lunatic
adj.
1. Suffering from lunacy; insane.
2. Of or for the insane.
3. Wildly or giddily foolish: a lunatic decision.
4. Characterized by lunacy or eccentricity.
Not spic welfare druggies who can't speak English and were rejects from McDonalds. The current inconsistencies in our so called "security" even AFTER the terrorist attacks, is lunatic.
Re:DEPTH CHARGE TO CMDR TUNA TACO !!! SUCK IT!! HA
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Hello.
Re:this is pretty damn impressive
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
If you noticed, every Intel "consumer" product was designed to work with a PC, the faster the processor the better. Basically, their consumer products were designed to drive more PC (and hence, Pentium) sales. Just another way to extend your marketing reach...
Intel is sitting pretty right now (relatively speaking, considering the state of the industry), and also PCs have already reached saturation as well. So they probably don't need "more" -- considering that consumer electronics is so far removed from Intel's core competencies anyways.
Think about it -- in countries where wired infrastructure is lacking (most third world countries, eg in Africa, for instance), mobile phone usage growth has FAR exceeded those in developed countries with wired infrastructure. There are many more mobiles in such countries than landlines.
If it's shown that our telephone network could be vulrenable to attack in terms of central offices, etc with the potential for major disruption, might we see a radical shift towards wireless as the primary transport mode of telecom, rather than landlines? And/or satellite phones, if you really want to make them hard to get (it'll be a while before terrorists can shoot down satellites, I guess.)
Yes, it will be expensive, but do you think such a thing just might happen?
What do you expect from those Dutch people -- no sense of humor at all.
What happened to www.taleban.com?
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 0
Somewhat offtopic, but I noticed that the Taliban's site, www.taleban.com has disappeared. I know it was hacked, but now it has disappeared completely. In fact, I queried InterNIC and there are even no nameservers for the domain anymore (isn't that a no no?)
Interesting.
NASA already has its own dedicated network
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The article about nuclear bunker hosting got me thinking. We all know that back in the early days of the Net, when it was run by the US military/govt, it WAS designed to survive a nuclear attack, especially in terms of topology/redundancy.
But since the commercialization of the Internet, has this objective been swept aside for the pursuit of mere growth? How vulrenable as single points of failure are places like MAE-East, MAE-West, etc where the major backbones peer together?
Now, since the Net is mission-critical for a lot of businesses, might we need to ensure that it is survivable against such attacks, such as from terrorism?
Could anyone really say the Internet is still robust to the failure of a few nodes? Any real study been done the graph-structure of the net?
Most "high end" car and home CD players read the CD audio as data, much like a CD-ROM reads it, so that they can buffer the audio/process it. Schemes like this that deter ripping, will also cause these CDs to fail.
This may not be a problem with this CD, with 12-year old girls listening to it on their crappy Samsung players, but for other CDs someone other people might want to play on their $10000 CEC unit, it could be a problem.
Just get a audio CD player with S/PDIF output, connect it to sound card with S/PDIF in -- problem solved. You'll need to manually split the tracks, but hey, it's still a perfect digital copy.
Slashdot Mirror
there
lunatic
adj.
1. Suffering from lunacy; insane.
2. Of or for the insane.
3. Wildly or giddily foolish: a lunatic decision.
4. Characterized by lunacy or eccentricity.
huh?
Not spic welfare druggies who can't speak English and were rejects from McDonalds. The current inconsistencies in our so called "security" even AFTER the terrorist attacks, is lunatic.
Hello.
hello there.
But Slashdot still sucks dick.
on Gnutella, or something?? ;)
Think the FBI can get jurisdiction to tap the foreign nets?
Might we see more point to point links between continents that DON'T involve the US?
Nautilus sucks shit.
If you noticed, every Intel "consumer" product was designed to work with a PC, the faster the processor the better. Basically, their consumer products were designed to drive more PC (and hence, Pentium) sales. Just another way to extend your marketing reach...
Intel is sitting pretty right now (relatively speaking, considering the state of the industry), and also PCs have already reached saturation as well. So they probably don't need "more" -- considering that consumer electronics is so far removed from Intel's core competencies anyways.
has a molecule-sized dick.
WTF? Are the Eurotrash taking over Slashdot? Why don't you fuck heads show some PATRIOTISM -- use the AMERICAN way and use a damn comma.
If it's shown that our telephone network could be vulrenable to attack in terms of central offices, etc with the potential for major disruption, might we see a radical shift towards wireless as the primary transport mode of telecom, rather than landlines? And/or satellite phones, if you really want to make them hard to get (it'll be a while before terrorists can shoot down satellites, I guess.)
Yes, it will be expensive, but do you think such a thing just might happen?
Username: sknuprehpyc
Password: sknuprehpyc
People are getting mail with Anthrax? Sounds like an interesting promotion on the part of the band, although I prefer Bon Jovi myself.
What do you expect from those Dutch people -- no sense of humor at all.
Interesting.
NASA Science Internet:
http://www.nsi.nasa.gov/
http://www-sisn.jpl.nasa.gov/ISSUE37/NSI.html
Anyone got a timeframe for when one of these things can actually be USED?
for their security holes, and generally overlook the fact that the default config of RedHat (and other Linux distributions) is also horribly insecure.
The article about nuclear bunker hosting got me thinking. We all know that back in the early days of the Net, when it was run by the US military/govt, it WAS designed to survive a nuclear attack, especially in terms of topology/redundancy.
But since the commercialization of the Internet, has this objective been swept aside for the pursuit of mere growth? How vulrenable as single points of failure are places like MAE-East, MAE-West, etc where the major backbones peer together?
Now, since the Net is mission-critical for a lot of businesses, might we need to ensure that it is survivable against such attacks, such as from terrorism?
Could anyone really say the Internet is still robust to the failure of a few nodes? Any real study been done the graph-structure of the net?
Most "high end" car and home CD players read the CD audio as data, much like a CD-ROM reads it, so that they can buffer the audio/process it. Schemes like this that deter ripping, will also cause these CDs to fail. This may not be a problem with this CD, with 12-year old girls listening to it on their crappy Samsung players, but for other CDs someone other people might want to play on their $10000 CEC unit, it could be a problem.
Just get a audio CD player with S/PDIF output, connect it to sound card with S/PDIF in -- problem solved. You'll need to manually split the tracks, but hey, it's still a perfect digital copy.
Voicestream sucks dog shit.
NASA sucks horse shit.