In addition, even the ultra-high-resolution cameras in spy satellites would probably not be of that much use from geostationary orbit (GEO), since GEO is very far away (~36,000 km). Spy satellites are likely put in a polar Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at approx. 200 km altitude. This gives much more detailed images, and also allows the satellite to cover the entire Earth without spending any fuel.
Whoosh!
Yes, Diabetes was their primary motivation, but they signed on for more than that. The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and regretted that decision.
Two points:
First, did they understand what they were signing?
Second, given the Indian Nations' history with white people and treaties, why shouldn't they be outraged that the researchers used the DNA for more purposes than what they had originally agreed to verbally?
Except that it's not an entitlement mentality. Just the opposite. I pay for my bandwidth; therefore, I reserve the right to decide what I want to download. Though as you pointed out, a site owner can reserve the right to block me for refusing to download their advertisements.
If anything, the entitlement mentality seems to be coming from the other side: site owners who think that because they operate a site, that people who visit the site "owe" them something.
I have no idea if its related or purely coincidental, but ever since I've had the 'Disable Ads' box checked, I've never received mod-points, despite receiving them somewhat regularly up till then.
Apparently they've been going to me, because I seem to receive on the order of 15 mod points in any given two-week period.
Yeah? Where's the OPSEC problem here? I didn't disclose specific details about how the network was compromised. Moreover, the incident took place 30 months ago, and it was strictly against regulations even then to use thumbdrives on the SIPRNet.
I'm all for OPSEC, but it shouldn't be used as a cover for someone's moronic behavior.
Because DOD got pwned back in November 2008 when some schmuck used a thumbdrive to transfer files between the NIPR and SIPR networks, and they still haven't figured out how to fix the vulnerability.
I'm a newspaper photographer. I'll offer this perspective on Google's respect for copyright:
Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories. This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use. This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.
This sounds like something that should be hashed out between your newspaper and Google. As a newspaper photographer, are you not work-for-hire?
It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".
If "critical infrastructure" is connected to the Internet, then everything on the Internet is connected to that infrastructure. If the government wants to mitigate the risk, then it needs to create a separate, non-connected internet for the critical infrastructure similar to the military's SIPRNet.
Then amend the constitution to empower the government to collect more than an enumeration.
No need.
Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. [Emphasis mine.]
The problem is that a large amount of money on the internet is made through advertisements.
And whose problem is that, exactly? When I first got started on the Internet (1995), there was almost no advertising whatsoever. I didn't miss them then, and (thanks to AdBlock) I don't miss them now. Advertising can still work as a model, but advertisers need to get smart about it, a la Google ads. Plain text, non-obtrusive ads are the only safe method of Internet advertising -- even JPGs can be compromised.
This only served to reinforce that I was right and not a webmaster/free content hating jerk when I block ads online.
I hate that webmasters seem to think we're responsible for their prosperity. Webmasters: If your advertising model works, great. If not, find another model or get off the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, even the ultra-high-resolution cameras in spy satellites would probably not be of that much use from geostationary orbit (GEO), since GEO is very far away (~36,000 km). Spy satellites are likely put in a polar Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at approx. 200 km altitude. This gives much more detailed images, and also allows the satellite to cover the entire Earth without spending any fuel. Whoosh!
How about future generations who are actually interested in becoming engineers, scientists and astronauts?
It was actually an American spy satellite parked in geosynchronous orbit over North Korea. Wave for the cameras, Kim!
Yes, Diabetes was their primary motivation, but they signed on for more than that. The problem seems to be that they didn't like what happened later and regretted that decision.
Two points:
First, did they understand what they were signing?
Second, given the Indian Nations' history with white people and treaties, why shouldn't they be outraged that the researchers used the DNA for more purposes than what they had originally agreed to verbally?
I've read a lot of your analogies, and I have to confess, they are indeed bad. Well done, sir!
This lady was clearly insane. But there are MANY people out there who believe in exactly what I wrote above.
They are also very possibly insane.
Except that it's not an entitlement mentality. Just the opposite. I pay for my bandwidth; therefore, I reserve the right to decide what I want to download. Though as you pointed out, a site owner can reserve the right to block me for refusing to download their advertisements.
If anything, the entitlement mentality seems to be coming from the other side: site owners who think that because they operate a site, that people who visit the site "owe" them something.
I have no idea if its related or purely coincidental, but ever since I've had the 'Disable Ads' box checked, I've never received mod-points, despite receiving them somewhat regularly up till then.
Apparently they've been going to me, because I seem to receive on the order of 15 mod points in any given two-week period.
Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?
The company store already own's my soul!
... And next, they're coming for your misplaced apostrophes. :)
Funny thing about EULAs ... I have never signed one.
Yeah? Where's the OPSEC problem here? I didn't disclose specific details about how the network was compromised. Moreover, the incident took place 30 months ago, and it was strictly against regulations even then to use thumbdrives on the SIPRNet.
I'm all for OPSEC, but it shouldn't be used as a cover for someone's moronic behavior.
Because DOD got pwned back in November 2008 when some schmuck used a thumbdrive to transfer files between the NIPR and SIPR networks, and they still haven't figured out how to fix the vulnerability.
Your signature line is especially appropriate for this discussion. :)
I'm a newspaper photographer. I'll offer this perspective on Google's respect for copyright: Google recently used some of my photographs on Google News, as the 'headline' photos to represent collected coverage of major stories. This fell outside any reasonable definition of fair use. This was for-profit publication of photographs that other publishers were paying for the right to use. Google used them for free.
This sounds like something that should be hashed out between your newspaper and Google. As a newspaper photographer, are you not work-for-hire?
In all fairness, it's hard sometimes to separate the tapeworms from the editors on Slashdot. But generally, the tapeworms have better grammar. :)
... which might help you if aluminum were at all piezomagnetic. :)
It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".
If "critical infrastructure" is connected to the Internet, then everything on the Internet is connected to that infrastructure. If the government wants to mitigate the risk, then it needs to create a separate, non-connected internet for the critical infrastructure similar to the military's SIPRNet.
Would it really kill the editors to do even some minor editing?
Figuratively or literally?
No, I see MS making the same mistake they made countless time before. Not killing of their old crap.
You don't suppose that's exactly what they're trying to do by saying IE9 won't be available for Windows XP, do you?
Then amend the constitution to empower the government to collect more than an enumeration.
No need.
Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. [Emphasis mine.]
The problem is that a large amount of money on the internet is made through advertisements.
And whose problem is that, exactly? When I first got started on the Internet (1995), there was almost no advertising whatsoever. I didn't miss them then, and (thanks to AdBlock) I don't miss them now. Advertising can still work as a model, but advertisers need to get smart about it, a la Google ads. Plain text, non-obtrusive ads are the only safe method of Internet advertising -- even JPGs can be compromised.
Whoosh!
This only served to reinforce that I was right and not a webmaster/free content hating jerk when I block ads online.
I hate that webmasters seem to think we're responsible for their prosperity. Webmasters: If your advertising model works, great. If not, find another model or get off the Internet.
Good luck with that!