Make a box the width and height of a CC, and 1 cm thick, and weigh it to match what this thing will weigh. Then tape it to your cell. Then you'll know why it's not built in to a phone.
I can't believe the headline isn't
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
These aren't intended to protect the US from a massive missile attack, they're intended to protect deployed US and allied forces from short and intermediate range missile attacks. Think South Korea or Japan defending against North Korean attacks, or US forces in Saudi Arabia defending against Iranian missiles.
The Federal Government, which pays for most of the innovation in the US (directly through r&d contracts, or indirectly through grants) has cut back on its tech spending to free up money for the war.
It's an incentive for the Bank to improve security. If every bank was required to do this (and cc companies as well) it'd do quite a bit to improve security in online shopping and banking.
Well, the hydrogen bit is, but the solar isn't. People have been building 'full featured' houses like this for several years now. There was an article in the Washington Post a couple of years ago about a house in Loudon County VA that was off the grid. I know a guy in southern Utah who built his house to be off the grid, mainly because it was cheaper than building out the grid to where he was.
"and deliberately crash it". The paradigm before 11/9/01 was to co-operate fully with the hijackers, as that was likeliest to result in the best outcome. The paradigm after (once the new threat was understood) was to NOT co-operate. But the threat had to be understood first...
So was the fear that someone might hijack an airplane, and deliberately crash it, on Sept 10 2001.
Given the way the passengers on Flight 93 reacted during the hijacking, so is the fear that someone will successfully carry out that particular attack again, but if there's a threat you need to at least look at ways of negating it.
Just the problem that there's many hundreds (possibly thousands) of them out there, unaccounted for, they're easy to conceal in a vehicle, dirt easy to use, and very effective.
Assuming it's heading towards the terminal when hit. Unlikely, as aircraft don't take off and land directly towards the terminal. Even so, those aren't exactly huge warheads on those missiles. Probably won't penetrate the roof. Worst case, it still kills fewer people than a hit on a 767 would.
They're screwed. They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them. If they're lucky (for suitably large definitions of 'luck'), they'll be able to get high speed service from their local cable provider.
Slashdot Mirror
Replacing 50 or more databases full of useful personal information with one database. Why introduce a single point of failure?
RUN!
(Watches karma go down in flame. )
They aren't. I considered both, and decided neither was worth it.
You're right. They should just be required to reimburse the taxpayers of Boston for the expense of dealing with it.
One of the founders. The public face of the company.
Make a box the width and height of a CC, and 1 cm thick, and weigh it to match what this thing will weigh. Then tape it to your cell. Then you'll know why it's not built in to a phone.
"Man invents windstill"
These aren't intended to protect the US from a massive missile attack, they're intended to protect deployed US and allied forces from short and intermediate range missile attacks. Think South Korea or Japan defending against North Korean attacks, or US forces in Saudi Arabia defending against Iranian missiles.
That Apple (and Apple phones) would not be contractually (for Apple, anyway)tied to Cingular.
Mailing lists. How does it not tag a server that sends out mail to a list as a spammer?
We should just use the good old fashioned lethal weapons. Much less chance the people we are shooting at will get cancer 20 years from now.
The Federal Government, which pays for most of the innovation in the US (directly through r&d contracts, or indirectly through grants) has cut back on its tech spending to free up money for the war.
Well, it provided the funding, anyway.
It's an incentive for the Bank to improve security. If every bank was required to do this (and cc companies as well) it'd do quite a bit to improve security in online shopping and banking.
Well, the hydrogen bit is, but the solar isn't. People have been building 'full featured' houses like this for several years now. There was an article in the Washington Post a couple of years ago about a house in Loudon County VA that was off the grid. I know a guy in southern Utah who built his house to be off the grid, mainly because it was cheaper than building out the grid to where he was.
Florida, 2000. Hanging chads. Confusing paper ballots. The electronic voting mess was supposed to prevent that from ever happening again.
"and deliberately crash it". The paradigm before 11/9/01 was to co-operate fully with the hijackers, as that was likeliest to result in the best outcome. The paradigm after (once the new threat was understood) was to NOT co-operate. But the threat had to be understood first...
Given the way the passengers on Flight 93 reacted during the hijacking, so is the fear that someone will successfully carry out that particular attack again, but if there's a threat you need to at least look at ways of negating it.
Has a range of around 3km straight up, slant range of around 8 km. So you can fire from well outside the airport perimeter.
Just the problem that there's many hundreds (possibly thousands) of them out there, unaccounted for, they're easy to conceal in a vehicle, dirt easy to use, and very effective.
Assuming it's heading towards the terminal when hit. Unlikely, as aircraft don't take off and land directly towards the terminal. Even so, those aren't exactly huge warheads on those missiles. Probably won't penetrate the roof. Worst case, it still kills fewer people than a hit on a 767 would.
Of course, the reason I stopped paying attention to the headlines here is that they often have litle relation to what's discussed in the article...
and neither the article, nor the writeup here, claim that it is.
They're screwed. They will, probably, keep whatever DSL they may have, or dial-up, but no FIOS for them. If they're lucky (for suitably large definitions of 'luck'), they'll be able to get high speed service from their local cable provider.