so...why didn't someone just write some intentionally crappy software, stick it on sourceforge, then point out the flaws?
or better yet, since it sounds as if this is an assignment due at the end of the semester, dive into some code, write up a few paragraphs on what you *think* is a security flaw, and submit it.
heck, i think the instructor should give credit for explaining 10 good code examples of secure routines.
the Soyuz can hold 3, which has traditionally been the crew size on the station. until shuttle flights resume, the crew size will be limited to 2, since the Russians can't crank out enough Soyuz and Progress (supply) missions to support a crew of 3.
And it's not a stretch so say "The only thing this is funding is jobs for Tom DeLay's constituents and fat checks for aerospace contractors"?
Once we go to the moon and beyond, your statement is false. NASA's record speaks for itself. Before I give any credit to your prediction that it won't happen, I'll have to ask you to demonstrate your ability to see the future - we'll start with your lottery winnings.
and if everyone extrapolated as wildly as that, we'd have 300 million people throwing their entire life savings into the stock market every time it gained 100 points.
and you cite your evidence from an article that says: "I guess from these facts we can conclude that..."
The article threw together some whois information and made conclusions about who and what this guy is all about.
But I think the point is that there is no site that represents all Iraqis. Just like there's no site that represents all Americans. The information contained there, like any site, is to be used together with other information gleaned from other sources. I feel it should be used to counter the negative reports we see each day. News outlets love doom and gloom - don't believe me? Watch your local news each night.
let's put it in terms like this - when the shuttle re-enters, it starts seeing heating somewhere over the pacific, near hawaii. 30 minutes later, it's over florida, and only then does it reach subsonic velocity.
to continue the political side: if you're upset about outsourcing, wal-mart might be one of the last places you should shop. they used to have the 'buy american' campaign (10 yrs ago?). that has since been replaced with 'how much cheap shit from china can we sell.'
what impedes flow more - one bike taking a third of a lane? or an ambulance, a couple cop cars, a dozen motorists, some police tape, and a pile of goop on the pavement?
rcc - re-enforced carbon-carbon. that's the leading edge of the shuttle wings and nosecap. fabric and glue isn't new.
the slingshot approach means you don't have to have the life support systems that multi-day missions require.
the only difference between ss1 and orbital flight is about going about 17500 mph in the horizontal direction once you get to the height of today's flight.
being privately funded means you don't have to check, recheck, and document every bolt that's tightened.
the shuttle could carry several ss1's in the payload bay. it's large enough to hold a school bus, or about 30,000-35,000 lbs of payload.
i applaud what scaled has done, but rutan doesn't need to be running his mouth bashing his predecessors like he did today. he's lost a bit of my respect.
The US is not just a bunch of war-mongering thugs.
So, where are those WMD's?
Other than the ones that have been found, the WMDs probably went out the Iraq/Syria border.
Why was USA in such a rush to invade Iraq?
See previous answer. Iraq had plenty of time to comply, and a good 6-month jump on shipping them out, or burying them in the sand.
...why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion
Isn't it more fun to watch the turmoil ensue if it all gets hidden? Saddam knew that the world wasn't as united on this as they had been in 91. I imagine that he figured if he could hide most, if not all, then we'd tear each other apart - he doesn't have to do anything.
There's a ton of intelligence pointing to WMDs in Iraq - hell, even Russia said they think they have WMDs (still wondering why they'd volunteer this info). What you seem to be ignoring is that the impetus was on Iraq to provide documentation to the contrary that they had WMDs or destroyed them. They failed to do it. Hell, they didn't even fabricate documentation. Ask yourself why.
US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location
Fundamental difference here - Saddam was moving every few days to remain hidden. He was afraid of people squawking about his whereabouts (he was right). The WMDs get moved once and can sit.
They harassed, deceived, and kicked out the inspectors. They invaded a country, they got their asses handed to them, and they surrendered. They failed to comply with their terms of surrender. But the US is the thug here.
does anyone disagree that iraq repeatedly violated their terms of surrender? then what's the f'n problem? the debate should've ended there. instead, all the bleeding hearts press for a 'better' reason to go to war - terrorism, WMDs. then when they don't pan out as 'expected', we must've rushed to war or lied.
you violate your terms of surrender, you get thumped. too bad more people won't stand behind their convictions.
actually, anyone at a latitude of 51.6 deg or less can easily reach ISS. latitudes greater than that have to waste propellant to decrease their inclination. since the russians are an integral part of the ISS assembly, the smallest inclination was chosen that would still allow them to reach orbit efficiently. otherwise, the station would most certainly be at a lower inclination to maximize the boost you get from the earth's rotational velocity.
Also, launching east allows you to take advantage of the Earth's rotation (less velocity to attain orbital velocity). Lastly, launching from the east coast means that you minimize exposure due to launch trajectory over populated land in case events like Challenger happen.
there's always new tech coming down the pipe, gotta jump sometime. besides, i think the odds of seeing this at a reasonable price in any decent sized tv in the next 5 yrs is slim to none.
Slashdot Mirror
so...why didn't someone just write some intentionally crappy software, stick it on sourceforge, then point out the flaws?
or better yet, since it sounds as if this is an assignment due at the end of the semester, dive into some code, write up a few paragraphs on what you *think* is a security flaw, and submit it.
heck, i think the instructor should give credit for explaining 10 good code examples of secure routines.
the Soyuz can hold 3, which has traditionally been the crew size on the station. until shuttle flights resume, the crew size will be limited to 2, since the Russians can't crank out enough Soyuz and Progress (supply) missions to support a crew of 3.
you can't have it both ways.
in one breath, these people are a tiny minority that the FCC should ignore.
in the next, they're a monsterous force that got the president elected.
And it's not a stretch so say "The only thing this is funding is jobs for Tom DeLay's constituents and fat checks for aerospace contractors"?
Once we go to the moon and beyond, your statement is false. NASA's record speaks for itself. Before I give any credit to your prediction that it won't happen, I'll have to ask you to demonstrate your ability to see the future - we'll start with your lottery winnings.
No big deal, we can use IsKnot or iSnot instead.
you only spent $400 on a 19" LCD and that's rushing?! that's where 19" CRTs were a few years ago.
and if everyone extrapolated as wildly as that, we'd have 300 million people throwing their entire life savings into the stock market every time it gained 100 points.
doh! you mentioned treason. google for kerry treason.
[sound of exploding can of worms]
and you cite your evidence from an article that says:
"I guess from these facts we can conclude that..."
The article threw together some whois information and made conclusions about who and what this guy is all about.
But I think the point is that there is no site that represents all Iraqis. Just like there's no site that represents all Americans. The information contained there, like any site, is to be used together with other information gleaned from other sources. I feel it should be used to counter the negative reports we see each day. News outlets love doom and gloom - don't believe me? Watch your local news each night.
let's put it in terms like this - when the shuttle re-enters, it starts seeing heating somewhere over the pacific, near hawaii. 30 minutes later, it's over florida, and only then does it reach subsonic velocity.
to continue the political side: if you're upset about outsourcing, wal-mart might be one of the last places you should shop. they used to have the 'buy american' campaign (10 yrs ago?). that has since been replaced with 'how much cheap shit from china can we sell.'
what impedes flow more - one bike taking a third of a lane? or an ambulance, a couple cop cars, a dozen motorists, some police tape, and a pile of goop on the pavement?
define heavy lock. hopefully not like this
you missed the point. the guy with the stick didn't build or design it. so how does that imply non-american innovation?
a few thoughts...
rcc - re-enforced carbon-carbon. that's the leading edge of the shuttle wings and nosecap. fabric and glue isn't new.
the slingshot approach means you don't have to have the life support systems that multi-day missions require.
the only difference between ss1 and orbital flight is about going about 17500 mph in the horizontal direction once you get to the height of today's flight.
being privately funded means you don't have to check, recheck, and document every bolt that's tightened.
the shuttle could carry several ss1's in the payload bay. it's large enough to hold a school bus, or about 30,000-35,000 lbs of payload.
i applaud what scaled has done, but rutan doesn't need to be running his mouth bashing his predecessors like he did today. he's lost a bit of my respect.
...yeah, but what did he innovate? Do you jump in your car and innovate home?
The US is not just a bunch of war-mongering thugs.
...why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion
So, where are those WMD's?
Other than the ones that have been found, the WMDs probably went out the Iraq/Syria border.
Why was USA in such a rush to invade Iraq?
See previous answer. Iraq had plenty of time to comply, and a good 6-month jump on shipping them out, or burying them in the sand.
Isn't it more fun to watch the turmoil ensue if it all gets hidden? Saddam knew that the world wasn't as united on this as they had been in 91. I imagine that he figured if he could hide most, if not all, then we'd tear each other apart - he doesn't have to do anything.
There's a ton of intelligence pointing to WMDs in Iraq - hell, even Russia said they think they have WMDs (still wondering why they'd volunteer this info). What you seem to be ignoring is that the impetus was on Iraq to provide documentation to the contrary that they had WMDs or destroyed them. They failed to do it. Hell, they didn't even fabricate documentation. Ask yourself why.
US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location
Fundamental difference here - Saddam was moving every few days to remain hidden. He was afraid of people squawking about his whereabouts (he was right). The WMDs get moved once and can sit.
They harassed, deceived, and kicked out the inspectors. They invaded a country, they got their asses handed to them, and they surrendered. They failed to comply with their terms of surrender. But the US is the thug here.
the audio
the man also shot a guy in the back to get a medal - 'chased VC inland behind Hootch and shot him while he fled'. (6th line) a man of conscience?
wow.
3 words: terms of surrender
does anyone disagree that iraq repeatedly violated their terms of surrender? then what's the f'n problem? the debate should've ended there. instead, all the bleeding hearts press for a 'better' reason to go to war - terrorism, WMDs. then when they don't pan out as 'expected', we must've rushed to war or lied.
you violate your terms of surrender, you get thumped. too bad more people won't stand behind their convictions.
actually, anyone at a latitude of 51.6 deg or less can easily reach ISS. latitudes greater than that have to waste propellant to decrease their inclination. since the russians are an integral part of the ISS assembly, the smallest inclination was chosen that would still allow them to reach orbit efficiently. otherwise, the station would most certainly be at a lower inclination to maximize the boost you get from the earth's rotational velocity.
It could be argued that he has increased the likelihood of a finically crippling terrorist attack.
So let me get this straight. They hated us pre-9/11. Enough to kill innocent civilians.
But now, possibly because of Bush, they REALLY hate us. Enough to...well...kill even more civilians?
Argueing about when it began is both counterproductive and rather clueless on his part, as it does do anything to change the situation.
As is arguing about who's fault it is.
Also, launching east allows you to take advantage of the Earth's rotation (less velocity to attain orbital velocity). Lastly, launching from the east coast means that you minimize exposure due to launch trajectory over populated land in case events like Challenger happen.
there's always new tech coming down the pipe, gotta jump sometime. besides, i think the odds of seeing this at a reasonable price in any decent sized tv in the next 5 yrs is slim to none.
maybe it was bernie shifman - isn't he from chicago?