My point was that even if you have an edge in technology, everyone has to follow the laws of physics. It doesn't matter in this game if you are the top of the class, if your opponent is 95% as capable and has some other more tangible advantage.
As for the case of the F-16, pilots already fly reclined, and the adaptable G suit is not exactly an original idea. Actually, the next big fighter plane advancement will be VIFfing (Vector In Flight) But the Russians already have it in their latest fighter plane.
The only thing UCAVs will do is allow more fighting aircraft be available from pilots who couldn't pass a physical. People forget that the UCAV has to be in communication with the pilot, and if you pump out enough RF, it doesn't matter how capable spread spectrum communication is. (Then again, once UCAVs are self-contained AI machines...)
You have no clue. The Lavi was an extremely capable fighter. The only reason the program was shutdown was that it was not a cheap plane, and Israel's air force is paid for by the USA. US defense contractors shut the program down. The Israeli defense industry has access to our cutting edge military technology (stealth, anti-missle, radars, awacs, satellite), and would readily sell it to the Chinese to make a buck.
Who cares if the Mirage can't go toe to toe with the F-22? Its better than anything the Chinese currently possess. That's the point. Stealth technology doesn't mean its invisible to radars. It means you have to replace your obsolete air wing with radars & tactics to fight them. (Example: Stealth don't mean crap if you have enough satellites spotting them, and enough computers to coordinate intercept missions.) For most countries, its a prohibitive cost. To the Chinese, its something to do with their money.
Much of US military strategy is already outdated. A simple tactical nuke can take out an entire carrier group. So can a simultaneous attack from a couple thousand cruise missles. They're all working to do that. Its going to happen.
The US also suffers from a lack of critical thinking ability from its citizenry. That's why it can invade a country over WMD, and not be perturbed when they don't find any. Military power is a reflection of economic power, and sadly, it looks like its on the wane.
It isn't arrogant to state that at the current time, the U.S. is technologically ahead. It is stupid to think we aren't spending money to stay there.
No it is not arrogant to say the US is technologically ahead of the Chinese. Its pretty fucking stupid to think the Chinese are sitting still technologically, just as it would be stupid to think the US isn't spending the money to keep technologically ahead.
But is the US spending that money to stay ahead? Doesn't look like it to me. Most US corporations are starving or scrapping their R&D departments. Everytime we have a military excursion in the Middle East, that's billions of dollars that is not going to improving infrastructure or R&D. Then look at our demographics in the next 20 years. What ever money we have then will be put into paying off social security, and not enough young bodies to stick into warmachines. The US will not be able throw around their weight like they do today. Tragically, I think its going to take an egregious military fiasco before America learns some restraint.
But getting back to maintenance of technological advantage, look at the weapon systems the US are researching today. Where is the milestone shattering technological improvements? For example, the F-22 may be harder to find on radar, but its not much more capable than an F-15. The best dogfighter in the world is still probably the F-16. There's no way of improving the turn radius performance of a future fighter (the pilot blacks out when it goes beyond 9G turns). Technology will not be able to improve a plane beyond what the plane is currently capable of performing. Linear expenditure or even exponential expenditure in research does not necessarily result in a corresponding increase in performance improvement. The Chinese does not need to surpass the US in technological achievement. They can merely steal them. They will achieve a form of technological parity with the West, and it will not take decades to do it. Or you can think like Wang in the '80s, and believe those pathetic PCs will never replace a SOTA wordprocessing system.
Finally, its foolish to think the new cold war will work the same as the previous cold war. War is merely a matter of the population's will. The Chinese will attack Taiwan if they don't think reunification will occur quickly enough. Is the US citizen willing to live in a radioactive crater to prevent it?
You're a fucking idiot if you think that China having more human targets makes them a more viable threat. Once they have enough nukes to destroy the U.S. in a counterstrike, the race is over.
You're a fucking idiot if you think numbers are irrelevant. During WWII, the Germans were a superb fighting force able to inflict serious casualties against the Russians, the numerically superior and tactically inferior opponent. Who won that theatre of war?
There is nothing stopping the Chinese from building ICBMs, and once they change their strategic thinking, they will be able to reach that goal in less than a decade.
The Chinese are happy to lull you into your Western arrogance of superior technology. They are technologically modernizing at a blistering rate, thanks to Taiwan and Western companies relocating their high tech factories into China. They are one of the few countries in the world still generating a large increase in GNP per year. Any capital they can keep from going into populace maintenance is going to their military. They are making/buying modern tanks, fighter planes, ships, and other weapons. God forbid the Israelis start selling them cutting edge military technology. Even if Israel stays under the US's economic thumb, and the US keeps them on a tight leash, China will be able to generate capital to buy weapon systems outright from the French. In five years, their military will be unrecognizable from their status. And trust me, their ICBMs will hit any place in the world they want it to. In ten years (at their current economic pace), they will probably be able to go head to head against the US. Oh sure, our weapons will be able to hit theirs at a farther distance, our tanks will be nicer, and our airplanes will have doodads theirs won't. But 1.5 billion vs 300 million. You do the math. Oh, I forgot, the US kids aren't so good with it anymore.
it is also pretty silly that they do not try to even make a new shuttle using todays material technology rather than the material tech of 30 years ago.
No, it would be pretty silly to continue the shuttle program. Its unlikely that new materials & technologies would make a new shuttle significantly cheaper or capable. If it were the case, there would be a program to replace the old ones right now.
The current shuttles are jokes. They can't get into GEO and it would be much cheaper to launch a replacement satellite, rather than drag a defective one back to earth. Rockets are at least 10 times cheaper to operate than shuttles. The worst thing about the shuttle program is that it sucks money away from space research and development of cheaper payload delivery systems. Stop thinking stupid and basing a space program on putting a white elephant into LEO. Use that money to do real space exploration/development.
So lets see, you find a coworker murdered in a storage closet. You go inform your manager at Waste Management, Inc. He pounces for the phone, and tells you to proceed to your next task, which happens to be on another floor. Oddly enough, the police didn't come by to question you about the body. You still let the company deal with it???
I find it incredible that anyone could think that its an employee's duty to withhold information on felony activity occuring at a workplace. Or perhaps you think one needs to be sympathetic to a company's concerns while child molestation is being committed? Its people like you that let clowns from Enron swindle investors.
And yes, its obviously the employee's duty to inform their manager first. Which is what they did. How likely is it that two employees previously with good work records BOTH lose their jobs because they simultaneously are performing substandard work?
While I do understand your sympathy towards hardware manufacturers, there is one obvious difference between accepting software and hardware bugs. The software bug can be fixed with a patch. The $200 software now works; we can accept that. When the CPU is buggy, the only way that gets corrected is if the manufacturer is willing to replace the CPU. BIG difference.
I agree completely that software products should be set to a higher standard. But we haven't seen integrity in the industry, so all that's left to fix the problem would be to sic the lawyers at them. I don't see that as fixing the problem...
Its not the motherboard or the power supply. It has to do with the fact that the SOHO is overpriced but cheap assed in quality. Instead of storing and maintaining every mouse setting before hopping to the next machine, it feeds a mouse reset code when it hops back to the old machine. This freaks out any Xwindows version besides the latest, and as one AC said, its no good for wheel mice. I'll sooner chuck the SOHO than my wheelmouse.
Belkin soho's may sell at a lower price than other kvms, but that does not make them cheap. ~$120 USD according to pricewatch.com. Their kvm cables are ridiculously overpriced. (And you'll need at least two sets of cables to be minimally useful.)
Worse, they are riddled with mouse control bugs, and its noticably annoying when using Linux. You need to use the mouse while switching, or you'll lose mouse scroll or any mouse control, or freak out the xwindows session. (In which case, you need to do an ctrl-alt-1, ctrl-alt-7 key sequence to reset the GUI.) I have a USB kvm connectors to my laptop, but I have to set my laptop bios to turn off legacy USB support. This means I still have to use the laptop keyboard to make boot selections until there is a login prompt. If I turn on legacy USB support, I have no console keyboard when the laptop boots up linux. (This is a problem when you're away & disconnected from the kvm.)
Besides, why waste WTC rental money housing backup systems? Surely there's cheaper land out on Long Island or across the river in Jersey.
WTC floor space was not that expensive, compared to other metro areas. NYS agencies would be based in the WTC to fill up the floors. There were empty floors all over the towers. Sadly, its the big reason why the Twin Towers will not be rebuilt in its original configuration.
The rationale was as follows: You need an alternate site to address the possibility of a disaster at the main site. Generally, that's fire or power outage or civil disruption (disgruntled employee with an assault rifle). You can't just put the backup center next door because fire can spread beyond the original building. BUT, fire was unlikely to jump from tower #1 to tower #2. The advantage would be that the personnel at the main site can still readily maintain the backup site. With an alternate location, you lose those personnel during the day at the main site when testing or maintenance needs to be done at the alternate site. An international bank like Citibank can't afford to go cheap, because they're more likely the target of a terrorist attack, and they still need to conduct operations if the NYC bridges needed to shutdown. But to a small trading firm, with say a couple hundred million in capital, they don't need to be as cagey. (If the bridges shutdown, the exchanges are going to shutdown.) Its more disruptive for them to have a colo in NJ or LIC.
Backup center in the other tower was not expensive flashiness. And blowing up a tower after 1993 was a non-possibility. They shutdown the parking garages after that.
You don't think Locksmiths are trained for their job by breaking into unsuspecting homeowners,
They don't, because their job is not to ensure physical security on a site. Its to install locks. And shockingly, they spend a good chunk of their time breaking into safes, cars, and buildings. Sometimes people lock themselves out, or don't possess combinations or keys.
Or alarm companies enhance their products by comitting B&Es?
They do, but usually in their own labs. But I'm sure at a large, expensive client site, they may hire a tiger team for research purposes.
My big problem with "Holier than Thou" "White Hat" hackers is not a policy of not hiring criminals. Its their mindset. If its immoral to "break" into a system, their mind tends to be too closed to anticipate possibilities. Or think if they follow a set of rules, that somehow a site is impenetrable (and when they die, they go to Heaven.) That makes them less talented security specialists. Not that I would hire a security company which employed known computer criminals either.
Foolish? Oh come on, who thought BOTH towers would go down after a terrorist attack? And they save money by not having to maintain a remote location and while using the same staff. If you're Citibank, or Chase Manhattan, yes it would have been stupid. (And note, neither had that arrangement.) But a mid-sized investment firm? Who's got money to throw around for a backup control center? Next you'll be telling me that a Wall Street trading firm should have their backup site in London, England, because NJ is not remote enough from a nuclear strike on their main offices.
Its always a good time for financial networks to be hacked. 9/11 would have only been an "opportunistic" hack. You're still going to need to have some exposure to internal systems to be able to penetrate them. And if you are internal, you don't need 9/11 to pull a scam. There's a reason why security firms put their emphasis on company employees.
If you look at 9/11 as purely a terrorist act using airplanes, then yes, its facetious hyperbole. But you could have sat down and thought about 9/11 in a metaphorical context. It was a tragedy that could have been avoided and was not because of careless complacency; now the statement makes more sense. I'm sure large companies started to realize they could be next in line. Also, I'm sure he's telling the truth that after 9/11/01, the computer security business skyrocketed. There were many news articles talking about computer "terrorists" infiltrating computer infrastructures to sabotage public works, or even the internet itself. Its hardly fair to castigate a guy for reciting fact.
Normally, I would agree with your assessment of Morse a fearmongering assclown. Except, I know that computer security is thought of as a joke, never taken seriously, and worst of all, procedures and tools are put in place by people who really do not understand the nature of system security. It is the digital equivalent of a 9/11, except its unlikely to have quite the same repercussions. There is nothing moral about a hacker that chooses not to work in computer security because they think that the act of preventing illegal hacking into systems is somehow wrong. In the real world, people work for employers they don't like. To not support their families is irresponsible and childish.
What is the level of bandwidth availability for the prices they're charging?
Perhaps it can be assumed its unlimited bandwidth at $X/month. But I'm sure if any server with the magnitude of traffic comparable to Slashdot were to move in, they'd be shutting it down soon afterwards.
Perhaps its my utter ignorance, but I would think it is a great time to start up a new company. Yeah, there's less money floating around, but VC's are in a bind. They only make their money by pumping in money into startup companies likely to succeed. If you have a credible business plan, and there are no major flaws in your management team, I can't see why you'd have a problem finding investors. (Unfortunately, I don't possess that surefire idea that would make me want to quit my job.)
So lets see. Because of "Patriot" legislation, you can incarcerate an American citizen, and remove his legal rights as a citizen. And why? Because they MAY represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen (a lot of them).
Well, it seems to me that if you own a gun, you may represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen. Guns have been used in all shootings of family members, children, and coworkers. Those gun owners have killed a lot more people each year than those 9/11 terrorists.
Yay for John Ashcroft and the FBI for making us safe. Lets get all these terrorists off the street.
(To the sarcasm-impaired, this is a sardonic post. But I am trying to make a point.)
You can make sorts of credible, Machiavellian explanations for Microsoft's maneuvers concerning Corel. But why the heck would Vector buy Microsoft's shares in Corel? Can Corel really go anywhere with its current products?
Shhh! I think I hear it saying something...
on
Server In A Fly
·
· Score: 5, Funny
There is no such thing as an asteroid impact that will cause the extinction of human beings.
We speculate that the dinosaurs were made extinct by an asteroid impact. It radically changed the climate of the earth. Yeah, if the dinosaurs subsisted on jungle that wasn't there anymore, then yes, losing your source of food or ability to function at cold temperatures could be a species extinction event.
But note, human beings are a lot more adaptable to harsh climactic conditions. Hell, human beings have lived for centuries off of reindeer that subsist on lichen. I'm sure the dinosaurs had a lot to worry about concerning asteroid impacts...
Actually, it could be possible for an asteroid could extinguish the human race. But it would have to make it impossible for anything larger than a microbe to survive. And that state would have to be in effect for at least 2 centuries. That is not a common asteroid collision event. Bets anyone?
Oh yes, an asteroid impact could cause the extinction of civilization as we know it. I hope you people are bright enough to recognise the difference. Humanity does not cease to exist once you cease to exist.
I have no position concerning concealing such information. Its wrong, but only on an ethical plane which does not exist on earth.
1) What free highway system? Every taxpayer pays for that "free" highway system. What made gas guzzling personal transport worthy of subsidization, but not more energy efficient systems like rail?
2) The legal system is not a voluntary process like owning a car. Not having a car will not imprison you or kill you. Not having access to information accumulated by public institutions (the courts) is egregious.
3) By defending the status quo, you take the position only rich people should have access to an effective lawyer. (Cut the rhetorical crap.)
So if you are a 30 year old virgin, rejoice, and join Mensa!
No, the smart thing to do would be to get a life. Besides the last thing Mensans need is another 30 year old virgin... (Explaining the Facts of Life over and over...)
My problem is that I hate birthdays in general, and it falls on a conspicuous day. Hard to forget. Not to mention the merciless teasing that would occur as a child... But I guess Independence Day, Xmas, Thanksgiving is about as bad.
Luckily, the silly women who think the day must be commemorated are usually too occupied with mating rituals to make an official stink of it.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that even if you have an edge in technology, everyone has to follow the laws of physics. It doesn't matter in this game if you are the top of the class, if your opponent is 95% as capable and has some other more tangible advantage. As for the case of the F-16, pilots already fly reclined, and the adaptable G suit is not exactly an original idea. Actually, the next big fighter plane advancement will be VIFfing (Vector In Flight) But the Russians already have it in their latest fighter plane. The only thing UCAVs will do is allow more fighting aircraft be available from pilots who couldn't pass a physical. People forget that the UCAV has to be in communication with the pilot, and if you pump out enough RF, it doesn't matter how capable spread spectrum communication is. (Then again, once UCAVs are self-contained AI machines...)
You have no clue. The Lavi was an extremely capable fighter. The only reason the program was shutdown was that it was not a cheap plane, and Israel's air force is paid for by the USA. US defense contractors shut the program down. The Israeli defense industry has access to our cutting edge military technology (stealth, anti-missle, radars, awacs, satellite), and would readily sell it to the Chinese to make a buck.
Who cares if the Mirage can't go toe to toe with the F-22? Its better than anything the Chinese currently possess. That's the point. Stealth technology doesn't mean its invisible to radars. It means you have to replace your obsolete air wing with radars & tactics to fight them. (Example: Stealth don't mean crap if you have enough satellites spotting them, and enough computers to coordinate intercept missions.) For most countries, its a prohibitive cost. To the Chinese, its something to do with their money.
Much of US military strategy is already outdated. A simple tactical nuke can take out an entire carrier group. So can a simultaneous attack from a couple thousand cruise missles. They're all working to do that. Its going to happen.
The US also suffers from a lack of critical thinking ability from its citizenry. That's why it can invade a country over WMD, and not be perturbed when they don't find any. Military power is a reflection of economic power, and sadly, it looks like its on the wane.
It isn't arrogant to state that at the current time, the U.S. is technologically ahead. It is stupid to think we aren't spending money to stay there.
No it is not arrogant to say the US is technologically ahead of the Chinese. Its pretty fucking stupid to think the Chinese are sitting still technologically, just as it would be stupid to think the US isn't spending the money to keep technologically ahead.
But is the US spending that money to stay ahead? Doesn't look like it to me. Most US corporations are starving or scrapping their R&D departments. Everytime we have a military excursion in the Middle East, that's billions of dollars that is not going to improving infrastructure or R&D. Then look at our demographics in the next 20 years. What ever money we have then will be put into paying off social security, and not enough young bodies to stick into warmachines. The US will not be able throw around their weight like they do today. Tragically, I think its going to take an egregious military fiasco before America learns some restraint.
But getting back to maintenance of technological advantage, look at the weapon systems the US are researching today. Where is the milestone shattering technological improvements? For example, the F-22 may be harder to find on radar, but its not much more capable than an F-15. The best dogfighter in the world is still probably the F-16. There's no way of improving the turn radius performance of a future fighter (the pilot blacks out when it goes beyond 9G turns). Technology will not be able to improve a plane beyond what the plane is currently capable of performing. Linear expenditure or even exponential expenditure in research does not necessarily result in a corresponding increase in performance improvement. The Chinese does not need to surpass the US in technological achievement. They can merely steal them. They will achieve a form of technological parity with the West, and it will not take decades to do it. Or you can think like Wang in the '80s, and believe those pathetic PCs will never replace a SOTA wordprocessing system.
Finally, its foolish to think the new cold war will work the same as the previous cold war. War is merely a matter of the population's will. The Chinese will attack Taiwan if they don't think reunification will occur quickly enough. Is the US citizen willing to live in a radioactive crater to prevent it?
You're a fucking idiot if you think that China having more human targets makes them a more viable threat. Once they have enough nukes to destroy the U.S. in a counterstrike, the race is over.
You're a fucking idiot if you think numbers are irrelevant. During WWII, the Germans were a superb fighting force able to inflict serious casualties against the Russians, the numerically superior and tactically inferior opponent. Who won that theatre of war?
There is nothing stopping the Chinese from building ICBMs, and once they change their strategic thinking, they will be able to reach that goal in less than a decade.
The Chinese are happy to lull you into your Western arrogance of superior technology. They are technologically modernizing at a blistering rate, thanks to Taiwan and Western companies relocating their high tech factories into China. They are one of the few countries in the world still generating a large increase in GNP per year. Any capital they can keep from going into populace maintenance is going to their military. They are making/buying modern tanks, fighter planes, ships, and other weapons. God forbid the Israelis start selling them cutting edge military technology. Even if Israel stays under the US's economic thumb, and the US keeps them on a tight leash, China will be able to generate capital to buy weapon systems outright from the French. In five years, their military will be unrecognizable from their status. And trust me, their ICBMs will hit any place in the world they want it to. In ten years (at their current economic pace), they will probably be able to go head to head against the US. Oh sure, our weapons will be able to hit theirs at a farther distance, our tanks will be nicer, and our airplanes will have doodads theirs won't. But 1.5 billion vs 300 million. You do the math. Oh, I forgot, the US kids aren't so good with it anymore.
it is also pretty silly that they do not try to even make a new shuttle using todays material technology rather than the material tech of 30 years ago.
No, it would be pretty silly to continue the shuttle program. Its unlikely that new materials & technologies would make a new shuttle significantly cheaper or capable. If it were the case, there would be a program to replace the old ones right now.
The current shuttles are jokes. They can't get into GEO and it would be much cheaper to launch a replacement satellite, rather than drag a defective one back to earth. Rockets are at least 10 times cheaper to operate than shuttles. The worst thing about the shuttle program is that it sucks money away from space research and development of cheaper payload delivery systems. Stop thinking stupid and basing a space program on putting a white elephant into LEO. Use that money to do real space exploration/development.
So lets see, you find a coworker murdered in a storage closet. You go inform your manager at Waste Management, Inc. He pounces for the phone, and tells you to proceed to your next task, which happens to be on another floor. Oddly enough, the police didn't come by to question you about the body. You still let the company deal with it???
I find it incredible that anyone could think that its an employee's duty to withhold information on felony activity occuring at a workplace. Or perhaps you think one needs to be sympathetic to a company's concerns while child molestation is being committed? Its people like you that let clowns from Enron swindle investors.
And yes, its obviously the employee's duty to inform their manager first. Which is what they did. How likely is it that two employees previously with good work records BOTH lose their jobs because they simultaneously are performing substandard work?
While I do understand your sympathy towards hardware manufacturers, there is one obvious difference between accepting software and hardware bugs. The software bug can be fixed with a patch. The $200 software now works; we can accept that. When the CPU is buggy, the only way that gets corrected is if the manufacturer is willing to replace the CPU. BIG difference.
I agree completely that software products should be set to a higher standard. But we haven't seen integrity in the industry, so all that's left to fix the problem would be to sic the lawyers at them. I don't see that as fixing the problem...
Its not the motherboard or the power supply. It has to do with the fact that the SOHO is overpriced but cheap assed in quality. Instead of storing and maintaining every mouse setting before hopping to the next machine, it feeds a mouse reset code when it hops back to the old machine. This freaks out any Xwindows version besides the latest, and as one AC said, its no good for wheel mice. I'll sooner chuck the SOHO than my wheelmouse.
Belkin soho's may sell at a lower price than other kvms, but that does not make them cheap. ~$120 USD according to pricewatch.com. Their kvm cables are ridiculously overpriced. (And you'll need at least two sets of cables to be minimally useful.)
Worse, they are riddled with mouse control bugs, and its noticably annoying when using Linux. You need to use the mouse while switching, or you'll lose mouse scroll or any mouse control, or freak out the xwindows session. (In which case, you need to do an ctrl-alt-1, ctrl-alt-7 key sequence to reset the GUI.) I have a USB kvm connectors to my laptop, but I have to set my laptop bios to turn off legacy USB support. This means I still have to use the laptop keyboard to make boot selections until there is a login prompt. If I turn on legacy USB support, I have no console keyboard when the laptop boots up linux. (This is a problem when you're away & disconnected from the kvm.)
The Soho sucks.
Besides, why waste WTC rental money housing backup systems? Surely there's cheaper land out on Long Island or across the river in Jersey.
WTC floor space was not that expensive, compared to other metro areas. NYS agencies would be based in the WTC to fill up the floors. There were empty floors all over the towers. Sadly, its the big reason why the Twin Towers will not be rebuilt in its original configuration.
The rationale was as follows: You need an alternate site to address the possibility of a disaster at the main site. Generally, that's fire or power outage or civil disruption (disgruntled employee with an assault rifle). You can't just put the backup center next door because fire can spread beyond the original building. BUT, fire was unlikely to jump from tower #1 to tower #2. The advantage would be that the personnel at the main site can still readily maintain the backup site. With an alternate location, you lose those personnel during the day at the main site when testing or maintenance needs to be done at the alternate site. An international bank like Citibank can't afford to go cheap, because they're more likely the target of a terrorist attack, and they still need to conduct operations if the NYC bridges needed to shutdown. But to a small trading firm, with say a couple hundred million in capital, they don't need to be as cagey. (If the bridges shutdown, the exchanges are going to shutdown.) Its more disruptive for them to have a colo in NJ or LIC.
Backup center in the other tower was not expensive flashiness. And blowing up a tower after 1993 was a non-possibility. They shutdown the parking garages after that.
You don't think Locksmiths are trained for their job by breaking into unsuspecting homeowners,
They don't, because their job is not to ensure physical security on a site. Its to install locks. And shockingly, they spend a good chunk of their time breaking into safes, cars, and buildings. Sometimes people lock themselves out, or don't possess combinations or keys.
Or alarm companies enhance their products by comitting B&Es?
They do, but usually in their own labs. But I'm sure at a large, expensive client site, they may hire a tiger team for research purposes.
My big problem with "Holier than Thou" "White Hat" hackers is not a policy of not hiring criminals. Its their mindset. If its immoral to "break" into a system, their mind tends to be too closed to anticipate possibilities. Or think if they follow a set of rules, that somehow a site is impenetrable (and when they die, they go to Heaven.) That makes them less talented security specialists. Not that I would hire a security company which employed known computer criminals either.
Foolish? Oh come on, who thought BOTH towers would go down after a terrorist attack? And they save money by not having to maintain a remote location and while using the same staff. If you're Citibank, or Chase Manhattan, yes it would have been stupid. (And note, neither had that arrangement.) But a mid-sized investment firm? Who's got money to throw around for a backup control center? Next you'll be telling me that a Wall Street trading firm should have their backup site in London, England, because NJ is not remote enough from a nuclear strike on their main offices.
Its always a good time for financial networks to be hacked. 9/11 would have only been an "opportunistic" hack. You're still going to need to have some exposure to internal systems to be able to penetrate them. And if you are internal, you don't need 9/11 to pull a scam. There's a reason why security firms put their emphasis on company employees.
If you look at 9/11 as purely a terrorist act using airplanes, then yes, its facetious hyperbole. But you could have sat down and thought about 9/11 in a metaphorical context. It was a tragedy that could have been avoided and was not because of careless complacency; now the statement makes more sense. I'm sure large companies started to realize they could be next in line. Also, I'm sure he's telling the truth that after 9/11/01, the computer security business skyrocketed. There were many news articles talking about computer "terrorists" infiltrating computer infrastructures to sabotage public works, or even the internet itself. Its hardly fair to castigate a guy for reciting fact.
Normally, I would agree with your assessment of Morse a fearmongering assclown. Except, I know that computer security is thought of as a joke, never taken seriously, and worst of all, procedures and tools are put in place by people who really do not understand the nature of system security. It is the digital equivalent of a 9/11, except its unlikely to have quite the same repercussions. There is nothing moral about a hacker that chooses not to work in computer security because they think that the act of preventing illegal hacking into systems is somehow wrong. In the real world, people work for employers they don't like. To not support their families is irresponsible and childish.
Ahhh, corrupting the children of an MS zombie with OSS. Sweet...
What is the level of bandwidth availability for the prices they're charging?
Perhaps it can be assumed its unlimited bandwidth at $X/month. But I'm sure if any server with the magnitude of traffic comparable to Slashdot were to move in, they'd be shutting it down soon afterwards.
Perhaps its my utter ignorance, but I would think it is a great time to start up a new company. Yeah, there's less money floating around, but VC's are in a bind. They only make their money by pumping in money into startup companies likely to succeed. If you have a credible business plan, and there are no major flaws in your management team, I can't see why you'd have a problem finding investors. (Unfortunately, I don't possess that surefire idea that would make me want to quit my job.)
I get bombarded with email from people who want to help me work from home. Perhaps I should forward them to you?
So lets see. Because of "Patriot" legislation, you can incarcerate an American citizen, and remove his legal rights as a citizen. And why? Because they MAY represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen (a lot of them).
Well, it seems to me that if you own a gun, you may represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen. Guns have been used in all shootings of family members, children, and coworkers. Those gun owners have killed a lot more people each year than those 9/11 terrorists.
Yay for John Ashcroft and the FBI for making us safe. Lets get all these terrorists off the street.
(To the sarcasm-impaired, this is a sardonic post. But I am trying to make a point.)
You can make sorts of credible, Machiavellian explanations for Microsoft's maneuvers concerning Corel. But why the heck would Vector buy Microsoft's shares in Corel? Can Corel really go anywhere with its current products?
help meeeee... heellp meeeee...
Just wait for that blockbuster with her co-star David Duchovny.
There is no such thing as an asteroid impact that will cause the extinction of human beings.
We speculate that the dinosaurs were made extinct by an asteroid impact. It radically changed the climate of the earth. Yeah, if the dinosaurs subsisted on jungle that wasn't there anymore, then yes, losing your source of food or ability to function at cold temperatures could be a species extinction event.
But note, human beings are a lot more adaptable to harsh climactic conditions. Hell, human beings have lived for centuries off of reindeer that subsist on lichen. I'm sure the dinosaurs had a lot to worry about concerning asteroid impacts...
Actually, it could be possible for an asteroid could extinguish the human race. But it would have to make it impossible for anything larger than a microbe to survive. And that state would have to be in effect for at least 2 centuries. That is not a common asteroid collision event. Bets anyone?
Oh yes, an asteroid impact could cause the extinction of civilization as we know it. I hope you people are bright enough to recognise the difference. Humanity does not cease to exist once you cease to exist.
I have no position concerning concealing such information. Its wrong, but only on an ethical plane which does not exist on earth.
1) What free highway system? Every taxpayer pays for that "free" highway system. What made gas guzzling personal transport worthy of subsidization, but not more energy efficient systems like rail?
2) The legal system is not a voluntary process like owning a car. Not having a car will not imprison you or kill you. Not having access to information accumulated by public institutions (the courts) is egregious.
3) By defending the status quo, you take the position only rich people should have access to an effective lawyer. (Cut the rhetorical crap.)
So if you are a 30 year old virgin, rejoice, and join Mensa!
No, the smart thing to do would be to get a life. Besides the last thing Mensans need is another 30 year old virgin... (Explaining the Facts of Life over and over...)
My problem is that I hate birthdays in general, and it falls on a conspicuous day. Hard to forget. Not to mention the merciless teasing that would occur as a child... But I guess Independence Day, Xmas, Thanksgiving is about as bad.
Luckily, the silly women who think the day must be commemorated are usually too occupied with mating rituals to make an official stink of it.