hear kids say something like "oh man I just got hit in the cock". Where do they learn these things?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. What do you bet the odds are that such spies a) do not have their identities disclosed b) are Israeli, Jewish, and/or American.
I wouldn't put a dollar against such bet.
Shhhh be quiet! We're trying to find an excuse for our left-brained hatred of Jewry, and don't want anyone to distract us with facts or logic!
The affinity (and frequent historical collusion) between the Western political Left, Muslims, the bygone Communists of Russia and the National Socialists of Germany is fairly striking: hatred and blaming of the Jews for all/many of their woes; top-down political structures which make people miserable; love for and acceptance of dramatic, glorious, image-invoking rhetoric; and ready acceptance of a Jewish scrapegoat.
If I were looking for a culprit in this worm, I'd be looking for someone with this shared affinity.
What you're calling hypocritical is, basically, the rough equivalent of the police arresting the guy across the street who came over and shot your child in the face - and getting shot in the process of resisting.
Israel has not once "attacked" it's neighbors. It has repeatedly have to contend with jihadists attacking into Israel from the stateless occupied territories to their west, and recently from Lebanon to their north (as a seemingly state-sponsored action). Historically they've had all of their neighbors attack them, unprovoked, for "being Jews".
So, sure: Israel keeps attacking their neighbors, in the same way that a police officer shoots at people who are shooting at them, first. Damn hypocritical police officers!
Your argument sucks. It's the one commonly employed by anti-Semites, and is at its core anti-Jew.
I suspect Israel has nukes for the same reason any country with peaceable aims might (as Israel does): as a deterrent. Israel's actions are not of an aggressive hostile force; if they were, they'd have taken over the whole region and expunged or exterminated the residents, as is common amongst the other countries of the region. The behavior of their neighbors is precisely what Israel is trying to dissuade.
They can't make a decision on how to tie their collective shoes together, much less conspire to attack a foreign country.
To be fair, tying that many shoes together would be time consuming and difficult: bathroom and lunch breaks, people with poor balance, butting heads, etc. would all make for quite the clusterfuck.
Look at the EU's "common position" on the Iran sanction proposals for the spine, resolution, unity and swift action the "state actor" has...
I looked, but all I could find information on was medusozoa, eels, and slime molds which are more than happy to poison you if it means their own personal preservation.
Never mind that.
If you were to craft an illicit weapon, would you stick your fingerprint on it if you didn't want it coming back to you? No, you'd wear gloves and avoid any possibility of contamination.
A date like this in there is either an outside coincidence, is significant for a technical reason (eg. it relates to the code bases being attacked), or it's a false flag attack intended to make it look like Israel is responsible.
Anyone - an individual or a group of individuals - capable of writing something like this had to know that it would spread outside the desired infection targets, and that it would be a hot button, politically. Allies of Israel (or at least, nations Israel would not want to piss off) would be impacted.
Look, I get it. Being anti-Jew is popular amongst liberals in the West, for some reason; being anti-Israel is even more so. But concluding that "this was Israel's fault" is asinine. Shit, it even goes against the "crafty Jew" stereotype to be this brazen.
Consider: if I were someone's enemy and that enemy remarked intent to attack a mutual opponent, might I not perpetrate that attack in the initial enemy's name, killing two birds with one stone?
In my opinion, these are the most likely scenarios (not mutually exclusive):
* It was perpetrated by a group or groups which have hostile intents towards Israel, either physically, politically, or simply ideologically - and would be willing to harm allies to accomplish an attack against Israel. Candidates spring to mind: any number of groups of Muslims/Arabs, any Arab/Muslim country (Saudi Arabia?), hell, even Venezuela.
* A country/countries which would benefit politically/financially by damaging the Middle Eastern oil, gas, and nuclear facilities. By chance, they might be operating facilities using different technology which is not impacted by Stuxnet. The result would be higher demand for their own products in the same industries.
* A financial group which would benefit from the collapse of said industries in the Middle East.
* Interest groups which would benefit (politically, economically, ideologically) from the supply of oil ceasing and which happen to dislike the Jews. (Hell, Ford Motor Company doing this is more plausible in my mind than the Jews - in the desire to push people to EVs.)
* It's also possible that the Jews were just a convenient scrapegoat, given how much progressive groups in the West seem to hate them. "Something evil happened, it must've been those Jews!" Seems damn near every conspiracy theory these days has, "... and the Jews/Israel..." in it.
Personally, that Israel/Jews would do it sounds outrageous. The last thing I'm going to do if I make an attack against someone is put my fingerprints all over the weapon so I can say, "Look, I'm being framed!"
Now stand 5' further from your monitor than you are comfortable doing and tell me which is easier. Those lowercase letters may be easier to read on a screen, but larger = better at distance.
Someone who has legal-to-drive vision may also have astigmatisms (night driving = difficult) or not have 20/20 vision. Myopia (and old age) make these things difficult to see as it is.
As someone who has myopia, I prefer the big, bold lettered NYC street signs to those found elsewhere. I can read them at a glance instead of having to squint.
Hypothetical situation: two kids on a playground get in a fight. One, the larger of the two who helps protect the weaker kids, has the spindly brat of a bully throw some stones at him. So he goes over there and starts beating the shit out of the spindly bully.
Well, the bully throws sand in his eyes, and he's having a hard time of it. Does he:
* Buck up and take the pain, and finish the job, so he can tend to his wounds.
* Roll into a ball/run away to take care of the sand in his eyes, and allow the smaller bully to kick him while he's on the ground?
Probably not option #2, if he can help it. That's a good way to lose.
The only way to "take soldiers out of harm's way" is to win a war. Otherwise, you're bringing your troops home without winning, while the enemy is still ready to fight. This is called retreating, and is a good way to have the enemy on your doorstep.
It makes sense if you want to maintain game realism.
If they were to implement the Taliban accurately, nobody on the Taliban team would have more kills per death (unless they implemented bomb belts). They'd all shoot Muslim Typewriters*, and not be able to place two shots within 10 yards of each other. This would quickly result in people not playing the Taliban side (or playing it only for the game nerfing effect and to ruin gameplay for others), effectively making the game suck.
It's better than making the Taliban balance accurate to real life and catching all the flack for "Muslim hatred" or some such bullshit.
* "muslim typewriter" - an AK or derived gun used by hajjis which is phyiscally unable of accurate repeat shot placement. subsequent shots pull sharply to the left (the same direction of the Arabic writing system).
Actually, I doubt that is true. At this point, the commercial UNIX vendors and the BSDs seem to be putting their weight behind Clang/LLVM/LLDB, in large part due to GCC going GPLv3. In addition to being a cleaner architecture that's easier to enhance than GCC, it is also faster, and it often produces much better code as well. The GNU toolchain's days as the de facto standard are numbered, IMHO.
As far as linux is concerned, the kernel and most of the common useerland will also compile "just fine" with Open64 these days, which offers signfiicant performance improvements over gcc.
gcc has been a bit dated for some time now - try almost a decade. THe performance of the resulting binaries is sad, even when compared against older versions of Microsoft's compilers (which now stomp it thoroughly.) It got a 'rewrite' with 4, but a lot of projects still use 3. I'd say it's probably about time for a change.
I have to say, I like this idea; it's basically what I came up with as a preferred method, but I'd not conceived the "NATe" intricacies. I'm not much of a network engineer, though, so I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting. None the less, it makes much more sense within the scope of things I understand - and, unlike IPv6, it isn't a one-way compatibility with the current getup. (Usually, new systems have to support communication with the old both ways, not just one, as is the case with IPv6.)
It could even be extended repeatedly, using the same mechanisms. At the fabric layer, the overhead would seemingly be somewhat negligible.
I really wish that this would be the route we take forward. It's much more organic as an extension, and allows for further extension down the line without a 'reboot'.
That's kind of part of the problem, though. An IPv6 address is much more difficult to read.
Not only did they (needlessly) do away with the . separator, making it intrinsically incompatible (and more difficult to read), they made decimal representation of an address difficult. Nevermind netmasks and broadcast. Quick: which subnet is 3ffe:0501:9999:ffff:: in?
In essence, they did a complete redesign, from the ground up, with only slight consideration for backward compatibility. Why? "So we don't have to change this again," or something like it, I'm sure. How many times have we heard that (and then hit them on the head some time down the road)?
Asia will lag behind in IPV6 adoption.
Doubtful. I'd wager they're ahead of the curve, to be honest.
Unlike the West, they haven't got 30+ years of institutional IT build-up and backward compatibility to worry about. They haven't got mainframes which have outlasted a hundred employees and are not compatible. They're able to implement from the ground up due to not having the glut of legacy stuff.
Let's just assume we can put IPv4 address exhaustion off for a couple years.
What then? It's a chicken/egg scenario. Let's say I'm a good admin and I move all my outside-facing servers to IPv6.
This assumes All the software we've got (internally and externally developed stuff) is going to work with IPv6 addressing. What are the chances of that happening?
This also assumes that not only is all equipment new enough to do IPv6 properly, but the newer stuff all properly supports it. That's also not much of a concern if I can't even get IPv6 addresses from my upstream provider.
FOr the most part, I think IPv6 is a problem looking for a solution. The huge mental jump for administrators and the added burden it adds to day-to-day crap (mail admin would be so much fun with IPv6 addresses in logs, don't you think?) alone makes it something that many people want to put off. It doesn't matter if I can do the hex/arabic transition in my mind; remembering that much more between looking @ one log to the next is going to be a headache. And yeah, I really want to start typing lengthy hex strings into network configurations (whether it's BIND or a Cisco or something else).
The 'shortage' of IPv4? Somehow, it doesn't seem like the bigger shops are much concerned. Likewise, there always seems to be an abundance of allocation: if indeed it were a limited resource, someone, somewhere - aside from a regulatory board or a sensationalist author looking for his pay day - would be taking notice.
Even though these netblocks are allocated does not mean they are used. Clearly, there is surplus as of now - there is more supply than demand, because they still exist.
I'd think there'd be
Here's another idea: why didn't they just expand the address space by x256 by prefixing it another couple bits? Would that not have been enough? They could have then put their added security extensions on that "IPv6" stack as an optional extension instead of a prerequisite, and humans would still be able to read the "quads" (which would now be a quint).
I'll second all of the above. The country was settled by people of different ethnicities area by area. California and New England are shorter than the people in the midwest.
Ironically, I'm in the Midwest, but my family is from New York. My wife (from the Midwest) is short. The generation since my grandfathers and on, all the males have been over 6' - mixed Irish/Italian on one side, and "so American I've been here since the Mayflower"/Irish/English/Dutch on the other. So I'm exceptionally tall for people from where I come from, but yes: Midwesterners are a taller breed, generally.
Most of the genetics around here seem to be of mixed German/Norwegian and a bit of Irish thrown in for good measure (lots of Chicago immigrants, once minorities stared taking over).
Out here in the Midwest, there's a saying that people grow big, tall, and strong because they're corn fed ("corn fed Iowa boys"). I don't know how true that is, but when I look at the people who grew up in town and then the ones who grew up on the ranch/farm, there's a big difference in general physical stature: the out-of-town kids tend to be 'healthier' looking and, yes, taller. I'd not chalk it up to hormones (processed food has 'em too) as much as I'd chalk it up to less corn and higher-nutrient (vegetables and meat) diets.
Are you kidding? "Oh, primitive ape-bush people! How quaint!" is somewhat different than "OMG super powerful exoplanet overlords! Oh shit!"
If anything fits within the religious context, they'll be seen as angels and/or demons, and most likely demons, amongst Christians. Others might see them as jinn (Jews, Muslims) and/or angels or demons. I doubt there will be much acceptance of them within religious groups until they thoroughly demonstrate they aren't the Antichrist and do not have malefic intent. Even then, if the aliens somehow get cast as "Christ" by one of those three religions, the other two will likely be calling him/it/them the Antichrist.
I think there is also a disconnect in referring to height in a numeric manner. It's interesting when you look at it from a statistical standpoint, I've seen people refer to guys who were 5'9" and 5'10" as short.
In some parts of the country, that is short.
I'm 6'2" - just barely. My brother is 6'3", maybe a little more. My boss is 6'2" and thick (280lb or so). My best friend is 6'5". My dad is 6'1" (or was before he started getting old). Other friends and acquaintances are anywhere from 5'11 up through 6'6" and various builds (most around the 6'1" height).
My FIL is one of the "shorter" men I know - at 5'10".
No, it doesn't have much to do with the group I hang with: out here, people really are taller and bigger than the average (don't ask why, I don't know). This is particularly true in many small towns (visit one, and I feel short. Oi!) in the area where people spent their days working with their hands.
5'6" is short, as it's uncommon for women to be over 5'10" (the height for 'professional' modeling, I hear). Sure, that's a 4" window, but most seem to be near the lower end. There also seem to be more "tall" than "under 5'4", so someone at 5'4" is an exception. (My wife is 5'6" and is considered "short", being several inches shorter than most of her peers).
When I go to (say) the coasts of the US (NE corridor or California) I'd find myself having a good head's view over the crowds - I am 'quite tall' there, whereas here, I'm relatively normal. (Hell, due to a slight build, I'd even be considered small.) I'm not "the tall guy", I'm "the skinny guy".
"Probably didn't work"? If it disrupted their efforts, it had military success. If it stopped their efforts and set them back, it was a shining success.
Would you have preferred a strategic strike against said nuclear installations? I'm sure they would have been somewhat more likely to "result in war". A couple more people would have certainly died using this approach (and it'd have cost everyone a lot more).
The truth is, Iran would have no "capacity" to wage war on any significant scale without nuclear weapons. Denying your enemy the means to fight is kind of the point, thus why this was done.
Current societal mores are fucked up. If someone with power does something oppressive/offensive/etc. it's considered a war crime, a crime against humanity, etc.
If someone (or a group of someones) does something
This is used to excuse and even laud the most odious of crimes against others. See: people justifying the 9/11 attackers or suicide bombers.
Many, many more people have been killed, maimed, etc. by 'underdogs' than by the actions of those in power (the US, et al), yet it's ignored for politically and morally suspect reasons.
So assume the US or Israel were at direct fault for this, ignoring the fallacy of "no single group" for a moment.
Why is that a problem, exactly?
We've got many, many quotes from the Iranian leaders (many of them) which are along the lines of:
* death to Israel
* we will hit Israel with a nuke
* we wish to see Israel as bright as the sun
* we can hit Europe with our ballistic missiles!
* America is our Enemy
This, all in light of their nuclear program having no explicable goal at this point aside from nuclear weaponry. A year or two ago, you could excuse it as being for 'peaceful means' but not any longer.
If someone says "I'm going to come over and beat the shit out of you sometime this week while you sleep" you act proactively, one way or another.
I would much rather the approach of calling the police and getting them put on house arrest than the approach of boarding up the guy's house and burning it down.
If people do conclude this was a US/Israel attack, they should take it as an indication to everyone watching that the US and Israel are not bloodthirsty. This is about as non-aggressive as you can get in terms of a physical attack, and the thought and planning involved is significantly more than simply launching an airstrike or missiles.
You aren't thinking this through.
If it were the American government, don't you think they'd probably leverage such technologies to, I dunno, not lose wars?
Clearly this technology is above and beyond what is even comprehensible by the common public (as well as many scientifically minded people). How has it been kept secret?
if it is some higher echelon amongst the US government, why have we not seen internal conflict (w/in the US gov't) for control thereof?
Really? What makes you so sure?
Which is more likely:
* A world power has been able to keep "top secret" projects and crafts capable of (at the least) noiseless levitation and operation, capable of avoiding radar and (likely) able to traverse from the stellar system. These crafts are able to remotely disrupt the operation of any and all known planetary technologies, including nukes inside bunkers. They have kept these things from the prying eyes of civilians and government officials to the extent that nobody has ever presented evidence as to the existence of the crafts or the programs, despite the many, many specialized people who would have to work on such a project over a long period of time to make it functionally viable.
* That there is extraterrestrial life capable of space faring with similar technology.
In terms of probability, I suspect the later wins out - especially since these "bogeys" have been seen since the WWII era (in the form of the foofighters).
Silverlight? Oh, you mean that thing Netflix uses?
The only interesting thing to infer/extrapolate here is that:
1) maybe Netflix has a very broad subscriber base
2) More people are buying newer computers, and Silverlight has been out long enough to be bundled with the vast majority of new Windows 7 desktops and laptops.
I've yet to see a Silverlight site aside from Netflix. Maybe I'm just not looking, but I've yet to see one.
They are a necessity in a scenario where the most active threat is actually sitting at the computers in question.
Desktops, regardless of their type, should be on their own networks with means to filter/actively block traffic, if at all possible. They should also have individual firewalls which inhibit any incoming connections and block unapproved traffic going out.
With as easy as it has become for a Windows workstation to be infected, doing anything else is asking for infosec breaches.
I've noticed that people who are constantly swearing in a lackluster (uncreative) fashion tend to have fairly short fuses. They have no emotional maturity and do not have the 'verbal buffer' others do.
As time has progressed, 'acceptable vulgarities' have changed.
"Very" old swear words:
* darn drat shoot nuts sex (as well as what we recognize as 'movie swear words' today, which denoted someone 'swearing like a sailor')
"Very old" words which used to be ok/in common use:
* nigger coon wetback spic blackie (and I'm sure others)
Old swear words:
* dick ass prick
Recently antiquated vulgar/swear words (in common use):
* fuck shit bitch cock
"Current" vulgar/swear words:
* nigger cunt spic wetback neocon
As language and culture changes as a whole, so do the swear words. I remember hearing of my uncles getting their mouths washed out with soap regularly by their grandfather for saying "darn". Things once accepted are now no longer accepted, and vice versa.
It really is kinda funny to hear kids say something like "oh man I just got hit in the cock". Where do they learn these things?