May I ask when the United States intervened in South America? Where we intervened was in Latin America.
Oh, I forgot, US intervened within Northern America, too. (Latin America is South America plus Northern America until US)
To boot, when we intervened (not a wise choice but nonetheless it happened), we did not massacre thousands of people, we did not engage in wanton destruction to subdue Latin American nations. Anyone who believes such a thing is an extremist at the very least.
USSR never "massacred" anyone in Eastern Europe. There was nothing anywhere close to a "massacre" in Eastern Europe between the end of WWII and Balkan Wars, so again, you have no idea what are you talking about.
The rest of your response is merely denial of the obvious. I lived in Belarus, and I have pretty good idea what was the difference between the international border with Poland and an internal borders with Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania, how government institutions were connected within the Union and how they had no control across the border, other than vague ideological "guidance" between top Communist Party officials. I was there. You weren't. All you know about that was written by people whose responsibility was to make you think what you think now.
If you are claiming that it's some supposedly innocent "media spin", please tell me how would any "major" media organizations get any access to the top government officials if not by swearing loyalty to the people who make decisions who does and who doesn't get access to their press conferences and interviews. Of course, your media is controlled by the government -- one that isn't never gets any information to report on, and is reduced to lurking outside, reporting second-hand accounts. And if this is bad now, just imagine how it was in 50's-70's when most of the anti-Soviet myths were created, only to be sheepishly repeated and defended and expanded later.
Couldn't agree with parent more. The only reason our troops went there is the first place was so that the USSR wouldn't get any ideas about further expansion. I wish I had some mod points for the moronic comment above....
And who, may I ask, told you that USSR was planning any "expansion"? That's right, same US propaganda workers who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions and other idiocy.
I lived in USSR, and I can assure you that the very last thing its government wanted was expansion.
You're talking about the formal differences. I'm talking about the practical differences, the differences that the average Joe perceived.
Oh, there were practical differences.
ing in the USSR you had the KGB, living in GDR you had Stasi. Indeed there were some differences, Stasi was generally considered slightly worse than the KGB, the dictatorship in the GDR slightly harsher than that in the USSR. (Or at least West Germans felt this way, I don't know if everybody agreed.)
And in US you have a bunch of three-letter agencies using exactly the same methods at the time. Name me the country, Western or otherwise, that did not have some kind of intelligence service and secret police.
Again, this has nothing to do with independence of the country -- most of people in KGB would shudder or roll their eyes at the stuff Eastern European secret services did to their own population.
Now contrast this with the huge differences between living in a Warsaw-pact country versus living in a NATO country. Freedom of expression, freedom to create and join organizations, high productivity, wealth. A completely different experience.
Only if all you want to hear is propaganda, and all you want to say does not damage the rich.
Lots of people in the West didn't know much or care much about the differences between living in the GDR and living in Estonia.
And that does not make them any less ignorant.
Really, what kind of argument is this? Lots of people were tricked into believing that something is true, and it trumps actual facts? This kind of thinking allowed Iraq war to happen, for $whatever sake!
Note also how Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1968 when it deviated from approved policies. In this regard the Warsaw-pact countries were not really independent.(*)
(*) -- Of course arguably the same could be said about the countries where the US stopped socialist governments that were democratically elected by the people.
So doesn't it make this point completely negated and irrelevant?
Being careless about the differences is certainly sloppy, but not moronic. Or do you have difficulties struggling to understand the meaning of the word moronic?
Oh yes, it is moronic. Especially because the differences were fundamental, and were only concealed from the American population to serve the goal of anti-Soviet (and now anti-Russian) propaganda.
Most Warsaw Pact countries were conquered satellites.
In the same way as most of South America was "conquered" by US.
When they got out of line as the Czechs did then they got stomped on by the Soviet military.
This is not fundamentally different from various US "foreign adventures" within its sphere of influence.
In any case only a person who knows nothing but American propaganda can pretend that an independent nation, no matter how much in the sphere of influence of some other country, can be compared to a unit within a federation. Stop talking out of your ass.
Does someone really think that a person who decides to raise FIVE KIDS and give them education using THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND INEFFICIENT METHOD AVAILABLE without being in some extremely privileged position in the society, can be described as anything less than insane?
The practical differences between being part of the Warsaw pact and being part of the USSR were small, if you contrast them with the differences between being part of the Warsaw pact vs being part of NATO.
No. Seriously, you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. USSR was a federation, so position of USSR member was similar to US state, with slightly less autonomy due to Executive branch of the government participating in the Union-wide management of industry.
Warsaw Pact countries had more political and economic connections than NATO, however members were independent countries with no participation in anything that even remotely resembles a federal structure within USSR.
In most of those countries democratic institutions were developing only when indoctrination of the public was making them harmless for the constantly present (domestic or even foreign/colonial) oligarchy. Western Europe is probably the only example of democracy somewhat working as intended. US has a pseudo-democratic system with only two (less than UK!) active political parties, and extremely efficient propaganda machine.
Russia went through something similar under Yeltsin -- media was seized by oligarchy created by privatization, political movements became literally owned by few rich people or fallen under foreign (US) influence, and the whole thing turned into a farce, so no matter if democratic or undemocratic future development can be seen as desirable, the important tasks were:
1. Destroy the oligarchy. 2. Improve the economy. 3. Reduce organized crime that fuels development of oligarchy and damages economy. 4. Remove foreign puppets from political process.
Don't expect anything "democratic" until those basic things will be done, because democracy is worthless if it is used as a disguise for the oligarchy, or is practiced by beggars.
Poland, Romania and Eastern Germany never were part of the USSR in the first place. Some former USSR republic are NATO members now, but I am sure, you can't even name them, so please shut up and never talk about geography or history again.
Software products made for similar purpose has to compete with each other on features, so if one of such products manages to get ahead on features by practicing insecure development practices, the rest of them have to follow. When something bad finally happens, no one can claim superiority because everyone who tried to avoid taking shortcuts was kicked out of the market, or was scared into following the herd.
And I suppose, you have some kind of proof that it was Putin who is responsible for killing those people, who were thoroughly discredited long before those murders, and presented no threat to Putin or his government.
Speaking of which, I have one great suggestion for anti-Putin opposition to increase their credibility by orders of magnitude -- stop taking money from Berezovsky.
Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac.
Stalin was paranoid, but he killed up to 2 millions of people, not 20. Those ridiculously inflated figures exist because US propaganda wanted to make him look worse than Hitler. For the same reason the number of Hitler's victims is usually replaced with only number of Holocaust victims, what is not the same considering that WWII in Europe with its tens of millions dead was entirely his "project".
The error message was an interpretation of "Error" displayed on a 7-segment display of handheld calculators. Some of those calculators used an autocode stack-based programming language with operations represented as 2-3 cyrillic letters or symbols.
The Sun is at more or less average distance from the center of the galaxy, so even if modified 2nd Newton's law makes the galaxy rotate in a different way, Sun's acceleration would be in the "modified" part of the curve but not negligible at the extent that it can be assumed to be an inertial reference system. We constantly ignore acceleration caused by gravity and treat reference systems as inertial because at the scale of experiments they act as if they are inertial until we move far enough to notice the change in the direction of gravity. Not so for this hypothesis -- for its purpose gravity and acceleration don't make each other invisible.
So yes, if we stop moving relatively to the Sun our acceleration will likely be in the range when the behavior is "modified", but we still have to take into account that we are accelerating if we add any further acceleration. To verify the hypothesis he would need the sum of Sun's acceleration and acceleration of the lab due to imprecise choice of position, plus acceleration due to unaccounted external influence (such as fluctuation in tides) to remain within the "modified" range. Otherwise we are back to the conditions where the hypothesis would produce the behavior of regular Newtonian mechanics even if the hypothesis is true.
The coriolis force is a fiction which describes the deflection of objects relative to the surface of the earth. In that regard, it's much like centrifical force.
This is an old and tired argument about definitions, and one that many stupid people repeat when they are pretending to be smart. "Force" does not always mean "result of interaction of an object with some field" (the only thing that can really "move objects"), for many practical purposes it can be defined as "cause for any acceleration of an object in any reference system", so even inertia can be seen as a force if your reference system is not inertial. And, of course, in General Relativity gravity is "not a force" if such a narrow definition was accepted.
In any event, I'm reasonably certain that you haven't flown north of the tree line with a pilot sufficiently experienced to point out the bump. When it is pointed out to them, most people do notice it.
Who cares what people "experience" when they are told that they have to expect it? What kind of research is that? There are accelerometers for that purpose. Coriolis force doesn't do anything magical at any particular latitude except zero where it does not exist at all. At best it causes large-scale patterns of winds in the atmosphere that have latitude-specific details. None of those things cause any "bumps" unless plane's own navigation system somehow changes its way of compensating for something when passing some "magical" latitude. If there was such a "bump" it would be outlined in a giant thin wall of clouds along 63 degree north latitude because any water vapor, drops of water or ice passing through it with a wind blowing north or south would be "bumped" as well, and some of it would change its phase forming a wall.
And, of course, rotation of water in drains is unrelated to Coriolis force and is caused by the fact that nothing is absolutely symmetrical, and any rotation amplifies itself when water flows toward the center. It's not uncommon to have two drained reservoirs side by side with water rotating in the opposite directions, and of course, water spins when drained even if you are directly on the equator.
Then just compare movement of stars in galaxies with different acceleration measured against other galaxies. Dense clusters, or small galaxies orbiting larger galaxies would provide examples of higher acceleration, so if the hypothesis is true, movement of stars in them would be different from movement of stars in galaxies that are supposed to be accelerating less.
One thing that is good about the Universe is that it has plenty of very large, weirdly shaped objects in it.
This article (and the whole MOND thing) would make some sense if the systems described in them were not accelerating because of gravity. Sun is subjected to the gravity forces toward the center of our galaxy, so its path relative to the center of the galaxy is not a straight line but a circle -- though a very large one. I find it to be an extremely weird oversight considering that the whole hypothesis exists to describe parameters of the very same motion of stars in galaxies. So even when a point on the Earth surface is not accelerating in the Sun's coordinate system, it still does in the galaxy's coordinate system.
Worse yet, MOND does not explain anything about galaxies because galaxies themselves accelerate. They are not distributed evenly and uniformly in space but form clusters. Each cluster just like a galaxy itself, is pulled together by gravity, so galaxies experience some acceleration in the cluster's coordinate system because of the gravity of other galaxies.
Obviously this acceleration is not detectable locally because it is caused by gravity -- for the same reason objects in orbit are "weightless". To find out that you are in freefall (or in orbit, what is the same thing) without looking at other celestial objects you have to throw something and observe its movement -- since gravity is not parallel and uniform everywhere, after the object will get far enough from you, it will be noticeable that its trajectory is not a straight line relative to you, as it would be if you weren't accelerating at all. However locally gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable, and at the scale of Solar system or galaxy the size of such "local" area is huge.
MOND is talking about absolute acceleration that should be clearly distinguishable from gravity. However if we will try to find something in the universe that is really "unaccelerated" by this definition, there will be very few objects in this category, if any. Certainly it would not be massive centers of galaxies, Sun or two spots on the Earth surface the author of the article proposes as locations for his experiments.
This is the theoretical part of the problem. Now, the practical one. In two proposed spots the conditions that article author expects to happen last for a very short time and happen once a year. The extent of effect is similar to the influence of gravity from many existing celestial bodies. Tidal waves caused by Moon and affected by the shape of oceans, condition in the atmosphere, movement of Earth crust, etc. are likely to produce more noticeable influence on any test body that may be used in the experiment. Though I didn't do any calculations, it's hard to believe that variations of tidal waves caused by changes in weather will be less than supposed effect of "modified" 2nd Newton's Law even if it worked the way that the article author's proposed. And since conditions are supposed to be so rare, there is no way to collect enough samples for any statistical analysis.
In the end, I can add that if your experiment is to look for a black cat in a dark room, it shouldn't be a surprise if the result is negative regardless of the actual presence of a cat. However this makes no excuse for proposing that the cat is in the room when there is no reason for it to be there in the first place. Both theory and proposed experiment look extremely stupid, and if MOND can be modified to explain why it should include movement of stars within galaxies but not movement of galaxies in clusters, maybe it would be worth a second look. For now it's just that -- stupid idea with no foundation and no viable method of verification.
More likely because it would drive up production cost and size -- may need faster CPU, definitely needs wireless chips and high-frequency circuits, shielding, antenna... All this would also need more battery capacity, battery and antenna will make the device larger. It would end up being a completely different product in a different price range, and compete with Pocket PC, Zaurus and their likes.
My point is that when dealing with servers you can't apply the approach "Let's hope, it's something bit-by-bit identical to something we have already seen on tens of thousands other computers", the fundamental assumption of antiviruses' design. People who break into servers, be they skr1pt kiddies or advanced blackhats, produce a much wider variety of attacks, so signatures that are so precious for antivirus companies are worthless on servers. There are probably tens of thousands rootkit variants and exploits that no one ever seen, yet as long as vulnerabilities are fixed, those rootkits and exploits don't pose any threat.
On the other hand, on Windows, where the main vulnerabilities is the user pressing "Yes", plus massive holes in IE and Outlook Express, "exploits" are as primitive as executable renamed to "message.pif", and plugging that would require a massive user education campaign, so malware evolves very slowly, and almost no one bothers manually attacking anything.
Many programs keep temporary files during the course of execution, files which frequently are never written to disk, but still accessible, or will be overwritten when the service stops,
This data is worthless.
and anything being run at the console give the option to save the current sessions to a disk(we don't know where the hacker was doing their dirty work from).
What console? What sessions? Compromised desktops are not worth messing with, and servers don't do that.
Much of this can easily be collected and written to removable media, so the cost is negligible.
It's just as likely to contain valid data as to be bullshit left by the attacker. There is no point in knowing it, all important data should be in remote logs.
If you have unplugged the network connection(including disabling wireless cards), what does it matter? Any data you enter is going to go no where, except for the fireproof vault where you store the evidence, or back into production, which, provided you do a good job of blowing away contents before you rebuild it, no one would be able to get without physically removing the drive, if you're lucky enough to have a system that contains no sensitive information and can be simply rebuilt.
The system might be not truly root-compromised at that point yet but have access to whatever device/service you use to log in. You can only be sure after you see storage in a clean environment.
By the logic of never do anything with a running system, our Antivirus research groups wouldn't make it very far, and in many cases, neither would many forensic teams.
Antiviruses are for Windows desktops. For me the default state of a Windows desktop is "compromised", and I always treat them that way.
Bottom line, to do accurate forensics, if needed, you need to grab as much information about the system without ruining integrity of what is on the drive before you shut it down.
Data forensics is something that should be assumed to be "nice thing to do if it will be possible". Bringing a production system up in a non-compromised state is usually mandatory and urgent.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I forgot, US intervened within Northern America, too. (Latin America is South America plus Northern America until US)
USSR never "massacred" anyone in Eastern Europe. There was nothing anywhere close to a "massacre" in Eastern Europe between the end of WWII and Balkan Wars, so again, you have no idea what are you talking about.
The rest of your response is merely denial of the obvious. I lived in Belarus, and I have pretty good idea what was the difference between the international border with Poland and an internal borders with Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania, how government institutions were connected within the Union and how they had no control across the border, other than vague ideological "guidance" between top Communist Party officials. I was there. You weren't. All you know about that was written by people whose responsibility was to make you think what you think now.
If you are claiming that it's some supposedly innocent "media spin", please tell me how would any "major" media organizations get any access to the top government officials if not by swearing loyalty to the people who make decisions who does and who doesn't get access to their press conferences and interviews. Of course, your media is controlled by the government -- one that isn't never gets any information to report on, and is reduced to lurking outside, reporting second-hand accounts. And if this is bad now, just imagine how it was in 50's-70's when most of the anti-Soviet myths were created, only to be sheepishly repeated and defended and expanded later.
And who, may I ask, told you that USSR was planning any "expansion"? That's right, same US propaganda workers who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions and other idiocy.
I lived in USSR, and I can assure you that the very last thing its government wanted was expansion.
Guess what? USSR military didn't in any way affect GDR government, either!
Oh, there were practical differences.
And in US you have a bunch of three-letter agencies using exactly the same methods at the time.
Name me the country, Western or otherwise, that did not have some kind of intelligence service and secret police.
Again, this has nothing to do with independence of the country -- most of people in KGB would shudder or roll their eyes at the stuff Eastern European secret services did to their own population.
Only if all you want to hear is propaganda, and all you want to say does not damage the rich.
And that does not make them any less ignorant.
Really, what kind of argument is this? Lots of people were tricked into believing that something is true, and it trumps actual facts? This kind of thinking allowed Iraq war to happen, for $whatever sake!
So doesn't it make this point completely negated and irrelevant?
Oh yes, it is moronic. Especially because the differences were fundamental, and were only concealed from the American population to serve the goal of anti-Soviet (and now anti-Russian) propaganda.
In the same way as most of South America was "conquered" by US.
This is not fundamentally different from various US "foreign adventures" within its sphere of influence.
In any case only a person who knows nothing but American propaganda can pretend that an independent nation, no matter how much in the sphere of influence of some other country, can be compared to a unit within a federation. Stop talking out of your ass.
Does someone really think that a person who decides to raise FIVE KIDS and give them education using THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND INEFFICIENT METHOD AVAILABLE without being in some extremely privileged position in the society, can be described as anything less than insane?
US has its military bases all over the world, and more than a healthy number them are in Germany -- this still does not make Germany a US state.
No. Seriously, you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. USSR was a federation, so position of USSR member was similar to US state, with slightly less autonomy due to Executive branch of the government participating in the Union-wide management of industry.
Warsaw Pact countries had more political and economic connections than NATO, however members were independent countries with no participation in anything that even remotely resembles a federal structure within USSR.
How did you guess?
Maybe because Putin remains extremely popular among the population despite being lambasted in the press and on TV 24/7?
In most of those countries democratic institutions were developing only when indoctrination of the public was making them harmless for the constantly present (domestic or even foreign/colonial) oligarchy. Western Europe is probably the only example of democracy somewhat working as intended. US has a pseudo-democratic system with only two (less than UK!) active political parties, and extremely efficient propaganda machine.
Russia went through something similar under Yeltsin -- media was seized by oligarchy created by privatization, political movements became literally owned by few rich people or fallen under foreign (US) influence, and the whole thing turned into a farce, so no matter if democratic or undemocratic future development can be seen as desirable, the important tasks were:
1. Destroy the oligarchy.
2. Improve the economy.
3. Reduce organized crime that fuels development of oligarchy and damages economy.
4. Remove foreign puppets from political process.
Don't expect anything "democratic" until those basic things will be done, because democracy is worthless if it is used as a disguise for the oligarchy, or is practiced by beggars.
Poland, Romania and Eastern Germany never were part of the USSR in the first place. Some former USSR republic are NATO members now, but I am sure, you can't even name them, so please shut up and never talk about geography or history again.
Software products made for similar purpose has to compete with each other on features, so if one of such products manages to get ahead on features by practicing insecure development practices, the rest of them have to follow. When something bad finally happens, no one can claim superiority because everyone who tried to avoid taking shortcuts was kicked out of the market, or was scared into following the herd.
Become a RFE/RL "journalist" -- they will still be able to call you "Russian".
And I suppose, you have some kind of proof that it was Putin who is responsible for killing those people, who were thoroughly discredited long before those murders, and presented no threat to Putin or his government.
Speaking of which, I have one great suggestion for anti-Putin opposition to increase their credibility by orders of magnitude -- stop taking money from Berezovsky.
Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac.
Stalin was paranoid, but he killed up to 2 millions of people, not 20. Those ridiculously inflated figures exist because US propaganda wanted to make him look worse than Hitler. For the same reason the number of Hitler's victims is usually replaced with only number of Holocaust victims, what is not the same considering that WWII in Europe with its tens of millions dead was entirely his "project".
The error message was an interpretation of "Error" displayed on a 7-segment display of handheld calculators. Some of those calculators used an autocode stack-based programming language with operations represented as 2-3 cyrillic letters or symbols.
The Sun is at more or less average distance from the center of the galaxy, so even if modified 2nd Newton's law makes the galaxy rotate in a different way, Sun's acceleration would be in the "modified" part of the curve but not negligible at the extent that it can be assumed to be an inertial reference system. We constantly ignore acceleration caused by gravity and treat reference systems as inertial because at the scale of experiments they act as if they are inertial until we move far enough to notice the change in the direction of gravity. Not so for this hypothesis -- for its purpose gravity and acceleration don't make each other invisible.
So yes, if we stop moving relatively to the Sun our acceleration will likely be in the range when the behavior is "modified", but we still have to take into account that we are accelerating if we add any further acceleration. To verify the hypothesis he would need the sum of Sun's acceleration and acceleration of the lab due to imprecise choice of position, plus acceleration due to unaccounted external influence (such as fluctuation in tides) to remain within the "modified" range. Otherwise we are back to the conditions where the hypothesis would produce the behavior of regular Newtonian mechanics even if the hypothesis is true.
More accurately: No coriolis force exists
The coriolis force is a fiction which describes the deflection of objects relative to the surface of the earth. In that regard, it's much like centrifical force.
This is an old and tired argument about definitions, and one that many stupid people repeat when they are pretending to be smart. "Force" does not always mean "result of interaction of an object with some field" (the only thing that can really "move objects"), for many practical purposes it can be defined as "cause for any acceleration of an object in any reference system", so even inertia can be seen as a force if your reference system is not inertial. And, of course, in General Relativity gravity is "not a force" if such a narrow definition was accepted.
In any event, I'm reasonably certain that you haven't flown north of the tree line with a pilot sufficiently experienced to point out the bump. When it is pointed out to them, most people do notice it.
Who cares what people "experience" when they are told that they have to expect it? What kind of research is that? There are accelerometers for that purpose. Coriolis force doesn't do anything magical at any particular latitude except zero where it does not exist at all. At best it causes large-scale patterns of winds in the atmosphere that have latitude-specific details. None of those things cause any "bumps" unless plane's own navigation system somehow changes its way of compensating for something when passing some "magical" latitude. If there was such a "bump" it would be outlined in a giant thin wall of clouds along 63 degree north latitude because any water vapor, drops of water or ice passing through it with a wind blowing north or south would be "bumped" as well, and some of it would change its phase forming a wall.
And, of course, rotation of water in drains is unrelated to Coriolis force and is caused by the fact that nothing is absolutely symmetrical, and any rotation amplifies itself when water flows toward the center. It's not uncommon to have two drained reservoirs side by side with water rotating in the opposite directions, and of course, water spins when drained even if you are directly on the equator.
Any references to anything published about that?
Then just compare movement of stars in galaxies with different acceleration measured against other galaxies. Dense clusters, or small galaxies orbiting larger galaxies would provide examples of higher acceleration, so if the hypothesis is true, movement of stars in them would be different from movement of stars in galaxies that are supposed to be accelerating less.
One thing that is good about the Universe is that it has plenty of very large, weirdly shaped objects in it.
This article (and the whole MOND thing) would make some sense if the systems described in them were not accelerating because of gravity. Sun is subjected to the gravity forces toward the center of our galaxy, so its path relative to the center of the galaxy is not a straight line but a circle -- though a very large one. I find it to be an extremely weird oversight considering that the whole hypothesis exists to describe parameters of the very same motion of stars in galaxies. So even when a point on the Earth surface is not accelerating in the Sun's coordinate system, it still does in the galaxy's coordinate system.
Worse yet, MOND does not explain anything about galaxies because galaxies themselves accelerate. They are not distributed evenly and uniformly in space but form clusters. Each cluster just like a galaxy itself, is pulled together by gravity, so galaxies experience some acceleration in the cluster's coordinate system because of the gravity of other galaxies.
Obviously this acceleration is not detectable locally because it is caused by gravity -- for the same reason objects in orbit are "weightless". To find out that you are in freefall (or in orbit, what is the same thing) without looking at other celestial objects you have to throw something and observe its movement -- since gravity is not parallel and uniform everywhere, after the object will get far enough from you, it will be noticeable that its trajectory is not a straight line relative to you, as it would be if you weren't accelerating at all. However locally gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable, and at the scale of Solar system or galaxy the size of such "local" area is huge.
MOND is talking about absolute acceleration that should be clearly distinguishable from gravity. However if we will try to find something in the universe that is really "unaccelerated" by this definition, there will be very few objects in this category, if any. Certainly it would not be massive centers of galaxies, Sun or two spots on the Earth surface the author of the article proposes as locations for his experiments.
This is the theoretical part of the problem. Now, the practical one. In two proposed spots the conditions that article author expects to happen last for a very short time and happen once a year. The extent of effect is similar to the influence of gravity from many existing celestial bodies. Tidal waves caused by Moon and affected by the shape of oceans, condition in the atmosphere, movement of Earth crust, etc. are likely to produce more noticeable influence on any test body that may be used in the experiment. Though I didn't do any calculations, it's hard to believe that variations of tidal waves caused by changes in weather will be less than supposed effect of "modified" 2nd Newton's Law even if it worked the way that the article author's proposed. And since conditions are supposed to be so rare, there is no way to collect enough samples for any statistical analysis.
In the end, I can add that if your experiment is to look for a black cat in a dark room, it shouldn't be a surprise if the result is negative regardless of the actual presence of a cat. However this makes no excuse for proposing that the cat is in the room when there is no reason for it to be there in the first place. Both theory and proposed experiment look extremely stupid, and if MOND can be modified to explain why it should include movement of stars within galaxies but not movement of galaxies in clusters, maybe it would be worth a second look. For now it's just that -- stupid idea with no foundation and no viable method of verification.
No. Coriolis force exists. Phenomena you have mentioned don't.
More likely because it would drive up production cost and size -- may need faster CPU, definitely needs wireless chips and high-frequency circuits, shielding, antenna... All this would also need more battery capacity, battery and antenna will make the device larger. It would end up being a completely different product in a different price range, and compete with Pocket PC, Zaurus and their likes.
My point is that when dealing with servers you can't apply the approach "Let's hope, it's something bit-by-bit identical to something we have already seen on tens of thousands other computers", the fundamental assumption of antiviruses' design. People who break into servers, be they skr1pt kiddies or advanced blackhats, produce a much wider variety of attacks, so signatures that are so precious for antivirus companies are worthless on servers. There are probably tens of thousands rootkit variants and exploits that no one ever seen, yet as long as vulnerabilities are fixed, those rootkits and exploits don't pose any threat.
On the other hand, on Windows, where the main vulnerabilities is the user pressing "Yes", plus massive holes in IE and Outlook Express, "exploits" are as primitive as executable renamed to "message.pif", and plugging that would require a massive user education campaign, so malware evolves very slowly, and almost no one bothers manually attacking anything.
Many programs keep temporary files during the course of execution, files which frequently are never written to disk, but still accessible, or will be overwritten when the service stops,
This data is worthless.
and anything being run at the console give the option to save the current sessions to a disk(we don't know where the hacker was doing their dirty work from).
What console? What sessions? Compromised desktops are not worth messing with, and servers don't do that.
Much of this can easily be collected and written to removable media, so the cost is negligible.
It's just as likely to contain valid data as to be bullshit left by the attacker. There is no point in knowing it, all important data should be in remote logs.
If you have unplugged the network connection(including disabling wireless cards), what does it matter? Any data you enter is going to go no where, except for the fireproof vault where you store the evidence, or back into production, which, provided you do a good job of blowing away contents before you rebuild it, no one would be able to get without physically removing the drive, if you're lucky enough to have a system that contains no sensitive information and can be simply rebuilt.
The system might be not truly root-compromised at that point yet but have access to whatever device/service you use to log in. You can only be sure after you see storage in a clean environment.
By the logic of never do anything with a running system, our Antivirus research groups wouldn't make it very far, and in many cases, neither would many forensic teams.
Antiviruses are for Windows desktops. For me the default state of a Windows desktop is "compromised", and I always treat them that way.
Bottom line, to do accurate forensics, if needed, you need to grab as much information about the system without ruining integrity of what is on the drive before you shut it down.
Data forensics is something that should be assumed to be "nice thing to do if it will be possible". Bringing a production system up in a non-compromised state is usually mandatory and urgent.