If the FBI came to me and told me one of my hosts had bomb making info on it, I'd shut it down too regardless if it was foreign or domestic host, or just even a p0wn.
You know how I'd make the Times Square bomb work? Screw the fireworks, but keep the propane tank. I'd get two timers, a solenoid valve, any necessary adapters, a battery, and a barbecue ignitor. Connect valve to propane tank and set up ignitor elsewhere in the SUV. A little Internet search and some math and I'd find out how long the valve would have to be open to fill the SUV with an explosive mix. I'd set timer one for a few minutes to let me casually walk away into the subway system; it would open the valve and start timer two. Timer two would turn on the ignitor.
There, now there is bomb-making information on Slashdot. Think Slashdot should be shut down?
Were I a salesperson, I would backup all my company issued gear daily, precisely to avoid this kind of problems. Do you perhaps think that actual salespersons are such idiots that they don't?
They may not be technically savvy enough. But after the first time it happens, they'll do something about it, even down to keeping critical contact information only on paper, just so the company won't have it if they leave. They're not all stupid, but they are all mercenary.
...in the long and drawn-out collapse of a once great semiconductor company.
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
The "if it had been made correctly" scenario is so different from the actual scenario that it's not reasonable to extrapolate from the latter to the former.
They are keeping society in peace. With no other way to solve their conflicts, companies or particulars will try to end their problems with violence, just like mobsters do. Ok, you don't want to pay me? BAM. I invented this product, not you... BAM.
Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the legal system is so inaccessible (due both to cost and time) that it is not practical as a way to solve problems either. Its legitimacy is basically inertia; right now, if someone screws you, in nearly every case you just have to take it and move on, as suing will cost you more than it is worth. If someone with a large bankroll sues you (or even threatens to, or even could possibly do so if you're contemplating something they might object to), in nearly every case you just have to give in, as defending it will cost more than it is worth. Thus there ain't no justice. Eventually people will start realizing this and violence over such disputes will go on the rise.
Didn't most distributions that shipped FreeType enable usage of TrueType fonts by default already, or am I misunderstanding this?
Not using the patented method didn't disable TrueType, it just made TrueType fonts uglier. However, at least last time I checked, Ubuntu shipped with the patented method enabled, though Debian did not.
um extinction of animals is caused by the simple fact one animal was conceived itself to be so important all it does is eat and fuck.
Dose wascawwy wabbits!
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, the police "disarmed" it, but since it was a dud and had almost certainly already failed then they wouldn't have prevented it if it had been made correctly.
It was a dud because it was made by an idiot who didn't know basic facts about the devices he was trying to use. If it had been made correctly it would have been a completely different device.
The assumption is that you have not modified your calculator, and if that assumption is shaken, it will mean the end of a lot of calculators for standardized tests.
In MY day, we didn't allow calculators for standardized tests. At all. Damn kids; get off my lawn.
The CPB isn't answerable to the FAA; nothing will happen to them if they violate airspace regulations. So of course they will have a much higher rate of violation than anyone who does.
In other words.... That's not my criteria "for doing something." That's my criteria for "releasing a self-replicating creature into the wild that can displace the naturally occurring 'version' and may have unknown effects on entire food chains for many generations to come."
And since the criterion is impossible to satisfy, it means you're against that. And nothing more. It's not a reason not to do that; it's just an arbitrary roadblock you put up.
One: This is a national security letter under USA PATRIOT Two: Burstnet is full of shit, canceled these guys for reasons of their own (which might include dealing with government investigations) and is deflecting blame to the government.
Either one is bad, but at this point I'm not ready to blame the government completely as passing the blame for unpopular decisions to some unreachable authority is one of the oldest ones in the book.
I mean, yeah, it's kind of annoying to get to a web page and there's advertising on it, but the ideal advertising is when you only tell people who are interested in a product about the product.
No, advertising goes beyond that into trying to generate interest in the uninterested.
'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation.
Which is, of course, impossible. It's impossible to forsee all possible consequences of anything. If that's your criteria for doing something, don't bother getting up in the morning.
At 1000 times their maximum size of 16 mm that would make them monsters 16 meters long. Even at one sixteenth that size it would still qualify as a monster insect.
That should definitively end the gun control debate. No one would dare to go outside with anything smaller than an anti-aircraft gun.
Given infinite resources, almost everything is "effective", since it gets your goal. Given finite resources, whatever gets your goal cheapest is "effective".
Infinite resources spent in the wrong way are NOT effective.
The reason NASA projects get cancelled is that the funding gets cancelled. Give them a trillion dollars and a directive to colonize the Moon with it, and it'll get done.
Now there's an article of faith. I find it more likely they'd burn through the trillion with various poorly thought out and poorly executed programs, and then go begging for more.
As soon as USA pulls off - as it has to do pretty soon, since the money to continue the war is running out - Taleban and Al-Qaeda will retake the country.
Maybe. But even if so, was there another way to unseat them?
It takes far less money to defend than to attack. A nation that invests in its infrastructure can hold off nation that attacks, yet still increase the size of its economy, and eventually dwarf that nation even in military might./blockquote. It does NOT take far less money to defend than attack. That's what asymmetrical warfare (or terrorism, if you prefer) is all about.
Violence isn't effective. Quite the contrary, it involves tremendous costs;
This is a non sequitur. I never said it was cheap. I merely said it was effective. It's efficiency varies widely.
Suppose you'd given trillion dollars to, say, NASA instead of blowing shit up? You'd be selling hot dogs at the Moon right now.
More likely we'd have a couple more half-developed launch platforms destined for cancellation.
Instead, you used it all to blow shit up half the world over, and accomplished nothing except killing thousands of your people and possibly close to a million other people.
Actually, at least two things intended were accomplished: One, Al Queda is no longer in effective control of Afghanistan. This goal was accomplished relatively quickly. Two, Saddam Hussein is no longer running Iraq. You can argue all day about whether the latter goal was an important one, but it was accomplished. Both wars were badly managed, and the goals (besides those two) were pretty murky to begin with.
a nation that invests its money on growing its economy will always beat one that invests in its army instead, simply because of compound interest.
Until the nation which invests in the army waltzes in and takes over. Or some group hating that nation just starts blowing infrastructure up.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could develop stuff like the Internet without at the same time spending such a vast quantity of otherwise productive wealth on deadweight loss activities like developing weapons systems?
Finally, a slashdove who acknowledges that DARPA actually had a positive role...
And if we simply must pour huge amounts of otherwise productive wealth into deadweight loss activities, why not make it space exploration, unlikely-to-pay-off energy research, a cure for the common heartbreak?
What is it about killing people in large numbers that is so fascinating that it compels our interest?
It gets results.
It certainly isn't any actual utility: violience is the least efficient and effective way of solving any problem.
An item of faith among pacifists, particularly those protected by a government willing to use violence at a drop of a hat. But false; violence is quite effective, perhaps uniquely so; that's why all current systems of government are based on it.
That said, apparently to sign up for a new phone contract with most providers in the US you are required to give your SSN (there is a way around it for some by paying a hefty deposit). How were they allowed to do this without so much as a whimper? Now I'm stuck with my current provider unless I'd like my telco to have my SSN.
They want to do a credit check. Either go with prepaid, or pay the deposit.
If you really want anonymity, you're buying prepaid phones with cash anyway (and discarding them regularly... no, it's not enough to replace the SIM)
If the government can dictate domestic manafacturing standards, surely it can also dictate the same standards for imported products.
Politically and practically, it cannot; that is, it can dictate standards for the products themselves, but not for how they are made in the foreign country.
These environments don't exist. As someone who got bullied, you don't get bullied because you are smart;
Right. Which is why bullies have no insults referring to the victim's intelligence. Well, technically, you don't get bullied because you're smart; you get bullied because your obvious intelligence makes the bully feel dumb. Covering up your intelligence at all times, however, is a highly suboptimal solution (and difficult, besides).
But to let this stupid growing up inconsistency between when you get smart and when you get popular define the rest of your life is idiotic. Just because a kid is better at learning before he becomes better at interacting when he is 7 or 8 years old, does not mean the rest of your life has to be spent proving how smart they are by avoiding social interacting. There is no link, and it is disgusting to me that one is so readily created by the "nerds" themselves.
There is a link. Once you've missed the boat on normal social interaction, you've missed it and it ain't coming by again. You can't go back and re-do all the interactions you missed because you were being bullied and ostracized.
Learn social skills. THAT'S the lesson. They aren't hard and a handful of social cues makes all the difference.
Nope. Someone gets to be the goat. If you've got some characteristic that makes you the goat, no amount of social skills will help you. If that characteristic is not something you can change (large nose, small stature, etc), you're screwed, unless you use violence.
The victims of bullying are "poor problem solvers"... if you count being unable to solve a problem which admits to no solution due to external constraints as a "poor problem solver". You can put it like one of those joke exam questions: "A bully who has six inches of height and 25 pounds of weight on you is picking on you. Stop him without using violence, complaining to authority, or leaving the area. The bully is not so constrained"
The bully is also not a "poor problem solver"... from the bully's point of view, there is no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You know how I'd make the Times Square bomb work? Screw the fireworks, but keep the propane tank. I'd get two timers, a solenoid valve, any necessary adapters, a battery, and a barbecue ignitor. Connect valve to propane tank and set up ignitor elsewhere in the SUV. A little Internet search and some math and I'd find out how long the valve would have to be open to fill the SUV with an explosive mix. I'd set timer one for a few minutes to let me casually walk away into the subway system; it would open the valve and start timer two. Timer two would turn on the ignitor.
There, now there is bomb-making information on Slashdot. Think Slashdot should be shut down?
They may not be technically savvy enough. But after the first time it happens, they'll do something about it, even down to keeping critical contact information only on paper, just so the company won't have it if they leave. They're not all stupid, but they are all mercenary.
...in the long and drawn-out collapse of a once great semiconductor company.
The "if it had been made correctly" scenario is so different from the actual scenario that it's not reasonable to extrapolate from the latter to the former.
Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the legal system is so inaccessible (due both to cost and time) that it is not practical as a way to solve problems either. Its legitimacy is basically inertia; right now, if someone screws you, in nearly every case you just have to take it and move on, as suing will cost you more than it is worth. If someone with a large bankroll sues you (or even threatens to, or even could possibly do so if you're contemplating something they might object to), in nearly every case you just have to give in, as defending it will cost more than it is worth. Thus there ain't no justice. Eventually people will start realizing this and violence over such disputes will go on the rise.
Not using the patented method didn't disable TrueType, it just made TrueType fonts uglier. However, at least last time I checked, Ubuntu shipped with the patented method enabled, though Debian did not.
Dose wascawwy wabbits!
It was a dud because it was made by an idiot who didn't know basic facts about the devices he was trying to use. If it had been made correctly it would have been a completely different device.
In MY day, we didn't allow calculators for standardized tests. At all. Damn kids; get off my lawn.
The CPB isn't answerable to the FAA; nothing will happen to them if they violate airspace regulations. So of course they will have a much higher rate of violation than anyone who does.
And since the criterion is impossible to satisfy, it means you're against that. And nothing more. It's not a reason not to do that; it's just an arbitrary roadblock you put up.
One: This is a national security letter under USA PATRIOT
Two: Burstnet is full of shit, canceled these guys for reasons of their own (which might include dealing with government investigations) and is deflecting blame to the government.
Either one is bad, but at this point I'm not ready to blame the government completely as passing the blame for unpopular decisions to some unreachable authority is one of the oldest ones in the book.
No, advertising goes beyond that into trying to generate interest in the uninterested.
Which is, of course, impossible. It's impossible to forsee all possible consequences of anything. If that's your criteria for doing something, don't bother getting up in the morning.
That should definitively end the gun control debate. No one would dare to go outside with anything smaller than an anti-aircraft gun.
I found just the opposite; not enough low-level access. For instance, no access to the carry bit from integer operations!
Infinite resources spent in the wrong way are NOT effective.
Now there's an article of faith. I find it more likely they'd burn through the trillion with various poorly thought out and poorly executed programs, and then go begging for more.
Maybe. But even if so, was there another way to unseat them?
You can't? The switch from data centers holding several IBM mainframes to data centers holding lots of x86 boxes wasn't revolutionary?
This is a non sequitur. I never said it was cheap. I merely said it was effective. It's efficiency varies widely.
More likely we'd have a couple more half-developed launch platforms destined for cancellation.
Actually, at least two things intended were accomplished: One, Al Queda is no longer in effective control of Afghanistan. This goal was accomplished relatively quickly. Two, Saddam Hussein is no longer running Iraq. You can argue all day about whether the latter goal was an important one, but it was accomplished. Both wars were badly managed, and the goals (besides those two) were pretty murky to begin with.
Until the nation which invests in the army waltzes in and takes over. Or some group hating that nation just starts blowing infrastructure up.
Finally, a slashdove who acknowledges that DARPA actually had a positive role...
It gets results.
An item of faith among pacifists, particularly those protected by a government willing to use violence at a drop of a hat. But false; violence is quite effective, perhaps uniquely so; that's why all current systems of government are based on it.
It could have been called "Steal all your passwords and send them to the Russian Mafia" and still some people would have installed it.
They want to do a credit check. Either go with prepaid, or pay the deposit.
If you really want anonymity, you're buying prepaid phones with cash anyway (and discarding them regularly... no, it's not enough to replace the SIM)
Politically and practically, it cannot; that is, it can dictate standards for the products themselves, but not for how they are made in the foreign country.
Right. Which is why bullies have no insults referring to the victim's intelligence. Well, technically, you don't get bullied because you're smart; you get bullied because your obvious intelligence makes the bully feel dumb. Covering up your intelligence at all times, however, is a highly suboptimal solution (and difficult, besides).
There is a link. Once you've missed the boat on normal social interaction, you've missed it and it ain't coming by again. You can't go back and re-do all the interactions you missed because you were being bullied and ostracized.
Nope. Someone gets to be the goat. If you've got some characteristic that makes you the goat, no amount of social skills will help you. If that characteristic is not something you can change (large nose, small stature, etc), you're screwed, unless you use violence.
The victims of bullying are "poor problem solvers"... if you count being unable to solve a problem which admits to no solution due to external constraints as a "poor problem solver". You can put it like one of those joke exam questions: "A bully who has six inches of height and 25 pounds of weight on you is picking on you. Stop him without using violence, complaining to authority, or leaving the area. The bully is not so constrained"
The bully is also not a "poor problem solver"... from the bully's point of view, there is no problem.